Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high speed train technologies


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Secret account 04:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

List of high speed train technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * It's not a list of technologies; it's a list of trains, and we already have lots of articles like that, including List of high-speed trains and High-speed rail by country bobrayner (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In fact it is a list of different high speed train implementations presented by different manufacturers. Each manufacturer of course uses its own technologies and therefore in some wider meaning we can say that it is a list of different applied technologies. The other list List of high-speed trains contains trains in different networks across the world, however those trains can be grouped according to the common technology (manufacturer's implementation) they share. In many cases trains in this list are identical concerning the technology but they use different naming which is related to the train service company they belong to. Clicklander (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Badly duplicates content.  Rcsprinter  (articulate)  @ 23:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This list is not relevant. It's an advertisement page for some manufacturers, that mentions only fanciful maximum speed, that are, in fact, absurd nationalist and commercial advertisement. This page is also incomplete : per example, most high-speed trains are designed and built by multiples manufacturers. And the page mix conventional and unconventional high-speed trains. This page is a partial doublet of List of high-speed trains --FlyAkwa (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I really don´t see how this list can be an advertisement page. It is nothing more than listing the type of technologies which are currently in use with some basic specifications regarding the top speed, coming from different manufacturers. I also do not do not see why it is an issue if there is a mixture of conventional and unconventional trains. Each manufacturer may use different sets of technologies in order to deploy its own high speed train product. As for the argument about duplication with the list List of high-speed trains take the following example. Germany´s ICE 3, Spain's AVE Class 103, China's CRH380B, Russian's Sapsan and the European Eurostar e320, use exactly the same technology which is Siemens Velaro. In other words all the above trains are more or less the same train. That's why there is the need for a new list including only the different technologies. The concept of the list List of high-speed trains is totally different from the concept of the list List of high speed train technologies.Clicklander (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not really clear exactly what this page is trying to achieve, and unfortunately it just appears to be, at best, a poor copy of the List of high-speed trains article, and at worst, an unsalvagable hodgepodge of unsourced original research riddled with errors and inaccuracies. --DAJF (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing I'd like to see is some articles on rail transport which aren't viewed through a nationalist lens. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * can anybody explain me how the word "nationalism" has any relation to this article?Clicklander (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The list of technologies you wrote is actually broken down by country, each technology assigned to one country, complete with a cute little flag picture. Since when did couplings or catenaries carry passports? bobrayner (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * They are not broken down by country, they just include the country of origin. Everyone of these technologies, systems, type of high-speed trains or whatever you want to call them if you do not like the word "technology", has an origin. Is it that bad to mention it? Moreover since the research & development for most of them is done by the manufacturing companies in association with local governments and the local, mainly state owned, train service companies, I think it makes even more sense to mention the origin. I also do not see any preference to some specific country coming out from this article in order to be characterized as a "nationalist" article. There is no comparison between them and there is not any outcome by any mean. It is nothing more than listing them. Is it maybe the "cute little flag picture" that bothers you? Do you really know what the meaning of the word "nationalism" is? Clicklander (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your ranking by "Top speed for commercial use" (based on totally fanciful values, invented by salesmen), along the "country of origin", is clearly based on nationalist considerations.
 * In the List of high-speed trains, the list is ordered by train name, mention the "design speed" and the more-serious "operated speed".
 * Anyway, the title is false : your list is about Families (or commercial brand name) of High-Speed trains, not technology.
 * Per example, there is no "Shinkansen Technology", there is as many "Shinkansen Technology" as "Shinkansen Trains" (who are very different each other).
 * Did you speak about "Peugeot technology" or "Ford technology", or even "Peugeot 508 technology" ?
 * --FlyAkwa (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to see nationalist meanings inside an article he/she will see them no matter what the article is about. You can also find racist, sexist or any other kind of discrimination meanings behind this article if you really need to. Nationalism is more in your head rather than in this article!
 * The reason I sorted (and not ranked) the technologies by the commercial top speed is just for convenience to the reader so that he/she can easily see how far today’s technology can go. And of course the faster does not necessarily mean the better. Any person with basic human intelligence knows that. Nevertheless I have no problem the list to be sorted in alphabetical or any other order. Anyway the table is manually sortable by the reader to any desirable way.
 * As for the naming perhaps you are right. I am not sure if ¨Technology¨ is the correct term. I used this word because to my understanding there is an extensive R&D behind each one of these systems, but there might be a better term to describe it. I never said that this article cannot be improved further.Clicklander (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What you want to do is impossible. First, forget the "top speed for commercial use", that is only a commercial claims, without any serious reality. Then the "manufacturer" column is really incomplete. And the "country of origin" is also dubious : per example, the Pendolino was built by Fiat, and is now built by Alstom, then what is the origin's country of pendolino ?
 * Finally, if you correct all these failures, you will finally duplicate the List of high-speed trains. --FlyAkwa (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason I started this article it was because I was looking for different types of high speed trains according to manufacturers and technologies and see what exists today around the world. As I said before, the List of high-speed trains was confusing for my research because many trains in this list are actually the same train with different naming which is based to the operator and not to the technology/manufacturer. So I thought that a list like this will be helpful for other readers like me to easily see all these different types listed together. That's the difference between the two lists and that's why they will never be duplicated. The commercial speed is what it really matters it this case because this shows what each technology can potentially offer as a service, even though some of those values apply only in theory.  That's why I put a note for the values that are not yet certified for commercial use but are only published in the data sheets of the manufacturer.
 * Regarding your example with Pendolino, your argument is invalid. First Pendolino is not a high speed technology for speeds over 300km/h and anyway will not be included in the list. Secondly there is a different naming for the two types you mentioned. Pendolino is Italian and New Pendolino is French.Clicklander (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Your reasoning is wrong, and I'm afraid your page will be deleted.
 * To know the high-speed trains families, you only need to sort the List of high-speed trains by families, the column is here for that.
 * Then, your "over 300 km/h" selection is totally subjective, because official "high-speed trains" definition include all trains above 200 km/h with specific qualities of service.
 * I repeat that your "top speed for commercial use" is a commercial claim, not a real ability (until there is proofs that they can sustain 380 km/h in commercial service), and this information is not relevant, except for a nationalist consideration along the "country of origin" to create a false ranking.
 * And you are not good faith, otherwise you will add (and sort by) the operated speed, that is real fact.
 * All your page is false :
 * * Title is false
 * * Manufacturer column is false
 * * Maximum speed is false
 * * Country of origin is not relevant
 * * year of introduction is not relevant
 * * Ranking is not relevant
 * * Selection of "300km/h or higher" is not relevant
 * --FlyAkwa (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You are keep talking about nationalist issues and rankings. I explain you very well the practical and encyclopedic use for this list but you are refusing to see it maybe because your mind is stacked into your imaginational nationalism. I show you trains and you see flags. Sorry but that's your problem!

