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[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[reply]


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.
  • Support per my nom. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As the train predated Amtrak, I suggest (and support) "Empire Builder (train)". Kablammo (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Kablammo, I suggest (and support) "Empire Builder (train)" given the pre-Amtrak history. BenFranske (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree with Kablammo, "Empire Builder (train)" would be more accurate.. and I support that over the existing "Empire Builder", which is not as clear. tedder (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear primary usage. The train gets almost nine times as many page views as the board game, and the ship article has not even been created. The train was named after James J. Hill, but that does not conflict. (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[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[reply]
  • Support move to Empire Builder (train). Abtract (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, Unless it is an overwhelming case of primary usage, I would agree that that the simple page, in this cae, Empire Builder always be a disambiguation page. speednat (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support move, but I have no opinion as to the qualifier ("Amtrak" or "train"). Note also that in a potential dab page it might be mentioned that the Oregon state song, "Oregon, My Oregon", makes reference to "Land of the Empire Builders". Katr67 (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Only this article or the board game could be titled Empire Builder. Based on page views over several months and incomimg links, this article is overwhelmingly the primary topic (not to mention the game came after the train). If this article is moved, someone will have to update over 200 links for no good reason, or they will all point to a dab page. Having said that, a page called Empire Builder (disambiguation) would be a good idea for the other three uses, so I'll create that; it can be deleted if this page is moved. Station1 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

  • Support rename, but would prefer Empire Builder (passenger train) for the same reason Kablammo suggests Empire Builder (train). ----DanTD (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, current base name article appears to be the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose - think about this. Ship article has not been created. Board game was named after the train. And who searches "empire builder" when looking for James J. Hill? The primary topic is the passenger train. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OpposeI'm not sure. The ship isn't very important suck down there on a list. The nickname is just that, a nickname and I think you'd need to show it's important enough to overthrow the most common usage... and the board game... if its name was chosen from the name of the train anyways then it doesn't need to be equal to it. I think the order is Hill's nickname was used to name the railroad was used to name the board game... and the ship is unrelated. I think Empire Builder (disambiguation) suffices as we have it now. Anyone going to Empire Builder will see the disambiguation page and also the reference to Hill in the article. Maybe a reference to how it was named belongs in the intro as well. But I have a hard time believing that the railroad isn't by far and away the most thought of for the words. gren グレン 23:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I think it has overwhelming primary usage. The ship isn't notable enough to have its own article. The board game is using the name of the Amtrak service. It's only the nickname of Hill so even if he is more important it's only his nickname even if he gave his name to the service. Also, I think that it shouldn't be move to Empire Builder (train) because it's not a train... maybe Empire Builder (train service) or Empire Builder (train route). gren グレン 08:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]


Any additional comments:

All Wikiprojects associated with this article informed of the requested move. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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. (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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[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. (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]


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[reply]