Talk:TGV/2005 archive

message: I get the impression from the centrifugal force and centripetal force articles that the force felt by the passengers is the latter - could this be checked and cleared up? Willkm 09:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the former. I know it is a bit tricky, but the article centrifugal force get it right by saying that This "force" is actually inertia, since it is felt because your body (or any other object going around) "naturally wants" to go straight. Schutz 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centrifugal/Centripetal force 

message: Perhaps with a bit of work this could be put up for featured article status? Any comments? Willkm 21:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be able to help with the map (see my user page for examples), but how would we define what to show - all the 'TGV' routes operated using TGV trains, or only the portions where they're actually running on high-speed lines? David Arthur 23:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both maybe ? For example, use plain lines for high-speed lines, and dashed lines for the rest of the routes. Schutz 07:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, different colored lines could be used, such as on :Image:Ireland Western Rail Corridor.png where green is the line that is the subject of the Western Rail Corridor and red is connecting lines, or on :Image:DME and ICE route map.JPG which uses four colors to indicate different ownership/construction of lines. slambo 12:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I followed the Commons link at the end of the article and found the map there.  The country names are in German, so we sould probably upload a translated version, but there's a first draft at least. slambo 21:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want to make up a map, most of the details are here and although it hasn't been updated since 2001, it's still pretty much up to date (although the first section of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link has now been built. Willkm 23:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll take a look and see how much I can translate and add to it this weekend. slambo 11:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Willkm 21:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article? 

message: The article mentions the term OCC in section LGV Signalling; this is obviously the TGV control center, but I could not find any exact reference or acronyn meaning; does anyone know the details ? Schutz 07:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to User:Willkm for getting rid of this acronym. Schutz 11:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Need to spot these things before going for FA! Willkm 17:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OCC ? 

message: I would like to suggest adding the following paragraph, but I'm not sure where it can fit.
In more than two decades of high-speed operation, the TGV has not recorded a single fatality due to accidents. There have been several accidents, including three high-speed derailments at or above 270 km/h (168 mph), but no wagons ever overturned. This is credited in part to the stiffness that the articulated design lends to the train. The only fatalities were recorded on 31 December 1983, when the terrorist organization of Carlos the Jackal placed a bomb on board of a TGV train, killing two.
Source: http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/wrecks.html
Ze miguel 13:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the text in the section on criticisms, which I have renamed to a more general Problems and criticisms. It is still not perfect, but at least it should get the ball rolling. Schutz 12:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Schutz. -- Ze miguel 13:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've expanded the accidents section and split it again (think it's big enough now for its own section). Mainly tranlated from French version, but with a little detail from TGVweb. TGVweb is already in the references section - think that's probably enough Willkm 20:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Willkm: I had wrongly assumed that the passenger referred to was a passenger of the truck which was hit by the TGV. So you're right, the distinction needs to be made between high-speed and standard lines. Sorry about that, I'll revert my edit to your previous version. -- Ze miguel 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, no probs. :) Willkm 20:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidents 

message: There has been quite a lot of work on the article recently, including a peer-review, and after having just reread it thoroughly and correcting a few little things (bypassed all redirects, in particular) I am thinking that we could maybe propose it as featured article now, as already suggested above.
If you disagree, please use this section as a todo-list for tasks that remain to be done -- otherwise, I'll submit it as a featured article candidate. Of course, I am not the person who did the most work here, so if e.g. someone like Willkm would like to submit it himself, I would be happy to oblige. Schutz 00:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a very good idea. I would be very happy if you were to submit it. I'm sure the close scrutiny it will get on the FAC list should iron out any major problems. Willkm 20:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Almost ready.  Looking back at my peer review comments, it looks like those have been taken care of, but the page is 47 kilobytes now.  There will be some who object on this basis.  We could easily split the infrastructure information out into a separate article and include a summary here, and we could probably do that for other aspects of the article as well (perhaps the Rolling stock section next?).  I just took a read through the lead section again and removed the excess commas and reordered a few phrases so it reads better (at least I think so B-) ).  I'll try to read through the rest of it again tonight. Slambo (Speak) 21:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I for some reason don't like the idea of a separate infrastructure article - not sure why though :). Perhaps because the infrastructure section just doesn't seem suitable for an article in its own right, or that this one wouldn't be complete without it, as it is now. It's not *that* much too big, and I think it's probably better to keep all of the information here in one place. It does look long though, not broken up by a picture... I don't think I have any of my own which are suitable. Willkm 21:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What if I submit it, and honestly say "the article may be slightly too long, if you think we should reduce it, we are ready to do it" ? If that is the only problem mentioned, it'll be easy to fix (although I'm sure other reviewer will find good comments that noone has mentioned so far). I'll wait until tomorrow anyway. Schutz 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe something along the lines of: "The article may slightly too long, but it is a complete guide. Some sections could be moved elsewhere and summarized if necessary, though." As I say, I prefer it whole :) Willkm 22:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ! Schutz 00:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wahey! Now for the front page. Willkm 00:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wahey again! Willkm 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article (2) ?