Talk:High-speed rail in Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Passenger trains task force.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (November 2007)

[edit] Is this article necessary?

What purpose does this article serve that is not already covered by High-speed rail by country? I could understand the need for an article discussing the ongoing integration of services and networks between countries, but that's not what the article currently does. Alcuin (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely what this article should do eventually, as the unique situation with Europe attempting to harmonise and increase high-speed rail across international borders means an article is called for which delivers far more than the brief overview of the other article you mentioned. However, whilst it grows, most of the information here will be culled from other articles, so it will take a while for it to stand on its own feet as it were. Grunners (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I intend to shape the article so that it focuses on the emerging European HSR network, then. Alcuin (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is a mess currently. This should not be a historical summary with sections like 'France leads the way', rather, it should be a summary of high speed rail in Europe per country. After all, people get directed here from the High-speed rail by country article, and expect to find a summary of high speed rail in Europe here. If you want to discuss the integration of the European high speed rail network between European countries, I propose to do this in a seperate article. --Joop20 (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Future transport developments are not usually kept in a separate article when there is already an existing article covering the subject. Future integration of European high speed rail belongs as a sub-section of this article. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to the High-speed rail by country article? And what exactly do you mean with future transport developments? These should be discussed in the Planned high-speed rail by country article.--Joop20 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The European push towards integration of existing networks for a pan European HSR network, not entire planned new systems by country, hence 'in Europe'. It's explained in the lead paragraph. MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I get you now. However, according to me the push towards integration of existing networks in Europe should be discussed in a seperate section of this article, just like the history of the European high speed rail network. The main goal of this article is not to describe integration of the European rail network, rather to summarize high speed rail in Europe per country. Joop20 (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, I think the history section of this article should be deleted. The main High-speed rail article already contains a history secction, and it is more appropriate here. Moreover, the current section does not contain any information on the history of high speed rail in Europe in specific.--Joop20 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what you're trying to do actually, but these three articles could all be merged into one. There is no reason for me to split countries with planned systems from countries with systems with planned extensions, if everything is to be listed by country, and no need to contain planned extensions and systems in Europe in one article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, and I haven't got a clue what you're saying now. First of all, which three articles are you talking about. Secondly, sometime the choice was made to discuss high speed rail in Europe in a seperate article from the High-speed rail by country, see the discussion above. I don't agree with it being seperate articles, but we have them now. Regarding planned systems, these are discussed in the Planned high-speed rail by country article. And notice I've was talking about sections in this article, not about seperate articles, in my previous two comments.--Joop20 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible merge and restructure

of:

Basically, all three seem to duplicate sections, and considering most of the countries have their own, 'high speed rail in X' country articles. I propose the following:

  1. Merge all 3 into 'High speed rail by country', with the parent article high-speed rail
  2. Basic copy edit it into sections:
    1. Overview
    2. Existing systems by country
    3. Systems under construction by country
    4. Planned systems by country
    5. Pan European Integration Project
    6. Any other cross national projects
  3. Mercilessly copyedit to remove all duplication between articles with their own country article

MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Mick. However, I propose the merger of:
The Planned high-speed rail by country article clearly has another goal; here, proposed or planned high speed railway projects are discussed, which you will not find in the High-speed rail by country article. In the parent article high-speed rail, there is also a distinction between high speed rail per country and proposed high speed rail per country.--Joop20 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Just from my reading all three over the last hour, whatever the actual intentions, the actual articles did not give me the idea behind their differences well enough. A planned new line in Italy goes in one place, but a planned line in Egypt goes in another article? And there are also differences between in construction, planned and proposed systems, and hence where they go. And America can basically be considered two separate countries regarding planned/proposed, such are the differences and distances involved. With a proper eye to removing duplication, it would all fit logically into one article, 'HSR by country', with no confusion. The differences between exists/under construction/planned/proposed is what tables of contents are for. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough. However, merging the three articles into one coherent article is going to take quite some time, and there are alot of missing sources as well in the information in the current articles. I've only started making contributions to wikipedia since today, so I have no idea what and how to do this. And who is going to take responsibility for it?Joop20 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone, that's the beauty of WP. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the merging of articles or the closure of articles have to be announced somewhere, or can you, me, or someone else just start with the job?Joop20 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It can be listed at requested moves if you want. Basically, you can be bold and merge whatever you like, but obviously people who object can easily reverse it, so you can list it to save wasted effort, although if no-one is bothered, it can be a waste of time. MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)