Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracked vehicle (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Continuous track. At any rate no consensus to delete. Sandstein 06:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked vehicle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant to continuous track. If not deleted it should be renamed continuously tracked vehicle because tracked also applies to trains. Marcus Qwertyus 02:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 02:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 02:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the argument that there is considerable redundancy, but the Tracked vehicle article has both Continuous track and Kegresse track listed under "Types of Track," suggesting that it covers more than continuous track alone. That said, I am way out of my depth on this topic. I think someone with some background/expertise with regard to the topic should comment. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Kegresse track is just a continuous track but replaces the metal parts with rubber and is fitted to the rear wheels. There is also something called a pedrail but it is a wheel. Marcus Qwertyus 04:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 04:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- at the very least this must remain as a redirect. It is a common English phrase and is a highly likely search term. There are 100+ pages that link to it, including numerous redirects of types of tracked vehicle. Merge/delete would also make categorisation difficult: "continuous track" does not belong in a category "Types of vehicle" (for example) any more than "tracked vehicle" belongs in a category "vehicle components". Logically, this article should also contain a summary section listing (and linking to) vehicle types which are tracked.
Pedrail is highly related too -- same concept (or at least, same problem to solve) -- shows that this should be a top-level article.

The concept of anything railway-related being called a 'tracked vehicle' is something that would only happen in wiki-world. It's the sort of tortured English categorisation that is creeping over Commons. While technically correct English, I'd be interested to see anywhere in real life that actually referred to a train as a 'tracked vehicle'.

EdJogg (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the comments above say it all. To say the title includes trains is pretty close to pedantry. Malcolma (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Continuous track (actually, I would prefer to merge that article to this one, but I doubt there will be support for that given the states of the two articles): there is considerable merit to the nominator's argument. The distinction between the two is virtually nonexistant, and that doesn't justify to me having two separate articles. There is no evidence on either article that continuous tracks are used on anything besides vehicles. The Kégresse track is just a specific type of continuous track, so I don't think that warrants a "parent" article, as that would be misleading. Likewise, the argument that pedrail wheel is a similar concept might be true in that they are related, but doesn't justify keeping the articles separate. I do, however, share EdJogg's view on the relationship between tracks and railroad--tenuous at best, and not worty of a rename (though I see merit in Continuously tracked vehicle as a search term and have created it as a redirect). The previous discussion was based on WP:DICDEF and nominated by a banned vandal, so there's no help there. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but why is the other article titled by the non-specific, descriptive “continuous track” rather than “caterpillar track?” —Michael Z. 2010-12-01 16:35 z
- I think that "caterpillar" is more of an Anglo nickname than a worldwide technical term. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes and no. The first successful tracks were introduced by the Holt Manufacturing Company, who later became Caterpillar, the name 'caterpillar' having come from someone observing and commenting on the motion of the track. The name came about right back at the origins of the device, it's not a recent thing. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The two articles seem to be largely redundant to each other. Leave this as a #redirect Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.