Talk:Turbotrain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Turbotrain is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	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
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.

[edit] French Turbotrain

Is the SNCF Turbotrain in any way related to the Turbo used in Canada and the United States? This page was about a specific model of train, not a general concept, and there’s nothing in the new content to suggest that the SNCF train is any more closely related than having a similar name. If this is indeed the case, then the content about it should be moved into a separate article — Turbotrain is currently redirecting here — with disambiguation links connecting the two. David Arthur 01:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

There are tight links between the two trains, simply both trains are turbotrains, the similarities do not end at the name, they are both gas trains... They are in effect the same train developed in two different countries working in an identical manner. It is because of that that I purposely did not mix data from both trains and instead created a Canadian and a french section to show the subtle differences of both trains. I see no reason to seperate both and believe it is enriching to point out that several countries worked on the same concept. Enjoy the read ! Captain scarlet 10:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Both running on gas does not make them the same train; certainly the two should be mentioned in each other’s articles, but unless the Turbo and the Turbotrain (note that VIA’s is not called ‘Turbotrain’) are actually related in technology and history, not merely in concept. The Turbo is not a concept; it is a specific model of train, whereas Turbotrain appears (from its usage in this article) to have been used in France as a general term for the gas turbine electric locomotive, concept. To mix them in one article merely because of technological similarities seems to me to make no more sense than (for example) mixing TGV and InterCity Express. David Arthur 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I view this article as beeing an article concerning trains called 'turbotrains'. It so happens to be called that way and both example used in this article are both turbotrain and have the same mode of propultion, what more do you need ? Perhaps the Canadian counterpart of the Turbotrain should be moved to an appropriatly named article so that a Turbotrain article can be kept for such trains. It is an asset to be able to compare data and have varied articles, demerging articles lightly is something that would benefit the community or the readers. Why not have IC and TGV together, they are both High Speed Trains... Captain scarlet 17:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just had a look at the first paragraph The Turbotrain was an early high-speed train working on gas turbines. There are two distinct models, one in use in Canada, the other in France by the SNCF. Which I think is quite explicit. Captain scarlet 17:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is called Turbo (train), and until you edited it, was about the Turbo (not, except in colloquial usage of the same sort which turns smart into ‘smart car’, ‘Turbotrain’), a train used in Canada and the United States. I would suggest that the content about the French Turbotrain be moved to Turbotrain, which is currently a redirect to this page. Combining the two articles — even while calling them ‘distinct models’ — still suggests that they are variants of the same thing (comparable, for example, to the TGV Réseau and the TGV Duplex), rather than two separately-developed trains which happen to be based on similar principles. David Arthur 21:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished a your lack of understanding. This article is about the Turbo hence my edit and addition of missing data. There are is no excisting conflict in having both models in this article. I sence you are offended there others may think otherwise and find that this article is a lot more coherent, elaborate and thorough. Captain scarlet 01:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spliting articles

Thank you David Arthur for spliting both the French and candian Turbotrain articles. I see you clearly had something against both articles beeing together and it will probably be better to have the said articles that both of us favoured to be seperated. If you don't mind me saying, it is funny that an encyclopedia that is open for anyone to modify seems to have so many individuals protective of their work and closed to new ideas. Regards, Captain scarlet 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s not a question of protecting one’s work — indeed, I certainly wouldn’t claim Turbo (train) to be my work. I simply feel that since an encyclopaedia’s goal is to inform, it should not confuse its readers by combining unrelated items in one article. If you want to write about the general concept, rather than specific models of train, you should look at Gas turbine-electric locomotive; though its current name is biased towards the locomotive-drawn operations model, it does a good job of covering the general idea, and leaves articles such as Turbo (train), Turbotrain, and JetTrain to cover specific implementations. David Arthur 21:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

indeed, I certainly wouldn’t claim Turbo (train) to be my work. I simply feel that since an encyclopaedia’s goal is to inform, it should not confuse its readers by combining unrelated items in one article. Which clearly is your point of view and is the reason of witnessing the rise of a dissagreement. Captain scarlet 08:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)