Talk:Illinois Central 121

Split

I'm wondering if this should be moved to Illinois Central 121 or Green Diamond (IC 121) to disambiguate the train and the trainset. The Green Diamond train ran for some time after this trainset was moved to the Miss-Lou. —Morven 19:48, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• The idea has merit, especially if we ever have an article on the Miss Lou (train). Even now most of this article concerns the trainset. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

EMD/EMC

Just a historian's note here, but all GM locomotives built prior to 1941 were built by the Electro-Motive Corporation (EMC). The Electro-Motive Division (EMD) was formed on January 1, 1941 with the merger of the Winton Engine Company with EMC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSW9389 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 August 2006

Requested move

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Green Diamond → Illinois Central 121 – As Matt Brown (Morven) noted above we have two topics here: the articulated trainset and the named passenger train. Illinois Central numbered the power car 121; per Category:Individual locomotives of the United States Illinois Central 121 would be the correct name. I'd like to move what we have there, then write a new article at this location (Green Diamond) about the named passenger train. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is this a requested move when it seems that the goal really here is to split the article? As you noted, the article and its page history contains both topics. It does not matter if the current version here is more focused on the trainset than the named passenger train. A page move would only be valid if the new Green Diamond article does not mention anything that was included in the current article's page history. In other words, if the new article mentions anything contained in the last paragraph about "the historic Green Diamond name continued as the premier passenger train on the Illinois Central's Chicago-St. Louis route until May 1968", then an article split should be used instead. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Mostly because I forgot about the splitting mechanism, and I wanted to get some attention here before making a somewhat destructive change. I'm also not sure if I'll have the time to write a new article, and as you say there's not much basis for a standalone article. Not yet anyway. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Follow-up; I do have a new article ready to go at User:Mackensen/Green Diamond. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• The split appears uncontroversial, so I think you can go ahead. Any objections to a procedural close here? --BDD (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• None from me, I was probably being overcautious. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Shall I just go ahead and move this to Illinois Central 121 and your draft page to Green Diamond? Should we assume all incoming links to Green Diamond can remain? --BDD (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Sure. I'll take responsibility for refactoring Illinois Central 121 and cleaning up the links. Mackensen (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --BDD (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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.