The threshold of 300km/h is used for simplicity. There is no need for a long list including every old or obsolete technology when we are talking about the today's fastest high-speed trains. The concept of high speed train is after all something relative and changes over the time. A few years ago 200km/h was considered as high speed, today as high speed train everybody understands speeds around 300km/h or more and there is a trend towards to even higher speeds for the near future. The whole high speed train industry is booming right now, more and more new technologies appear and dynamical lists like this make now more sense than ever.Clicklander (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with FlyAkwa and with some other guys is that you are looking at lists like this from a wrong perspective. The purpose of Wikipedia and any other encyclopedia is to provide general information to the reader. It is not to analyze and come to conclusions. Therefore lists inside encyclopedias do not aim to make comparisons but just to give an overview to the reader. In this specific case the reader just wants to see all the available technologies listed together and have a general overview of what each one is about. If somebody wants to find out which is the best train technology or which one is the most appropriate for his/hers needs, encyclopedias are not the right way to go. It is needed a deeper research to get more technical or statistical information from various more specialized sources. In this sense, the reader don't expect to see the actual top operated speed in such a kind of list. The official top commercial speed provided by the manufacturer, the speed that the train is designed for, is enough to give an idea to the reader about the technology, no matter if this value applies in reality and no matter how reliable is the specific technology to sustain its advertised top speed in long term services. Those are not encyclopedic issues.Clicklander (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete As with above, Its title is quite vague. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.