Talk:Dead man's switch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge again[edit]

Two problems:

  1. article Dead-man's vigilance device needs to be merged here
  2. in this article, under Vigilance control there is contradictory text: "Main article: Dead-man's vigilance device", followed by "A hybrid between a dead man's switch and a vigilance control device is a dead-man's vigilance device."

--Rfsmit (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove that statement, as you wanted. I agree, that that sentence is unneeded.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railway "deadman" brake applications[edit]

Generally speaking, a brake application that is caused by an alertor (vigilance device) or other deadman device is a full service application, not an emergency application. An emergency application could cause wheel sliding or on a long freight train using knuckle couplers, a severe run-in that may trigger a derailment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gender neutral variant[edit]

As chairman became chairperson, is there a gender neutral version of this phrase that can be used instead? I.e. rename the page, and put a {{R from gender}} on the resulting redirect page, with category [[Category:Redirects from gender]]. Tantek (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not if its common name is still "dead man's switch". Wikipedia should follow the sources and not try to get out in front on the whole woke PC thing. — voidxor 22:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
To merge given overlap, short text and for the benefits of context. Klbrain (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless fork of Dead man's switch that consists only of a few sentences. Nothing here that justifies another article. I attempted a WP:BLAR but was met with an angry revert for some reason. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lose the attitude. I gave you my reasons in my edit summary. You needed to propose a merger. BLAR is for uncontroversial problematic articles; this one has a history of failed merger proposals and you seem to have known as much. Even the lead of that article says, "It is a hybrid between a dead-man's switch and a vigilance control," which contradicts your assertion that the switch and vigilance device are synonymous. — voidxor 22:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you continue the aggressiveness even as you agree that there's no reason to have a separate article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. I "agree" they can be merged but disagree with your unilateral deletion that didn't give a chance to keep any elements of the other article, nor give attribution in the history of this article that linked to the other. — voidxor 16:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your last statement above, you're trying to catch me in a "gotcha" because I support the merger. I'm really surprised by that statement and your others. I'm not being aggressive in the least; I simply disagree with your original methodology. We've worked well together on WikiProject Trains for awhile now, and I don't want to throw that away just because you're bitter that I gave you strong pushback on one action. — voidxor 16:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a bold edit. You reverted it, which is your right, and I followed your request to start a merge request, per BRD. The attitude you showed in the revert message was completely unnecessary and counterproductive towards collaborative editing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised by the unilateral "deletion", but perhaps you're right. Sorry for that. — voidxor 13:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think the distinction between the switch and the vigilance device is nuanced at best. Any such nuance can be captured in Dead man's switch § Vigilance control if not already. References and the accident list can be merged into that section or elsewhere within the target article. Merging edits should reference the source article per WP:PROMERGE so as to give credit where due. — voidxor 22:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per voidxor’s reasons. Fork99 (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: any minor distinction can be easily accommodated after the merger. fgnievinski (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per above. No need to extend this discussion. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2023 (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.
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect removed[edit]

The search term "Dead man's handle" was redirecting here instead of to the novel title Dead Man's Handle as the book article has a disambiguation statement directing back to this article, I removed the redirect. 23skidoo (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@23skidoo: You didn't delete it; you redirected it to the novel. I disagree with that change because this article is the primary topic (the handle is a particular way to implement what is also described here as a switch). Somebody searching for the lowercase "Dead man's handle" could be looking for either, but we must assume the primary topic first, and then provide a hatnote linking from here to the book title (a proper noun). — voidxor 15:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched it back, using a section link and a section hatnote to disambiguate at the new target. Klbrain (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]