Talk:Head-end power

Merge

Hotel Electric Power and Head End Power are two total different animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.80.92 (talk • contribs)

Agree, merging both articles would be inappropriate. Suckindiesel (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could either/both of you expand on your reasons. This article is quite comprehensive whereas Hotel electrical power is quite short. How are they different? —Sladen (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The articles explain that quite clearly. One is a maritime term and the other is a railway term. Perhaps if you do not know enough about this subject area, it may be better for you to find other articles to edit (and leave it to those that do know). Bhtpbank (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote the current revision[1]:

also ... applied in railway passenger train usage meaning lighting, climate control, water heating, cooking power...

so, this is non-motive electricity distribution. Which is surprisingly similar to the statement[2]:

electrical power distribution system on a passenger train ... all the electricity used for lightening, electrical and other...

(Note, this a rhetorical question:) Please could you explain how this identical concept differs from itself. —Sladen (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment If someone wants to treat both terms under a common article - and wants to write it themselves then good. BUT Hotel electric power does not seem to be used in a railway context (contray to what the article suggests) - try searching for "hotel electric power" and see how many railway related articles appear . 0. What is the new article supposed to be titled, and what will it cover?Carrolljon (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"hotel+electrical+power"+-wikipedia	5
"hotel+electric+power"+-wikipedia	154
"hotel+electric+power"+-wikipedia+railway	147
"head+end+power"+-wikipedia	7,490

With note to WP:GHITS, pinches of salt, etc. —Sladen (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When you put a merge template on a page it's usual to explain your reasons see Help:Merging_and_moving_pages#Proposing_a_merger After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page it's not difficult to do. Rather than leaving to others to guess.?

Question - what are your reasons.

What is the proposed title of the merged page.

Carrolljon (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposer's rational

1. The subject matter covered by Head end power (HEP) and Hotel Electric Power (HEP) is the same; essentially the use of centrally-provided auxiliary electricity to enable hotel ("convenience") functions (heating, lighting...).
2. Head end power is comprehensive. Hotel Electric Power is a stub.
3. The stub on its own does not warrant a separate article.
4. To expand the stub would create duplication of material as the subject is already covered.
5. The article name would remain Head end power; with Hotel Electrical Power being a redirect. The article WP:LEAD could include something such as: In a marine context, the term hotel electric power is used (or similar wording).

—Sladen (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hotel electric power" also can refer to auxillary power for (stationary) hotels (might not be important)

"Head end power" isn't an acceptable title for an article dealing with marine systems as well - because as far as I can tell it's exclusively used for railways?

Power supply in ships is a big subject - the article could easily be expanded by someone in the know.

I don't oppose an article covering both - but I don't think 'head end power' can be used as a title.

How about merging into the link below??Carrolljon (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

update - re: merge

There's another page Auxiliary power unit which could absorb both articles.Carrolljon (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Auxiliary power unit doesn't seem to be that similar. However, I agree with all of Carrolljon's other points above. To summarise:
The purpose of both systems is to supply elect. power to non-stationary objects, i.e. train or ship. In this sense they both perform similar functions. Each system operates in completely different environments, deserving of separate articles for each.Suckindiesel (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your right (getting confused) -head end power isn't neccessarily from an auxillary generator nowadays .. my mistake. Please ignore that suggestion.

My main point is that if there is to be a merge a suitable name is needed.Carrolljon (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not merge!

These are two distinctly different things that share initials. Yes, both are about electric power on moving vehicles but it is really grasping at straws to say they are anything alike. Would anyone even think about merging if they didn't share initials? I doubt it. Should we merge and then add sections on electricity aboard jetliners or motor coaches as well? It's fine the way it is. The article was created as a reference because some say the rail term HEP was derived from the maritime term but altered in what it stood for to be more rail-centric. This article explains what the maritime version of these initials means but there is no reason to merge them. I rather doubt anyone with any electrical engineering, rail, or maritime knowledge would support merging them. This is purely the result of do-gooder editors seeing similar initials and going well gosh they are both about electricity, maybe we can merge them. But that's not a good enough reason. They are completely unrelated and should not be merged. Go find something else to "improve" by editing.Filmteknik (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus that the articles should not be merged? Are there any objections if I remove the "merge" tags? Biscuittin (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the air, rail and marine articles to the disambig page Auxiliary power. Biscuittin (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

side note: there's no mention of the previous mode: ice activated Air conditioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.199.90 (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge Proposal with Head end power car

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge the proposed articles.

---

I'm proposing that Head end power car is merged into Head-end power. I think that the information contained within the former page (or that could reasonably written about that topic) would easily fit within the context of the latter without causing any article size issues.QuadColour (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense to me. Head end power car is only sourced to primary sources and has relatively little content, it would make more sense included with the rest of Head-end power. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support - no notability independent of the notion of "head end power". --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Isn´t Russia a part of Europe?

/Dr Neugierig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.18.92 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)