Talk:Seaford branch line

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

This article lacks references.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Seaford Branch Line.

On 26 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Sussex Downs Line. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Thornbury Branch Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 19:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seaford branch line → Sussex Downs Line –
This name is used by the Sussex Communities Rail Partnership (see here), which works on the line. The name also covers the Brighton–Lewes section, which I propose be added to this article and accordingly removed from East Coastway line.
The name was also used in this Argus article (though of course this was in direct reference to the SCRP).
While it seems to be only a brand name used by the SCRP, with no official use by any railway authorities, I believe this name is still an improvement over "Seaford branch line", which I haven't seen used in any notable sources at all.
31.221.4.2 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SkyWarrior 19:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose moveing the Brighton to Lewis section. From the East Coastway talk page, I gather that the route has always included the Brighton to Lewis section, with the only debate being the Keymer Junction to Lewis section. Neutral on name change. Techie3 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - common usage seems to be still the current page name (i.e., SBL). The Sussex Express, the Guardian and others use SBL, while a vast minority use Sussex Downs. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion regarding similarly named article

Just would like to let you know that Australia’s Seaford railway line is being considered to be moved to Seaford line. Are either titles too ambiguous considering the existence of the UK’s Seaford branch line? You can comment on the discussion at Talk:Gawler railway line#Requested move 18 August 2023. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]