Talk:Train protection system
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Gigs in topic Merger proposal
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editI couldn't find any generic article about this topic, so I created one. I'm not sure about the title, though, because my native language is not english. Please correct it if you think it's wrong. Kabelleger 12:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- The system used on London Underground is here. It's stub, so I'll add it to your project "stubs" paragraph. ––Moonraker88 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, couldn't figure out how to edit the page. ––Moonraker88 09:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about what to do with the Train stop article. It currently seems to be a mixture of explaining a general concept and explaining a specific implementation. After a google search, I even think that possibly this article here should be put under the title "Train stop". I guess the system used by the London Underground is only called train stop because this is a generic term (so the train stop article shouldn't be about the London Underground). Any clues, anyone? --Kabelleger 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Merger proposal
editAutomatic Train Protection article is redundant with this one I think, and was originally just ad copy inserted by a manufacturer. Gigs (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dont merge. - I definitely think that separate articles are justified in this case. This article 'Train protection system', is more general in nature, covering all kinds of technology. 'Automatic Train Protection' deals with one specific system. Other articles exist with detailed descriptions of other equivalent systems. –Signalhead < T > 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dont merge. As you say, other systems have their own articles, so why not ATP? However, although starting out specifically to describe the UK version, the ATP article seems to become more generic towards the end, including refs to systems in other countries. Suckindiesel (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Don't merge. It is important to clearly distinguish between a generic concept and a specific implementation. This article is about the concept (and a rough overview over the different varieties), the Automatic Train Protection article should be about that specific implementation of the Train protection system concept, and it seems to me that ATP is important enough to deserve its own article. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK, well, that's good enough for me. Proposal withdrawn. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)