Talk:Vigilance control

Should penalty switch, vigilance control, dead-man's switch and dead-man's control be merged? They are very similar. Andrew pmk 03:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say no. The dead-man's switch covers a large variety of different functions of fail-safe devices (and fail-dead ones, too). The dead man's control is specific to trains, and it has been around as that specific term and function for a long time, since the widespread use of trains. The vigilance control is something that is much newer and not nearly the same thing as the dead-man's control of old. However, I suppose the penalty switch and vigilance control articles could be merged as they seem to be redundant. At the very least, though, the dead-man's switch should be kept separate from dead-man's control. Vigilance control could be merged with the latter, but the two largest articles should maintain their independence.