Talk:2017 Washington train derailment

Requested move 21 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This debate does not appear to be gaining ground toward agreement. As with any no consensus decision, there is no prejudice toward continuing to attempt to garner consensus for the highest and best title for this article. Happy New Year to All! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

---

2017 Washington train derailment → December 2017 Amtrak Cascades derailment – The Amtrak Cascades service involved in the derailment has been referred to more than the greater location of Washington state as the primary topic of the story in many reports of the incident in the hours and days following. Even when reporting locations, reporters and news outlets have often preferences a referral to Tacoma or Olympia over Washington state. Even with "Washington" in the title, comes the confusion, especially for readers outside of the United States with Washington, D.C.. The Amtrak Cascades service itself is world-known, especially among train enthusiasts, and will probably fit better in the title as the identifier, rather than the location, as there have been a couple of other derailments in Washington state alone in 2017, including two freight train derailments causing major disruptions in Stevens County and Benton County in March and April, respectively. There was also a non-fatal derailment of an Amtrak Cascades service in July, prompting the specification of "December 2017" in this case.

Alternate proposals include 2017 Tacoma train derailment or 2017 Olympia train derailment for a more specified location to address vague location concerns, though, there have been articles on similar topics that used things other than location to identify the incident, such as services involved (1982 Washington Metro train derailment, 1970 Lehigh Valley Railroad derailment, and 1953 New York Central Railroad accident), which is why my main proposal was to name it after the notable service involved, the Amtrak Cascades. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 14:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisted.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Relist comment. Members of WikiProjects Death, Disaster management, Transport, Trains/Operations/Passenger trains, United States and Washington have been notified in an effort to garner consensus in this debate.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. "December 2017 Amtrak Cascades derailment" is is a better title. Maybe remove December - if anything else will happen there in ten days - which is doubtful - the title will require a month and a day. Mikus (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Do we really need December? Was there an earlier one? Or is another expected in the next ten days? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there was an earlier one in July. MrLincoln (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unless there is another major train accident in 2017 near any place named "Washington", I feel that the title 2017 Washington train derailment will suffice, as Washington seems to be the most recognizable title, at least in the United States. There is otherwise considerable debate about what to call the location, aside from naming it after the county in which the incident took place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• alternate suggestion Like I said in the pervious move discussion, "Washington" by itself is a rather ambiguous name. If anything, just add the word "state"Metropod (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's no reason to have the month in the title. This is a worldwide website and this incident is not often reported or known outside the US as Amtrak Cascades derailment. Jim Michael (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• As a reply to @Mikus, Martinevans123, and Jax 0677: You people obviously didn't read my original nomination paragraph were I mention and cite the derailment of an Amtrak Cascades service in July in Washington state. It shouldn't be a big ask for people to actually read the rationale behind a proposed page move before expressing opinions on it... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 18:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• What exactly seems wrong to you? Isn't this the title suggested for the move? I am ok with December in the title. Mikus (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• This person just read the proposal at the top of this thread. Obviously. I didn't express any opinion, I asked a question. The "couple of other derailments in Washington state" don't have Wiki articles? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - as the question of article title has been raised again, what was wrong with the original DuPont train derailment for a title? Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also add "2017" to the start of the title. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. We don't need to cater to "train enthusiasts". The title is concise and consistent with similar articles (although the word "train" is arguably unnecessary). James (^talk/_contribs) 19:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• To me, "Washington" is not clear enough. Is it a state, a city, a monument, a name of a business, a living person? If you want to keep "Washington" then make it "state of Washington" or something. Mikus (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think there was a style decision somewhere to use parenthesis as in Washington (state) everywhere. Which is ugly, but it is what it is. Some articles seem to have avoided it, such as List of mountain peaks of Washington so I might be wrong or there may be exceptions or whatever ☆ Bri (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say "train" is necessary. What do you think of when you see 2017 Washington derailment? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• alternate suggestion While the proposed title is an improvement, in looking at similar disasters like the List of airplane crashes, most of them include a flight number. 2017 Amtrak 501 derailment is a bit more concise. Years hence when people are searching for this, they may be more likely to remember the year rather than having to lead with the month and year. Kusskedp (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)kusskedp

