Talk:Automatic Train Protection (United Kingdom)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

A fact from Automatic Train Protection (United Kingdom) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 April 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that British Rail's Automatic Train Protection system was estimated to cost £11 million per life saved, more than the £4 million per life to be considered good value for money?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ATP (British Rail).

Wikipedia

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 25 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Automatic train protection (UK). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Template editor request (edit notice)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add {{Parenthetical referencing editnotice}} as an editnotice to this article.

Thanks,

~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Alex Noble:

done. PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 18:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that British Rail's ATP system was estimated to cost £11 million per life saved, more than the £4 million per life considered good value for money? Source: Harmer, 1995 - [1]

Comment: Haven't done this before, so please ping if I've messed anything up too much.

Created by Alex Noble (talk). Self-nominated at 17:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Am looking at this now; review to follow shortly (this evening/tomorrow). I have some familiarity with the subject matter. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review starting now, but must pause now and continue later today......
- This is a new, non-stub article with in excess of 3kb of prose. (Quite a notable topic; I'm surprised no dedicated article for BR ATP existed, and Main Page exposure may well bring about further expansion and improvements.)
- Refs are formatted correctly and sources are of high quality. I don't have to hand a copy of Gourvish (2002), the only offline source, but I am familiar with the book and its suitability as a source.
- Work started on 8th March, so the nomination is on time.
- The author has no DYK credits so far, so is exempt from QPQ reviewing requirements.
- Prose quality is fine.
- Minor nitpicks at this stage: apart from a few copyedits (hyphens, mostly), I would suggest a few more explanations of technical terms: perhaps spell out SPAD as well as linking, and mention that ACEC and GEC-GS are companies rather than e.g. technical standards (maybe link the second one to Alstom#GEC-Alsthom; not sure if the ?Canadian company ACEC has a WP article).
- I'm happy with the hook in terms of interest, catchiness and accuracy. As per Hamer (1995), the supporting source: while BR and Railtrack initially estimated £14m per life saved, the Health and Safety Commission's review revised this to £11m per life saved, so it is appropriate to use the lower figure in the hook and article.

- Broadly speaking, this looks ready for DYK, but later this evening (I'm doing this on my lunchbreak) I'll do full copyvio/close paraphrasing checking in the online sources and will confirm if OK. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No issues noted in subsequent checks; verified and ready to go. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPADs

What is an SPADs / can it be added in the text pls? Whizz40 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

signal passed at danger - not at computer now, or would clarify in text. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 20:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Train Protection (United Kingdom) → Automatic train protection (UK) – At WP:NCCAPS '[d]o not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name'. (Origin quote is in bold because putting this quote in bold is not a great idea). Plus UK is commonly used as a disambiguator as can be seen at WP:DAB. Also the base name Automatic train protection is titled in thjis way. JuniperChill (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Automatic train protection is about a general concept. Automatic Train Protection (United Kingdom) is about a specific program in the United Kingdom, which is a proper name. You could rescope this article as Automatic train protection in the United Kingdom instead if you want it to be in lowercase, which would discuss all uses of automatic train protection in the United Kingdom, not just the one system British Rail developed. And there's no reason whatsoever to abbreviate United Kingdom to UK in the disambiguator. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Probably a proper name and we usually prefer United Kingdom to UK (except, bizarrely, in the names of political parties). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the UK version is no more a proper name than the others. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm usually on the lower case train, but this seems to me to be a specific program of British Rail and as such is a proper noun and should stay capped. Similarly, Automatic Warning System is capped as a specific system, rather than about automatic warning systems in general. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.