Talk:Loop (Amtrak train)

Recent move

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

• Loop (disambiguation page has precedence)
• Loop (train) (where it is now)
• Loop (Amtrak train) (unnecessary disambiguation)

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)

Move?

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)

---

• There seems to be a move and move-request war developed here. Best get this properly discussed :: see next section above. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, let's please discuss this before randomly moving articles all over the place. Don't move anything until the discussion at Talk:Chicago Loop#Requested move: Move to The Loop is resolved. That should provide some clarity on where these articles will all live. Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That provides no clarity to the issue of this page, since this page will be ambiguous at this title regardless of what happens at that page. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This should have been a WP:BRD revert to Loop (Amtrak) prior to opening this discussion, since that is exactly what BRD means, the "R" is revert, followed by "D" for discussion. This has not been restored to its previous position, where it should be, prior to opening the move discussion. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  No, it shouldn't have. The original title was wrong (or became wrong because of evolving standards, take your pick). BRD cannot possibly apply to a move from over a year ago; yours (or Anthony's, but you asked for it) was the bold action, which I reverted. Now we're discussing, which is what should have happened in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Move to Loop (Amtrak train). as "Loop (train)" is highly ambiguous, considering the Loop inside Chicago's downtown. "Loop (train)" should either become a disambiguation page or redirect to one. Alternately, it should redirect to the CTA Loop article, since clearly, that article is the primary train topic. Not forgetting we have an article Loop line (railway) -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Article title is not ambiguous. Of the other articles mentioned, this is the only one named Loop, without a definite article. The Loop (disambiguation) doesn't link here. Loop didn't until I added it just now. Who's getting here who meant go somewhere else? Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Move to Loop (Amtrak) to distinguish more clearly from Loop (CTA). Point [Loop (train)]] to the general disambiguation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  Hi Tony, TWP's convention (as I noted above) has been to use (company train) as the disambiguator when (train) isn't enough, which would also be useful since a train service isn't the same thing as physical infrastructure. See e.g.Category:Former Amtrak routes. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Train is sort of unambiguous as there is no other train. The confusion is the CTA train route. The point of Amtrak train confusion is that readers will be confused by train thinking of CTA. I guess, I would prefer Amtrak train, but it is technically not necessary because there is no other train. (train) is technically unambiguous, but still confusing. I would support any inclusion of Amtrak in the name. If you have to also add train to Amtrak, I can tolerate that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• We use "(ship)" on parts of boats, and the loop line topic is of similar degree, being a loop pertaining trains, a loop for a train would be a loop line. Bridge (ship) is about the ship part, not the various ships named Bridge. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's not a great example, as there are more specific disambiguators available for ships. See USS Bridge for two examples. We do in fact use (ship) as a disambiguator for ships, see Category:Container ships. In the case of Bridge, obviously the "bridge" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in such cases, although the article is in fact located at Bridge (nautical), which seems more appropriate since it's a term of art and not a ship, much as this Loop is a train and not a concept. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Many people live away from Chicago, or outside the USA. Many trains run on loops in many parts of the world. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support Loop (Amtrak train). The current doesn't sound like a particular train. Many trains do loops. Trains contain loops. Short common words as names require more disambiguation because readers can easily mistake the word for one of its meanings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Current title is clearly ambiguous pbp 03:13, 3 October 2013 (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.

Brilliant

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)