I note that Category:Railway accidents in Washington (state) isn't exactly overflowing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The point is that someone searching for the event may not know or care for the state, but may know the route number. Makes sense to me. Mikus (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I'm wholly unconvinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, someone searching for the event may not know or care for the route number, but may know the state. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The number of readers who know the state massively outnumber those who know the route number. Jim Michael (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How many realise it's the state and not the (capital) city? Akld guy (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The large majority, because Washington, D.C. isn't often referred to simply as Washington. Jim Michael (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-US readers, of which I am one, don't realise that. In fact I would expect to see Washington for the city and Washington State for this incident. Akld guy (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you often hear or read Washington, D.C. referred to merely as Washington? I only hear/read it referred to as Washington, D.C. or merely as D.C. When the in the form of Seattle, Washington or Spokane, Washington then it's very clear that it's Washington state. Including DuPont, Washington in the title would remove any ambiguity. Jim Michael (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This New Yorker who travels to both Washingtons somewhat often hears it all the time. I'd even say that Washington State is more ubiquitous than Washington DC.MrLincoln (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Good points all. Reminds me of trying to name a child or the software programs I write. Fraught with tradeoffs and in the end maybe no right answer. May I suggest that the keystrokes invested in this are better spent improving the articles.Kusskedp (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)kusskedp

• Support The title perfectly sums up the subject of the article. I do not see any reason why we are splitting hairs over this.TH1980 (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean to vote "oppose"? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your talk about hair-splitting makes it sound like you don't want the name changed.) TypoBoy (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion for article to be moved to "2017 DuPont train derailment" instead, similar to what Mjroots has mentioned above. "DuPont" is much less ambiguous than "Washington", and will make for a more concise title. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the vast majority of people haven't heard of DuPont, but have heard of Washington. Jim Michael (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: - I expect the vast majority of people haven't heard of Meerbusch, Morlanwelz, Piéton, or Strépy-Bracquegnies either. It doesn't really matter. Another problem with "Washington" is that it is not immediately obvious whether it's the city or state that is meant. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Washington" is rather ambiguous, though, and while most Americans would generally understand for that name to refer to the US state, most people from other countries would assume that "Washington" refers to the US capital instead. "DuPont" is not only less ambiguous, but is also more concise on the exact location of the crash, as the state of Washington is a fairly large place. From what I know, articles about disasters are generally titled after the exact location where the event happened. A quick look at List of rail accidents (2010–present) shows that article titles mostly are named after the exact location of the disaster, or the city/town the disaster happened nearest to, and not the general area of where it happened. (Typed this before Mjroots posted their comment, but I agree with their examples too) Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 06:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Some more examples, plucked randomly from the list mentioned in my previous comment: 2011 Alawwa rail accident, Alfarelos train crash, Granges-près-Marnand train crash, Casselton train derailment, Medak district bus-train collision, Dien Sanh train crash, Hermalle-sous-Huy train collision, 2016 Hoboken train crash, Hitrino train derailment, 2017 Leuven derailment, 2017 Adendro train derailment, Joo Koon rail accident, and Perpignan crash. I doubt most people will recognise any of these places. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 07:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support as a more specific title; we can leave a bazillion redirects around to point to the more specific and accurate name, which the proposal seems to be. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The naming guideline for this type of event is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Bridge and train. Bridge collapses and train wrecks should be named according to the "where and what" convention. The default name should contain the term "train wreck", unless a more specific description such as "derailment" or "collision" is supported by the facts alone without interpretation. "Train collision" includes incidents where a train collided with another vehicle, such as a bus. If an event is commonly known by another name historically, such as a "Great Train Wreck," in reliable sources, use that name. Based on a quick browsing of article names in Template:2017 railway accidents (looking at what displays when the cursor is placed over the link & assuming the link is to the page name, not a redirect) and that template for preceding years (2016, 2015, and 2014), it looks like the vast majority of articles use the municipality and not a larger political subdivision and about half of articles (especially in the US) include the year (I didn't check these articles to see if the year is necessary because of a conflict with another article title). I didn't check any talk pages to look for past naming discussions.

