Talk:UK Ultraspeed

message: Can anyone find some citations for the myriad of benefits claimed in the article?  It seems a little like an advert at the moment Spoofer25 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is very biased indeed, it is clearly wrote purely by ultraspeed fans. Even the limitations section quickly veers off the downsides of ultraspeed and goes into pro ultraspeed stuff about how its cheaper- not only bias there but nonsense.--202.174.58.161 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: This article doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. It reads more like promotional literature. I find it odd. Who wrote this? This is not wikipedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandrog (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird Style

message: Can someone cite this fact stated in the article, i have previously read that trains give out more greenhouse gases per person then cars  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.50.233 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not generally true, although emissions per passenger km do of course depend on such factors as occupancy, speed and energy source (so that UK Ultraspeed's carbon emissions per passenger km would decrease as the UK moves to renewable energy sources). Perhaps the biggest enviromental objection to building increased high-speed rail capacity (local effects of the railway's presence on habitats and ecosystems aside) is that it doesn't simply prompt people to switch from car to train and make the same journeys - instead some idiots decide they're going to commute from e.g. northern France into London every day on the Eurostar, creating additional journeys. The priority  must be to reduce travel by all polluting means before attempting to mitigate it by creating new public transport capacity that has as one of its consequences increased overall travel. The western world has invested a shocking amount in building suburban commuterlands, however, and it's harder to rearrange things so that people live and work in the same communities than it is to find new ways of transporting them vast distances from home to work. 79.68.150.126 (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental benefits?

message: The cost data is ludicrous. It needs to be challenged. If you take the cost data from Shanghai (1.33billion USD for 30.5 km of track), and calculating track length of 77,500km from journey times, the UK project should cost about £28billion. That's assuming that the Chinese and Siemens haven't lied about costs (unlikely) and neglecting increased UK land purchase, labour costs and being-rubbish-at-everything costs. I'd assume a price of somewhere in the region of £100billion to be more likely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.23.245 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Costing

message: Exciting though this project sounds, and much as many readers would dearly love to see it come to fruition, I have to question its significance. People are always making obscure proposals that go far beyond what planners are realisically considering, and I wonder how seriously this has been taken outside of enthusiast circles. The article says that the 2007 white paper rejected the proposal, but a Railway Magazine article is cited and not the paper itself. Could it be that it just wasn't mentioned at all? This is followed by: "Ultraspeed claims that many allegations in this document are misleading or false, and successfully auditioned at the authors after the release." This is unsourced, and doesn't appear to make much sense either. 79.68.150.126 (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is still very much an issue, this whole article should mostly be deleted and used as the base of a section in the Transrapid article. This article should then redirect there. I have tried to delete a lot of marktingspeak, but the notability issue still calls into question the very existence of this article. AadaamS (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance

message: I'm waking up this discussion again. I think this article should be deleted and small parts of it inserted into the main UK HSR article. Hence, my merge proposal at the top of the article. Please respond or I will simply go ahead and redirect this article to an Ultraspeed section in the UK HSR article. A rejected proposal isn't notable enough to warrant an article of this size which violates WP:UNDUE AadaamS (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there is now a proposal for a high speed maglev between Washington, Baltimore and New York I would think that the Ultraspeed UK proposal and the reasons it was rejected become more significant and better explained in a separate article.   Ultraspeed's proposal was in part to replace some of the air-traffic within Britain (This is not explained in the article and I think should be added but I need to research this further.  I think this is why 500kph is proposed rather than 400kph in Germany.)  Including it in the UK HSR might would miss this point.  I agree with the suggestions that it is too promotional and needs a clean up.  I have made some additions today and fixed an anomaly whereby the low levels of radiation were under the "Limitations" heading rather than "Benefits".  Tjej (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see this the other way around, given that no maglev exists in the UK, I see little reason for the article's existence either. I still think that a section in the general UK HSR or general maglev article would suffice. A maglev line in the United States is irrelevant to the subject of this article. This is not a general maglev article, it is a specialised article and including general things like maglev systems elsewhere will only lead to duplication of information and more effort to maintain and keep it up to date. AadaamS (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the place for that would be List_of_maglev_train_proposals#United_Kingdom which has one short & out of date paragraph on the subject (I will fix shortly).  If High Speed 2 is overturned then there will be renewed interest in the alternatives. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia so I'll defer to others judgement but I think it should at least be allowed to stay until the HS2 bill passes parliament.  (I think the article wasn't helped by poorly explaining the subject.  I have done some work on all sections now after reading some of the original material.)Tjej (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Tjej. The reason to keep an article is if its subject is notable as per the WP:GNG. Notability of the HS2 doesn't automatically transfer to its unbuilt alternatives. Wikipedia is WP:NOT (read this) not an advertising platform. Note that everything you write into an article must be supported by WP:RS. Notable subjects of articles usually come with many sources, yet this article is almost entirely based on the contents of the UK Ultraspeed website which is a primary source. WP guidelines prefer secondary sources. Look here for WP:PRIMARY. Happy friday! AadaamS (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't disagree with that Tjej (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still don't really see how a subsidiary company of Transrapid deserves a whole article of its own, imho it should be a section in Transrapid and I doubt we will agree on that. If Transrapid hadn't created the "ultraspeed" nickname, I bet this article would never have been created in the first place. AadaamS (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Does anyone have a good reason this article shouldn't be summarised in a section of Transrapid. AadaamS (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Hi Maury Markowitz, thanks for your input. This article is about neither a company nor a rail route, it's about a proposed rail route unlikely to ever be built. Comparison with Corridor (Via Rail) or Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway is irrelevant as they have both actually been built at some point. I still say that this article is much too big for a rejected rail line proposal, violating WP:UNDUE. The only reason that no decision on the merge has been reached yet is because feedback has been slow. That in itself is indication that this subject generally lacks importance, not that the article should be kept as a standalone. As I said above, if there is ever a maglev line in the UK I will be happy to create a standalone article for it. AadaamS (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

text: You're not reading what I wrote, my concern was not with the balance of the article, it is the size of the article and its notability. Since you now are all of two editors (you and Tjej) in favour of keep the consensus is keep as standalone. I still say there is little evidence this article satisfies the WP:GNG (which is the keep criterion for any standalone article) because almost all of the references refer to the promoter's website (which is a self-published source and thus not a WP:RS), the other two are government documents. Anyway I'll abide by the consensus. Also, using exclamation marks when writing to me does not make the subject of this article more notable. Good luck. AadaamS (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not reading what you wrote? I can still see your post about UNDUE to me at the top of this editor window. You keep changing your argument: first you said its bad because it's an article on a subsidiary company, then you said its bad because it's only proposed, and now you say it's bad because of its size? If you really believe that there is a GNG argument here, and there isn't, take it to AfD where it belongs. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/Deletion discussion 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/high-speed-2-hs2/
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Having a section called cancellation is misleading as this never got beyond being a proposal. I suggest Government rejection of proposal would be more accurate.--FDent (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancellation?