Talk:Swansea Cork Ferries

Copied from User talk:Rxoper talk page (Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)):

This page should not be a redirect. there is no such thing as "Swansea Cork Ferry" just as there is no page for "pembroke rosslare ferry" or "fishguard rosslare ferry" or "holyhead dublin ferry". If people arrive at this page they are not looking for the nonsense on the redirect page but historical information about Swansea Cork Ferries. From the user statistics it can be seen that "Swansea Cork Ferries" was accessed 433 times while "Swansea Cork Ferry" only 85 times.Rxoper (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That as may be but wikipedia works on consensus and there's clearly a consensus here that this page should be a redirect. If you disagree don't keep changing it back (changing it once is fine but you shouldn't do it more often) but start a discussion (like you now have) to see if consensus has changed. My personal information is that the page we redirect to does contain enough historical information. I agree with the AfD decision that the company probably isn't notable but the route is and so the route page is the most appropiate place for a little bit of infortmation on the company and it's history. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the statistics prove - I can't believe that there are _that many_ people who are interested in the history of Swansea Cork Ferries (the company) - and I'd guess that most of them are looking to find out what's happening with "the ferry between Swansea and Cork" (aka Swansea Cork ferry). Also not sure which part of the "Swansea Cork ferry" page Rxoper considers to be 'nonsense'. As far as I can see it's factual, and has citations. If there are inaccuracies then they should be corrected by the usual Wiki process of constructive edit, improved citations etc - and not by tit-for-tat reversions. Over the past 18 months there have been repeated attempts by one or two Editors to hijack, redirect and generally vandalise the 'Swansea Cork ferry' Wiki entry, the general bias being in favour of the company "Swansea Cork Ferries" that ran the last service. My feeling is that the "Swansea Cork ferry" page gives sufficient historical information about the service, and the company that used to run it, as well as carrying information about the successful campaign to restore the service and looking forwards to the new operator (Fastnet Line Ltd) who will commence a service in March 2010. Nobullman (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My basic point is that Fastnet Line Ltd will operate "Fastnet Line" or a "Cork to Swansea ferry" but it will not be a "Swansea Cork Ferry" which is inextricably linked with Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd... all of this assuming Fastnet Line ever get off the ground which looks increasingly unlikely.Rxoper (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been determined that the company Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd does not meet inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia. The comments about viewing statistics, Fastnet Line Ltd and about 'Swansea Cork Ferry' being synonymous with 'Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd' seems to me to be irrelevant. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In the sentence "all of this assuming Fastnet Line ever get off the ground which looks increasingly unlikely." - Rxoper shows the bias that they (and Swans979 - who share remarkably similar, one-sided, and uninformed views) have been exhibiting since their editing started. They are using the Wiki articles to attempt to publicly discredit the new service, while eulogising the company that caused so much hardship by their actions in discontinuing the previous service. Regardless of specious arguments about trademarks and registered company names, members of the public use the term "Swansea Cork ferry" in the generic sense. If Rxoper / Swans979 object so strongly to the redirect from "Swansea Cork Ferries" to "Swansea Cork ferry", may I suggest that the "Swansea Cork Ferries" article be deleted (once again!) - and the "Swansea Cork ferry" article be allowed to continue, without further interference from Rxoper / Swans979. Nobullman (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Having invested €10,000 in the co-op I have no wish to discredit the new service. We have been promised so many deadlines and they have all been missed. The ship was supposed to be bought in mid-July but we are still in the dark. With no information gossip fills the vacuum and I am becoming increasingly concerned as to the whereabouts of my money. At the last AGM all we got was a wry smile from the solicitor when asked where the money was hence my apprehension. I appreciate the huge voluntary effort made so far but we now seem stalled and in todays climate that is not a good thing. Coming back to the name I have travelled on the route about 6 or 7 times and twice in 2006. It was obvious to anyone that numbers were dropping significantly so I dont blame the previous operators for pulling out. I am of the view that we should prepare to double our investment to get this off the ground because it would appeaer that cash is the problem and nobody else will give it to us.Rxoper (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems irrelevant to the encyclopedia. Perhaps you would like to take this discussion off wiki? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm is right - these points have nothing to do with the Wiki. There are contact details, news updates and FAQs on the website at www.bringbacktheswanseacorkferry.com - and you'd be better contacting those people direct - rather than indulging in wild and uninformed speculation in this forum...Nobullman (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)