2015 Thalys train attack is the only article that uses the train service in the title other than for metros/subways, but that's presumably because it was a high-speed train, an incident in the passenger compartment, and the train probably passed through a couple municipalities before coming to a stop. Several incidents on metros use the metro name for some reason: 2014 Moscow Metro derailment, Busan Subway fire, and 2014 Seoul subway crash. O'Hare station train crash and Denver train crash (Denver station in Johannesburg, South Africa) use the station name. 2016 Union Pacific oil train fire uses the railroad company's name. 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident uses the name of a rail junction. 2016 Chester, Pennsylvania, train derailment includes the town and US state, but should probably be changed to just "2016 Chester train derailment".

The only articles using a regional/country name (that I recognize, I didn't click to view every article in the templates) are 2015 Tennessee train derailment, 2014 Ukraine train bus collision, Medak district bus-train collision, 2014 Katanga train derailment (occurred in D.R. Congo, which is mostly jungle, so it probably wasn't near a town), 2015 Phachi collision (article doesn't state what town it was near), Semnan–Damghan train collision (name includes relatively close towns at ends of the rail line). As you can see, the article names for rail incidents is not uniform, but I believe that they should be standardized as much as reasonably possible. For this article, I think "DuPont train derailment" is preferrable because it adheres to a standardized article title. The year shouldn't be included, but since many US rail incidents include the year in the title, I wouldn't object to "2017 DuPont train derailment" as a second choice. [Note: I'm busy and may not reply to comments to this post for a few days.] AHeneen (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: In the UK we don't have "train wrecks" we have "train crashes". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with most of the points raised above by those opposing (and so won't repeat them); find the reasons advanced to date for not adhering to Wikipedia naming conventions unconvincing; and personally feel that the alternatives suggested are confusing. (Ie as a non-US resident I know where Washington is, do not confuse it with Washington DC, and prior to reading this talk thread had never heard of the Amtrak Cascades service nor most of the places suggested for inclusion in a new title. Including "December" would indicate to me as a reader that there had been more than one derailment in the area in 2017.) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Don’t really care, but, as an educated Aussie I wholeheartedly support the above sentiment. Downsize43 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support alternative I agree with AHeneen that we should stick with Wikipedia's established naming policy, but with the addition of the year – "2017 DuPont train derailment". It's concise, specific, and consistent with the vast majority of other similar article titles. Ian Page (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The 2016 Chester, Pennsylvania, train derailment should not have Pennsylvania removed from it, because it would be misleading due to the fact that Chester most often refers to the English city. Denver train crash now has the much more appropriate title Johannesburg train crash. If this article is to have DuPont in its title, it also needs Washington - because the city of fewer than 10,000 inhabitants in Washington isn't the most common use of DuPont, nor is it the only settlement called DuPont. The title would be DuPont, Washington train derailment - there would be no need for the year. Jim Michael (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In general, rail disaster articles do not mention the state/region/province of the town or municipality where the disaster took place in or near to. Feel free to take a quick look at List of rail accidents (2010–present) (or any lists that deals with before 2010), and you'll find that most of the articles there simply name the town/municipality, without mentioning the state/region/province. For example, the Dien Sanh train crash is not called the Dien Sanh, Quảng Trị train crash. Similarly, the Hitrino train derailment is not called the Hitrino, Shumen Province train derailment, and neither is the 2016 Hoboken train crash known as the 2016 Hoboken, New Jersey train crash. I would say that the two examples that you've listed are exceptions, which should also be properly renamed to remove the state name. As for the issue of DuPont being ambiguous, while there are other cities and towns in the United States with similar names, none of them have the exact same spelling as "DuPont"; they're either "Du Pont", "Dupont", or "DuPont [something]". Unless there are other DuPonts in the United States that also have had rail disasters happen in or near them, disambiguating "DuPont" by adding the state name is unnecessary. Besides, "Washington" itself (edit: I'm talking about "Washington" when used alone, like in the current title) is not ambiguous, either. Are you referring to the state, the US capital, or the numerous other towns and cities around the world with the exact same name? Maybe for Americans, it's clear that it's the state that's being referred to, but for most people in other countries, "Washington" refers to your capital. Either way, it's obvious that there will be some amount of ambiguation, and a confusing title is something we generally want to try to avoid. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 06:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

