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: Moved. Consensus is that the same article should be used for the new branding, and that it should be moved as proposed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2021-09-01T18:47:00.000Z","author":"Amakuru","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Amakuru-2021-09-01T18:47:00.000Z-Requested_move_25_July_2021","replies":[]}}-->

Yorkshire Tiger → Team Pennine – Company has been rebranded per multiple sources in the article. Kiynacleat (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2021-07-25T19:54:00.000Z","author":"Kiynacleat","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kiynacleat-2021-07-25T19:54:00.000Z-Requested_move_25_July_2021","replies":[]}}-->

Oppose: I believe a new article should be made to document Team Pennine since probably in a legal sense it is a new company that are taking over the operations from the old company. Sort of like how TOCs function in GB. The point is that when a new operator takes over the old operating companies page is not moved over to the new companies name. E.g. When Virgin Trains West Coast lost their franchise to Avanti West Coast in late 2019 the VT page stayed but was marked as defunct whilst the Avanti page was made. In this case YT would still be it's own article but called a "defunct" bus operator then on TP's page it would say that they took over operations from YT. Slender (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2021-07-29T15:40:00.000Z","author":"Slenderman7676","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Slenderman7676-2021-07-29T15:40:00.000Z-Requested_move_25_July_2021","replies":[],"displayName":"Slender"}}-->

Comment: Incoming train operators don't purchase their predecessors as going concerns though. All of their leases etc are times to coincide with their franchise end dates. So the outgoing franchisee returns its assets to the leasing company, and then the incoming operator makes its own arrangements. Hence a new operator may not take on some of the rolling stock that it predecessor used, although through necessity it will initially take most of it. Train operator articles tend to be larger articles, that at some point end up needing to be split, so a change in operator is a logical point. The franchises that TOCs operate tend to be chopped and changed as they are merged, split and have their operating areas recast, e.g. Midland Mainline had quite a different map to successor East Midlands Trains, Silverlink was different to London Midland, Virgin CrossCountry to Arriva CrossCountry etc.

Bus operator articles tend to cover the history from its initial foundation rather than the most recent change in ownership or rebrand, e.g. First York and Harrogate Bus Company go back to their foundation in 1932 and 1906, long before their current owners or the current trading names arrived. By way of a similar precedent, when Transdev purchased and rebranded Rosso in the same circumstances as it did with Yorkshire Tiger, the article was renamed rather than split, as was this one when Arriva purchased Centrebus Holdings and renamed it Yorkshire Tiger in 2013. It would be different if Yorkshire Tiger was broken up and its services taken over by multiple operators, then it would be logical to split. But in this case Transdev has purchased 99% of the business as a going concern; it's the same services, employees, buses, depots etc, just a change in trading name. If Team Pennine was set up as a stand alone article it would be content forking. Kiynacleat (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2021-07-30T10:27:00.000Z","author":"Kiynacleat","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kiynacleat-2021-07-30T10:27:00.000Z-Requested_move_25_July_2021","replies":[]}}-->

Support: the page already has details of the history of the operation under previous owners so it makes sense to continue it under a new section. At the end of the day it's essentially the same company, just rebranded and under new ownership. i'm no expert on the precedent for similar events but I doubt the norm is to make a new page about a company when it's bought out and rebranded. MJ9674 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2021-08-06T16:54:00.000Z","author":"MJ9674","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MJ9674-2021-08-06T16:54:00.000Z-Requested_move_25_July_2021","replies":[]}}-->

Support: per nom. Toviemaix (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2021-08-11T23:27:00.000Z","author":"Toviemaix","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Toviemaix-2021-08-11T23:27:00.000Z-Requested_move_25_July_2021","replies":[]}}-->

Disagree, new article required BKY709 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC) Support - Admittedly I'm 50/50 here but mainly support due to the fact it was originaly Stagecoach based before being acquired by Arriva and the new article would very small at present so for the time being it makes sense to have it all under one roof. –Davey2010^Talk 01:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2021-08-14T00:15:00.000Z","author":"BKY709","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BKY709-2021-08-14T00:15:00.000Z-Requested_move_25_July_2021","replies":[]}}-->