Talk:Ideal gauge

content was taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_gauge&diff=prev&oldid=226518862 TrackConnect (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I object to direct deletion, but agree with Gwernol that it is badly sourced. I really think it should be improved and referenced. I added some see-also-links to other articles that discuss advantages and disadvantages. TrackConnect (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was considering suggesting this for a strip/merge into Rail gauge but the articles seem to be under such churn at the moment that we may have to wait for a couple of days until the "dust" has settled and we can take stock of the situation and decide what needs reverting/merging deleting at that point. —Sladen (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * would "Optimal gauge" be a better term? TrackConnect (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect the "narrower than standard" and "wider than standard" gauge sections could be merged with those respective pages and what's left shifted to the Rail gauge article. I suspect that renaming the article to "optimal gauge" (or similar) might still be dodging the around the issue that the topic the article is discussing is something like "Railway gauge, comparison and suitability of different values of X in different terrains".
 * For the moment I've done a strip of the article to try and remove the waffle and reduce it to just core facts (the grammar could do with a tidy-up as I notice I screwed up and dropped conjunctions in a couple of places). Hopefully this gives a clearer picture of what (unique/useful) material is still in the article and which can be reviewed to an eye to merging it elsewhere.  "Ideal gauge" in itself is not a frequently used term, if it was or the topic was more notable, it would be perhaps more obvious what to call the article.  Since it's non-obvious, it's probably non-notable. —Sladen (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rail gauge churning less vigorously, the time may be ripe for merging. The term "ideal gauge" is not here defined or discussed, nor need it be, nor need the article under that title exist.  Jim.henderson (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)