When in the form of DuPont, Washington, it's clear that the latter is the state. The problem with omitting the state is that the vast majority of people won't look for it under that title. DuPont is a very small city that few people outside Washington have heard of. Jim Michael (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding my argument clearly, let me elaborate. "Washington", when used alone (like with the current title, right now), is ambiguous, since it can refer to a great many things, as I've said above. "DuPont" does not need "Washington" behind it for disambiguation, since only one place in the world (this town near the crash) uses the exact spelling "DuPont", while other similarly named places are spelt as either "Du Pont", "Dupont", or "DuPont [something]", as I've also said above. The article title shouldn't have "Washington" behind "DuPont", either, because that's not convention, as I've once again said above. 2011 Alawwa rail accident, Alfarelos train crash, Granges-près-Marnand train crash, Casselton train derailment, Medak district bus-train collision, Dien Sanh train crash, Hermalle-sous-Huy train collision, 2016 Hoboken train crash, Hitrino train derailment, 2017 Leuven derailment, 2017 Adendro train derailment, Joo Koon rail accident, and Perpignan crash, all do not include the state/region/province name in the article title, despite all of these towns and locations being almost certainly unknown to most Wikipedia readers, probably unless you happen to actually live there. And these are just a few examples I randomly picked out from a very extensive list. Please read my comments above first, because I have already addressed all of your points. Also, I have never said anything about "DuPont, Washington" being ambiguous, and the not-widespread knowledge of the existence of a town called "DuPont" is an irrelevant issue too, because nobody has ever raised any concerns about the hundreds of other rail disaster articles that have titles mentioning not-well-known town names, which you're free to browse yourself. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 18:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support any kind of train could of derailed it's better to show what kind of train derailed 2602:304:28AB:9EE0:B404:E174:35E:75AD (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that the type of train is so important that it should be in the title? That isn't well-known, so few readers would type that into the search box. We don't usually include the type of train, the name of the train line etc. in titles of train crash articles. Jim Michael (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm hovering over my answer to that claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support alternative to 2017 DuPont, Washington train derailment, per naming policies Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Bridge and train. --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"Washington" shouldn't really be in the article title, as I've explained just two threads above. "2017 DuPont train derailment" is the best possible title that sticks with regular naming convention for rail disasters, in my opinion, also explained above. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 16:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The initial proposal is far too specific; I don't need December, I don't need 2017, I don't need Amtrak, and Cascades doesn't follow the rule (Cascades is a big region: "major mountain range" going from British Colombia to Northern California; using the line name is unusual). The !vote alternatives are varied enough that a new, specific, naming request should be made. I'm troubled that DuPont is a small town and may not be the best moniker, but it is more specific than Washington. DuPont, Nisqually, Mounts Road, Eagle's Pride, or Point Defiance Bypass train derailment could be used. I think the conductor used Nisqually in the radio call, so I'd lean toward Nisqually train derailment. And redirects are cheap. The year need not be included if the location is specific enough (i.e., not Washington). Glrx (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if DuPont is included (regardless of whether or not Washington is), then we don't need the month or year. Jim Michael (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"Cascades" refers to the name of the route, not the region. "Amtrak Cascades" is basically the equivalent of giving the airline name and flight number, which is standard for plane crashes. --Surachit (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorta (an airline flight number is not a route, as multiple flights generally fly the same route), but it's probably as close to equivalent as we could get. The train number is a closer analogue to the aircraft registration number than to the flight number.
But it's a good point that the community and Wikipedia readers have long been happy with the British Airways Flight 2276 convention for airline crashes—despite the fact that all of the same issues could be raised there—and a ton of editor time has been saved by that convention. Somehow, editors aren't shocked by the omission of all time, location, and incident-type information from the titles of aircraft incident articles, and, somehow, there is no reader protest movement about the difficulty of finding them. This is why I generally abstain from these RMs; they are largely molehill->mountain exercises. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well... I'd say, not exactly. "Amtrak Cascades" is the equivalent of giving the air route for aviation, so for example, "Singapore-Jakarta" or "Tokyo-Sapporo". It's a bit hard to find an exact equivalent, since the Cascades route is only operated by Amtrak, while air routes are almost always operated by multiple airlines. But anyway, the reason using the flight number for aviation disasters is standard procedure, is because a single flight number is only used by one aircraft at any given time. So for example, Emirates Flight 521 was a flight from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai. An Emirates aircraft flying that exact route, in that exact direction, at roughly the same time in a day, uses that same flight number. So if you have 7 flights in a week, once per day at 15:00, going from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai, all those flights use the same flight number, even if different aircraft are used. If you have more than one flight per day, flying the same air route in the same direction, you assign another flight number for them. It's all a little complicated, but basically boils down to that a flight number is only ever used by a single aircraft at any one point of time. So even if different aircrafts are used on different days for the same flight number, in the event of a crash, the flight number will only ever refer to one single aircraft. As airlines usually decommission flight numbers after severe crashes, there's no worry about having another aircraft with the same flight number also experience a crash sometime in the future.

