Jump to content

Talk:Empire Builder

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

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. It is generally held that we do not use disambiguation to distinguish between an article and a redlink, so the existence or notability of the ship is not an issue for these purposes. The major issue, then, is whether the train is significantly more prominent than the game, and for this the current disambiguation page/hatnote setup appears to be sufficient. Dekimasuよ! 02:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Empire BuilderEmpire Builder (Amtrak)—Empire Builder should be a disambiguation page - the train, a board game, a ship and a person can all be meant by Empire Builder or Empire builder.—Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Comment Just because the ship article hasn't been created yet doesn't mean that it won't get created in the future. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it might get created in the future has no bearing on which existing Wikipedia article is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm happy with the creation of the disambiguation page and the hatnote on the article about the train. Seems a reasonable way to tackle the problem as it looks like the primary use is for the train. Mjroots (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ship is notable enough to have its own article. That is why a redlink has been made on the List of Empire ships with a suffix beginning with "B". Notability of cargo ships with no significant events during their existence has been established at this AfD debate. Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

All Wikiprojects associated with this article informed of the requested move. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may well be that the part of the disparity in the search results is the simple fact that folks who search for "Empire Builder" automatically go the article on the train, even if they really want the game, or something else. (In other words, there are false positives in the search results.) Now likely the train is looked for more than the game, but the original meaning of "Empire Builder" is not the train, but the person for whom it was named. A dab page would accomodate everyone equally. Kablammo (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kablammo on this, I am dealing with the same on Khabarovsk, where before I created the dab page there was no easy way, and the page hits are probably out of whack becaue of this speednat (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An easy way to tell if people are getting to the wrong Empire Builder page is if they then click on something else. Almost no one does. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this is off subject, but how do you see where someone goes after a specific page. This could be useful in another discussion I am having, see Talk:Khabarovsk speednat (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case I do not know where they go, but I do know where they do not go. For example, if you had an article named Foo, and you saw it got 100 hits a day, and it had a link to Foo (disambiguation), which got 10 hits a day you would know that they were not clicking on that. If Foo got 100 hits and Foo (dis) got 99 hits, you would reasonably assume that 99% of them were finding themselves in the wrong place and were clicking Foo (dis) to try to get to the right place. Just add up all the clicks for all the tophat links and see if they total the article hits. If they don't come close, you are ok. If they do, you probably have the primary topic in the wrong place. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Stop/Station

[edit]

Reciently, the Empire Builder began scheduled stops at Leavenworth, Washington. This change needs to be reflected somewhere in the article and in the map.

[1] [2]

Saint Paul Union Depot

[edit]

The article states: "In Minnesota, the Builder is expected to return to Saint Paul Union Depot in November 2013, 41 years after it last served the station the day before the formation of Amtrak." The line is grammatically awkward. Also, Amtrak was formed on May 1, 1971. Did the Empire Builder stop serving Saint Paul Union Depot the year Amtrak began? Plus, it should be 42 years, not 41. Finally, the reference provided at the end of the statement doesn't support the statement. I don't have enough expertise in this subject to fix this. Thanks. Richard Apple (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steam loc's

[edit]

The Historical equipment used section lacks any info on locomotives used during the steam era. Sca (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment(Idaho)

[edit]

I kept the WP:Idaho banner on here, but it doesn't actually stop in Idaho...yet. There has been talk about it for several years. - Mjquinn_id (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]