Talk:Floridian (train)

Trains Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 14 November 2024

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– Current title violates WP:PDAB. Floridian (Amtrak train) is also ambiguous, so use decades instead. 162 etc. (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Of the two articles, this one is clearly the primary, with over 80% of pageviews. Since it is currently operating and the other isn't, that's likely to skew higher as time goes on. (It's also possible that this iteration of the Floridian will last past 2029, in which case the decade-based disambiguation will become invalid anyway.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions are made at WP:PDAB when "there is one (...) that is very well known and is considered much more highly notable than the others." I don't see that here with these two train services. This isn't Thriller.

It's also entirely unsurprising that the pageviews are currently high for Floridian (train), since the service launched just a few days ago. See WP:RECENTISM. 162 etc. (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about that exception demands a standard of notability like Thriller? We're talking about a historical train which was discontinued 45 years ago, versus one in current active service. It's undoubtedly much more highly notable. Even then, we can expect this large discrepancy in pageviews to be more permanent, even as time passes; I'd only expect the discrepancy to widen. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historical age is not determinative. See WP:DPT. 162 etc. (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons above. DAB page for historical properties is appropriate, and there is no evidence of a page of an active transit service DAB'ed. See, for instance, 7_(New_York_City_Subway_service). Calwatch (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite false. See Hiawatha (Amtrak train), Pere Marquette (Amtrak train), Valley Flyer (Amtrak train). 162 etc. (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the same applies to those, as well. Please see the move discussion at Talk:Wolverine (train)#Requested move 23 October 2024. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is no evidence that the current train will be have more long-term notability than the older train. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per Pi.1415926535. There is a fundamental misunderstanding with WP:PDAB here; WP:PDAB allows for the primary subtopic to have partial disambiguation. Please see WP:PDABLIST for a list of examples with established community consensus on their current page names. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pi and OrdinaryScarlett. The 1970s train isn't going to become any more notable than it already is. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move per above. It's clearly the primary topic of the two. O.N.R. ^(talk) 13:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Anthonyt31201 ^(talk) 16:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative merge all information about both runs of the train service into shared Floridian (train) article. Both are Amtrak, both use the same route. The latter is a revival of the former. Scharb (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scharb: Other than the name, it's not a revival. Completely different route between the two endpoints, and completely different history. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I didn't compare the route maps close enough. It is still a successor in spirit/purpose and name, so I stand by my suggestion. Scharb (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scharb: The 1970s train was far more direct, served different communities, and was intended to be permanent. The modern train is very indirect and only exists due to planned rehabilitation work in the East River Tunnels and a shortage of Superliner cars, and is a merger of two completely different trains from the 1970s Floridian. Aside from having the same termini, it is fundamentally not the same in spirit. It might ostensibly serve the same purpose as the 1970s train, but the routing is so indirect that in practice it really better serves partial trips from its two predecessors, the Capitol Limited and the Silver Star, instead of being meant as a direct Chicago to Miami train aside from being one continuous route for operation purposes. If anything, its history and existence is really more in line with these two trains than the 1970s train. The naming argument is very flimsy at best; if Amtrak chose a different name for this modern train, then this argument is a non-starter. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they didn't choose a different name, they chose to revive the old name. That doesn't lack significance.

Would't it be best Wiki practice to combine two alike stubs of the same name? Scharb (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floridian (train, 1971–1979) is not a stub. Mackensen (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support around 80% is surenly nowhere near enough for a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, what is the threshold for a PDAB? Over 80% is a very clear majority of pageviews. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think more like 98/99%. Clearly the point of disambiguation is to make a title unambiguous so how does it being incomplete help people? Its confusing and violates the pinicipal of least astonishment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pi.1415926535 and OrdinaryScarlett. Theparties (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honestly, I thought about renaming this page to emphasize that this is a temporary service. However, (WP:SPECULATION alert) there is a probability that the new Floridian service will become successful enough to be a permanent route like the CTA Pink Line, which is why I personally decided not to pursue the move. AlphaBeta135 talk 21:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 162 and Crouch, Swale. The opposers are missing the fact that being a primary topic is not sufficient to allow an ambiguous PDAB; it must be an overwhelming primary topic. Note: Because the Floridian (train, 1971–1979) article was moved from Floridian (train) without an explicit RM consensus, an affirmative consensus is required to retain the current title. Otherwise, this RM should be carried out per WP:TITLECHANGES, restoring the long-standing status quo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Frankly I'm not sure the new one is primary even by the usual rules: we also have to consider long-term significance in these discussions, and a service that started less than two weeks ago is lacking in that department. But it's definitely not enough for a PDAB, where "the threshold...is higher" even than that. (I agree with King of Hearts about what should happen if there's no consensus here.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]