Using a flight number like "EK 521" is completely uninformative and has all of the same issues here about readers not having context or information about the article. But the point of the article's title isn't to make the reader find the article easily, it's to disambiguate the article from other articles. Since we don't have train numbers for rail movements, the next best thing is to just use a short, concise title which is very unambiguous and specific. Here, we need "DuPont" to disambiguate this train crash from any other train crashes that happened or might happen in the future in the US state of Washington. That's why almost all rail disaster articles are titled with the obscure name of the small town the accident happened near, and not either the nearest large city, or the state/region/province the disaster happened in (unless the province happens to be really small, then that's fine). I agree that the year isn't completely necessary, but most rail disaster articles do tend to have the year in their title, because the year allows disambiguation between this particular crash and any other train crashes that happened or might happen in the future in this place. This is less important, but the year also gives more information and is more specific; having the year narrows down the number of rail disasters that the title might be referring to, and from looking at "2017 DuPont", you can know that "oh, was it that recent crash in Washington state?", instead of "DuPont", which you might not really understand and for all you know could refer to a 1800s crash in France. So either "DuPont train derailment" or "2017 DuPont trail derailment" are fine with me, though I would prefer the latter, since it's more specific. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 08:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

As Mandruss pointed out, using a flight number like "EK 521" is completely uninformative and has all of the same issues here about readers not having context or information about the article. Hey, make whatever argument you like, but it's misleading to say I "pointed [that] out". To the contrary, what I said was very different from that. Maybe you meant something other than "pointed out". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I apologise for that. I think I didn't quite understand your argument properly, that was my mistake. Fixed it now, thanks for letting me know. Cheers. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 13:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title needs to incorporate an accurate location of the incident. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. "Washington" is ambiguous as a U.S. location. Washington State is a very large area with many notable railroad routes. A more acceptable title is something along the lines of 2017 DuPont Washington Amtrak Derailment. Group29 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move to 2017 DuPont, Washington Amtrak derailment – the current title is not acceptable and is not WP:PRECISE. Washington is far too ambiguous, and could refer to the U.S. state of Washington, or the U.S. capital of Washington, D.C., and since this is an international Wikipedia, most readers could easily be confused and think it is the U.S. capital that this is referring to. CookieMonster755✉ 17:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I support this title as well, and I freely concede "2017 DuPont, Washington Amtrak Derailment" is more precise than the current title and the proposed one.TH1980 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Procedurally, this would require a new WP:RM, as editors have commented and !voted on only the initial proposal? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That violates MOS:COMMA and WP:USPLACE. It needs a comma after "Washington". I'm surprised no one has pointed that out already. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Not specifically this title, although it would undeniably be an improvement. Washington is undeniably a large area, and an ambiguous area. This is also not the only significant Amtrak Cascades wreck which occurred in this state in this year, so either month or exact location is an absolute necessity for disambiguation. It is confusing enough that in the first day after the wreck, many news sources were showing photos of the wrong wreck!MrLincoln (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. For those who wouldn't be familiar with the event initially, I think the current title is sufficient. From a generalization standpoint, I would assume 2017 Washington Train Derailment would be something someone would search vs. December 2017 Amtrak Cascades derailment. Plus, it's already part of the Amtrak Cascades article, so mentioning the make in the title again (to refer to this article) would seem redundant. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirects appear as results when using the search box on Wikipedia, so if someone starts typing "2017 Washington...", then 2017 Washington Train Derailment would appear. AHeneen (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not exactly correct. Please see further detail at Wikipedia talk:Names of articles on recent events#Redirects and the search box behavior. Redirects are not listed in the search box results unless redirects are the only thing that matches the typed characters. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Washington is ambiguous so any of the options raised would be an improvement. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Washington needs to be in the title, but is ambiguous for international readers such as myself. I support Move to 2017 DuPont, Washington Amtrak derailment or 2017 DuPont, Washington derailment. Note the uncapitalized "d" in derailment. The DuPont would spell out to intn'l readers that it's Washington State. Akld guy (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - As far as I can recall it was reported as Washington train derailment not Cascades train derailment ...., Also as noted above unless there's another derailment planned in the next year then we don't need 2017 in the title, personally I think the title is absolutely fine, It may not be PRECISE as such but for us NON-AMERICANS it's sufficient. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support There was another derailment of an Amtrak Cascades train in Washington in July, so the title needs to be more specific. That said, I feel the suggested title is a bit wordy, and should include the train number (501). --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @RickyCourtney:, if there is no article for the "derailment of an Amtrak Cascades train in Washington in July", then having the title the way it is will probably not be an issue. If it is an issue, then we can add "December" to the title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - @Jax 0677: there’s no article yet. That doesn’t mean one might not be created in the future. Might as well switch to a non-ambiguous title for this article now. --RickyCourtney (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support a change. We don't usually use bare state names in this sort of title and "Washington" is easily mistaken for meaning the city. I have no preference as to which change. --76.69.117.217 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE

