Talk:Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway

Railroad or Railway?

Sources appear to support Railway for the actual name of the company:

• Law establishing the company
• Newspaper article on Rock Island reorganization
• Kansas Historical Society
• ICC report
• Railroad Commission of Texas, Transportation Division docket

I did see newspaper articles using "Railroad" but I haven't seen any formal documentation confirming that usage. Mackensen (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Predecessors of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad

Category:Predecessors of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, as described on its description page, encompasses "railroad companies that became part of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad system, usually through consolidation". This includes both companies which merged to become the CRIP, and companies merged into it (or consolidated) before its final bankruptcy and liquidation. This is the common naming scheme for North American railroads; see Category:Predecessors of North American railroads for more examples. I appreciate that "predecessors" may not be the most intuitive name. Doncram (talk · contribs), if you'd like to suggest a better one, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains is probably the best place to start in lieu of a US-specific project. Mackensen (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate, sort of, your opening discussion here and pinging me, as if you want to discuss things reasonably. This is inconsistent with your opening a wp:ANI proceeding on 29 October, in which you criticize me for not discussing this matter at a Talk page. Well, you didn't discuss it at a Talk page either. At the ANI proceeding I apologize for having termed the categorization "wrong" and "stupid". However, it would be wrong and, well, silly or bad or something, to categorize this railway as a "predecessor".

You have supported your view by pointing out practice that usually is sensible for categorizing railways, and which probably extends to other industries like bridge companies that once had numerous notable separate firms and which were consolidated by the robber barons or whomever. Suppose there were bridge companies A, B, C, D founded in 1905, 1910, 1915, 1920, and all consolidated into "C" in 1940. It seems okay to consider A, B, D all as "predecessors", because they existed as independent entities, even though A and B were founded earlier than C. That's where the practice is reasonable.

However, that practice does not extend to the situation here, where the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, founded in 1866, is clearly (at least from what is available in Texas handbook online) the parent of the subsidiary it formed in 1902. And which would appear to be 100%-owned by the parent. The simple resolution is to modify the description at the category page to clarify, and perhaps to explicitly note this particular example, if there is some other definition supported. At the category page there is description "This category contains railroad companies that became part of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad system, usually through consolidation." Right, it would not be intuitive, and it would not be proper use of the English language, to assert that the child is the predecessor of its parent. It did not ever exist as an independent entity having no association with its parent. The fact that much later, after both entities declined and were in or near bankruptcy, they were technically merged to the parent name, does not change anything about the origin.

Another alternative is to create a category for subsidiaries formed by the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad. But if this would be the only member, it seems better to just leave this article in the general Category:Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad. It has as much or better right to be in the general category as anything else there. I considered that previously and browsed in the category, and noticed something that didn't much belong in my view, and removed the category, then that too was brought up in the ANI proceeding targeted against me, great. --Doncram (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

--Doncram (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)