Talk:Turbostar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Passenger trains task force. |
[edit] Suggested Turbo/Turbostar merge
I see no need to merge. A Turbo is a different train to a Turbostar.
- They were built by different companies
- Built in different eras
- The Turbo article is inacurate (i think) by having the Turbostars in that article
- Different top speeds
- Different internally
To me the proposed merge is like saying merge the Turbostar and Electrostar articles together, its not needed. The only debate is over the Class 168, which is very similar to the Class 170. Is the Class 168 a Turbo, a Turbostar or neither? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Year1989 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Turbostar is descended from the Turbo, but it’s a quite different train, and it would be counterproductive to merge the two. As for the 168, Bombardier refer to it as a Turobstar on their web site, and I’m inclined to say that it’s their prerogative to make that decision. David Arthur 22:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't think the two articles should be merged, as they talk about two different types of train. However, it might be worth considering if there is any actual need for these articles at all, along with others such as Pacer (train), as most of their content is duplicated from the individual articles. --Jorvik 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- The difference between the 170 and 171 is minimal, and the 168 and 172 are only slightly more distinguished, so I think it’s definitely more useful to cover them all in one article about the Turbostar family (in the agreement under which they were created, the individual class articles were meant to cover only the specific details of each class, but other information has crept in). The Turbo article was just created yesterday, and it seems similarly useful, with the proviso that its coverage of the Turbostar should be removed and replaced with a note that the Turbostar is a post-privatisation descendant of the Turbo. David Arthur 23:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I tend to agree with David. Pickle 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