WP:COMMONNAME

WP:COMMONNAME

WP:COMMONNAME

Or if you want, WP:CRITERIA The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.

In international (BBC, independant) and most media washington or washington state is used, not cascades (I've heard of the incident but literally never heard of amtrak cascades, and would not know what such an article would refer to; i knew what the current title was referring to, however). If washington is confusing, then it should be 2017 Washington state train derailment. Otherwise, there's no need to use a such an obscure, utterly unrecognizable (to me, atleast) name. This is not for train enthusiasts (like that quote from WP:CRITERIA says). If someone gets washington and washington d.c confused, what makes you think they've heard of "amtrak cascades"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose; "Washington" is a much more common name and train accidents (or accidents in general) are usually referred to by their location, and not whatever train line or company (or whatever "Amtrak Cascades" is). A move would make it significantly more confusing for a person uneducated about trains, such as myself. PCN02WPS 06:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Relist break

• Oppose. Far too specific. We're bad at following the relevant naming guidelines for accidents, but a perusal of Category:Accidents and incidents involving Amtrak shows that the train name and/or number are never used. The following conventions are in use: Year State Incident; Year Place Incident; Year Place, State Incident. It's difficult. 1987 Maryland train collision is a poor name for that article; it's almost universally known as "Chase." Per Mjroots, I would support 2017 DuPont train derailment. Whether people have heard of DuPont isn't the point; that's where the accident took place. Mackensen (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd oppose dupont train derailment. The name needs to be recognizable - per WP:COMMONNAME and so the reader doesn't have to check to make sure they're at the right place. "dupont, washington" would be fine - washington needs to be there somewhere. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've no objection to "DuPont, Washington" if that makes the location clearer. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose current rename but support a different rename to December 2017 Washington train derailment per MOS. Above oppose votes are just as convincing. Nightfury 08:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - including "DuPont" as an indicator will be helpful and make it clearer. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cause

Given the engineer's statement, can we state the cause as "Excessive speed on curve due to loss of situational awareness"? Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's best to leave out any determination of cause until an official statement is given by the NTSB. Closetsingle (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Third victim: Benjamin Gran

I added a reference to this person. His case became well-publicized by the news media. http://komonews.com/news/local/mom-says-son-killed-in-amtrak-crash-had-turned-his-life-completely-around 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:A983:F192:A06B:1725 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Not PTC? Not ATC?

The article in the Derailment section, states that PTC was not installed on that route. But it does not refer to ATC, whether it was installed or not, or whether it was active or not. When we see events involving (American) train incidents, we often see reference to the fact that PTC (the newer system) was not installed. But, my understanding is that in most cases, ATC (the older system) would also have prevented the problem, had it been operational. These weren't new tracks, it was merely a new route for a specific Amtrak line. Presumably some sort of automatic system was already installed? 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)