Talk:Carl Sandburg (train)

Merge?

Should this be merged with Illinois Zephyr? They are essentially the same route. --Elliskev 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not in favor - that suggests a commuter service. This is an Amtrak service with additional state funding. 2 different schedules and train numbers. Beatgr 16:55 (UTC)

Aren't they both Amtrak services with additional state funding? They both serve exactly the same stations... --Elliskev 19:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I could argue that all seperate entires for train service to Michigan (they have the same stations, right? - who care about the schedules). If you look carefully at the List of Amtrak routes you could make that same arguement for almost every train listed in Northeast (Washington DC to Boston) and California corridors. Are you aware that these entries are subset references of larger Wikipedia entries? List of Amtrak routes and Illinois Service?

I think you need to decide whether you desire to join the formal Wikipedia:Trains WikiProject to assist with required work in a systematic fashion. Thank you for your opinion. Beatgr 20:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the three routes that serve Michigan are grouped in one article, Michigan Services. The individual route names are redirects.

I hope that my suggestion doesn't come across as a slight on the wikiproject. I thought the discussion itself, rather than a bold and unilateral merge, would be an adequate show of respect for the project. Would it really change anything if I had added my name to the list? --Elliskev 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also an Illinois Service entry like the Michigan Service entry you noted. Unfortunately, your quick suggestion for merger came about the same time as a former Wiki vandal - now reformed User:Tractorkingsfan-- made an identical request. User:Slambo has brought him "up to speed" int he work being performed -- he has since retracted this request. Had you performed a unilateral merge -- without discussion - I would petition Wiki to ideifiy you as a vandal. If you read my personal page -- this is the type of activity -- tons of critics or opinions -- little work -- that wastes the time of volunteers. I would like to see more discussion and collaboration and less out right editing of existing works. Too many areas that require new entries and work -- which is why I suggested the project to you -- put your energy to the Wiki community benefit. Beatgr 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reset indent. I'm sorry you feel that my suggestion was quick. Be assured that I have no intention of vandalizing anything.

However, my suggestion remains. Amtrak refers to the Illinois Service as a route. The six named trains that make up that route are simply components. Really, I think all six should be merged into the Illinois Service article. --Elliskev 21:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Besides, these are mostly stub articles anyway. Why not make them one really good article and then split them if it gets too large? Geoking66 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Modified merge suggestion

I have change my suggestion from merge with Illinois Zephyr to merge into Illinois Service. My reasoning for this suggestion is in stated in my comments above. --Elliskev 14:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see good points on both sides of the merge suggestion. The Michigan Services is one example of a summary article covering several closely related topics in rail transport; EMD SD70 series is another. A summary of the services in Illinois Service can be done well. Similar arguments can be made for Santa Fe's Chief series of trains (including the Chief, Super Chief, San Francisco Chief and even Amtrak's Southwest Chief). However, I've thought for some time that passenger services that are officially named by their operators should provide enough inherent notability for their inclusion as separate articles. I think what I'd rather see is improvements to all the articles to bring them up to at least GA level, which can be done if we can add enough well-referenced material that is unique to each article. So I guess at this point, I'm against merging, but I'd like to see significant improvements to the constituent articles. Slambo (Speak) 14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that merging all the articles is appropriate now that the service has expanded from three lines to six. The lines have enough in common (state and local funding, similar routes) to warrant inclusion in one article. Back when it was just three lines it seemed to make sense for separate articles. Now, there are just too many routes. Organizationally a merge just makes sense. Fishal 15:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is odd that the Michigan Services recent contributor Elliskev is pushing for this change. Is the real purpose to have the Illinois Service entry "look like" the Michigan Services entry you have recently worked on? I would like that question answered first. Second, why is Michigan Service plural (Services) -- when both Illinois and Missouri Service are not? I agree with Slambo - let's see some improvement in the Wikipedia entries in this category -- many have NO entries -- and there is no consistency in the Amtrak / state Service entries. That is where Elliskev needs to focus her energy for creating, editing and establishing consistency. Supporting arguments because of common trackage or routes are meaningless within 100 miles of Chicago, California and the US Northwest corridor -- there are only so many routes (today) due to track/route abandonment, mergers and restrictions or suitability for passenger service. For example, the Southwest Chief was moved off the old Santa Fe mainline east of Galesburg to facilitate BNSF desires, as much as Amtrak's. In fact, that re-route meant the loss of passenger service to stations that had service for over 70 years. Some Amtrak trains have a significant history and heritage - such as the Burlington Zephyrs - and that history needs to be retained. Beatgr 02:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not pushing for anything. I've made a suggestion and provided my reasons for doing so. I have no sinister motives, so please assume good faith. If my suggestion is not accepted, fine. It's just a suggestion. If you think it's a bad idea, fine. Just please stop insinuating that it's some kind of bizarre plot on my part.

Second, Michigan Services is plural because Amtrak made it that way. --Elliskev 13:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No consensus to merge

It's probably a little early, but I'm convinced that there is not going to be a consensus to merge. I won't object if anyone wants to remove the tags. --Elliskev 14:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)