Jump to content

Talk:Loop (Amtrak train)

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

Recent move

[edit]

Under TWP naming conventions there are three places this article can be:

There was a move request at WP:RM for which there was no notification here to move this article to Loop (Amtrak). That's an improper location for a train article. Train articles disambiguate first by "train" (indicating subject) and then by "company train" if further clarification is needed. See Fast Mail for an example. The Loop (CTA), which is about rail infrastructure and not a train, may be a different matter. Union Loop might be a better location for that article. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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: move to Loop (Amtrak train). -- tariqabjotu 04:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • If we're going to move it, then it's moving to (Amtrak train). You've articulated pretty well why we ought not move it at all. I still wonder whether anyone's confused, and whether they're going to be less confused if this article is at Amtrak train or Amtrak as opposed to train. This pretty obviously isn't The Loop. Ah well. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bureaucratic way of looking at things. For a person who is not a Wikipedia train article editor, "train" just means it's an article related to trains (how most disambiguators work on Wikipedia, and the world at large). It's like how Mr.XYZ (Australian football) is not a football, but is a footballer who plays Australian football. Similarly, there are many topics for loops concerning trains. The disambiguator is ambiguous because of this. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's an accurate way of looking at things. We wouldn't disambiguate a car (road) or a road (car), would we? Train is a specific concept encompassed within railroad. Australian football is a drilldown of "athlete", presumably because there are at least two Persons X who play sports. This form is possibly encouraged because some sports don't have a good short-hand noun. See Roy Williams for a good example (cricketer, wide receiver, but Canadian basketball in preference to Canadian basketball player). I'm unfamiliar with train being used as a generic disambiguator and such usage would be incorrect. The examples provided at WP:NCDAB encourage precision wherever possible. I think our readers, particularly our readers from Chicago, are likely to know the difference between a train and the line in travels on, just as they understand the difference between a car and the road it drives on. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that "Loop" isn't a train, it's a scheduled train service. Whereas the other Loop is a train track, and the generic Loop is a train track configuration It's not a specific locomotive and set of rail cars. (same as an airline "flight", which isn't an "airplane") This Amtrak service isn't the primary topic of Loop in consideration of trains, so would, like Bridge in consideration of trains, be some other topic. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loop (Amtrak train) and Loop (CTA train) sound good. People in Asia may have any idea what "Amtrak" is. People in the US outside of Chicago who have heard the the Loop but may not realized what CTA is. The "Company train" convention really helps readers who are not familiar with company names to identify the articles. Z22 (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the pesky MoS does not consider using disambiguation to make it clear what the title is about. As long as it is short and precise, you are good to go. I do disagree with that for the points you are making and Amtrak train could be a good choice. After all everyone know what Rheinsteig is, tight? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Brilliant

[edit]

After three moves within a day, the redirect is now pointing to a dismabiguation page. Really brilliant! The Banner talk 09:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]