Jump to content

Talk:Inland Empire (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of unnecessary reference:

[edit]

I removed the following links, which I had previously added, after reading the disambiguation style guide further. The style guide states not to create entries merely because the word or phrase is part of the name, unless the word or phrase is commonly used to refer to the subject. Therefore I removed all of the following:

In Sports:

MissionInn.Jim (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

Inland Empire should redirect to Inland Empire (California) who's title would be changed to Inland Empire, since it is in fact the most populous region of the listed, and also i believe is more popularly recognized. The Inland Empire (California) page would list the disambiguation page at the top of the article. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. House1090 (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Opposed to Revisionism. talk "i believe is more popularly recognized" Surely an encyclopedia article should not be based on one or two people's ill-informed idea of what might be the most 'popular'/common perception, but should try to educate based on actual historical fact. To several million people from the original/real Inland Empire up in E. WA and N. Idaho, a region called the Inland Empire since the mid to late 1800's after the "Empire Builder" (*and I'd suggest doing a search for Jim Hill, in case you know nothing of this), the Inland Empire refers to the only region that has genuine historical claim to the name: Eastern WA and North Idaho, as could have been easily verified with multiple history books on the subject.
This is as irresponsible as it is disrespectful, spreading erroneous information at worse (and incomplete at best) like this. Please make an effort to correct this totally misleading entry now where "Inland Empire" somehow just points to CA simply because a movie, etc. has made it 'popular' in your minds. Regardless, how many hits you get should NOT dictate what constitutes "facts". At least have the courtesy to point to the dis-ambiguous page where readers can be educated on the fact that there are at least two (2) Inland Empires now, ever since the post-war era when a part of CA took and started marketing itself using our region's name too. InlandEmpireNative (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.204.68 (talk) [reply]

Can it still be considered a consensus with only two thoughts on the matter? It has been about a week. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Irrespective of the other regions designated "Inland Empire," the term gets a lot of search traffic from people looking for "Inland Empire" the David Lynch film, so a disambig page is appropriate for that purpose. Ameriquedialectics 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to move this page to Inland Empire (disambiguation) , please follow the procedure as listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves. It appears you want to move this page to Inland Empire (disambiguation), and move Inland Empire (California) to this title. Also please have a look through Wikipedia:Disambiguation if you haven't already. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am generally against creating any disambiguation pages with (disambiguation) in parenthesis, unless it can be reasonably assumed that most readers, 75% or more, are looking for one particular article. The reason for disambiguation pages is to assist the reader. I don't see any evidence to suggest that most readers are looking for the Inland Empire in California. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, very true. House1090 (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone can find how many hits each page receives. SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hit counter I used indicates IE-CA gets about 800 hits per month, IE-GA about 15, IE-NW 35, and IE the film about 700. The magazine averages less than 5. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page gets about 100 hits a day per: [1]. As interesting as the IE-CA is, I don't think everyone who uses this page is looking for it. Ameriquedialectics 17:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Inland Empire (California) page gets more hits than the Greater Los Angeles Area page, and if people are not looking for IE california we will have a see also link. This just my thoughts. House1090 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, your point being? Ameriquedialectics 02:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, the IE-CA does get more hits then all of them. 100 more then the film. It's a good enough reason for me to have it be the Inland Empire article and have a see also link at the top of the page, or something more like, "for the film Inland Empire see here and for other uses see here". SoCal L.A. (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amerique: That if Greater LA does not need to have "(California)", then the IE page does not need to either (especially if the IE page has more viewers). Thats the way I see it, but its up to what others think. Rest of wikipedians: Yes, Socal I also think its a good enough reason. Majority wins here (I think), if a page (IE-Calif.) has more views than the other (IE-film) then IE should redirect to IE-Calif. House1090 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Amerique, Greater Los Angeles does not need "(California)", since there is only one Los Angeles. But yes i think it should be so that this page i s moved to Inland Empire (disambiguation), and move Inland Empire (California) to this title. Someone file for a move. Then we get to vote! Haha yay :). SoCal L.A. (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that IE-CA gets a lot of traffic, so IE-CA should change to this title. (BTW: Los Angeles, Texas haha). I will request the move. House1090 (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, forgive me lol. SoCal L.A. (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

no consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inland Empire → Inland Empire (disambiguation) — Inland Empire (California) has more way, more traffic than any other Inland Empire page on wikipedia, and in terms of land, and population, its the largest. House1090 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Inland Empire (California) receives the most hits of any page listed in the disambiguation and is an important economic and major region of Southern California. SoCal L.A. (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As before, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Further, after edit conflicts: 12.5% more hits on IE-CA than the IE-film would seem to imply that out of the 100 or so people using this page a day 56 may be searching for IE-CA, vs about 44 who may be searching for the IE-film article, assuming a correspondence. The existence of other IE regions debases these figures, however. All in all, this is pretty much a textbook example of why disambig pages are useful, in cases where dissimilar articles with similar titles exist, and generate some traffic. Ameriquedialectics 03:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other regions are barely cited and seem to be derivative terms rather than actual names used generally when referring top a region. — AjaxSmack 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one's developed those articles. A Google Book search on "Inland Empire" turns up a lot of references on IE-PNW: [2], Amazon also: [3] Ameriquedialectics 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inland Empire (California) is the most developed one. Also Inland Empire California has more google hits than any other Inland Empire. Inland Empire should be about Inland Empire (California). House1090 (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Revisionism With all due respect, that's absolutely false: A quick Google search turns up MANY, many references to the original/real Inland Empire up in the NW, since it pre-dates the purely marketing use of the name by that corner of CA by anywhere from over 50 to 100 years. Eastern WA and North Idaho is the one and ONLY region with a genuine and historical claim to this name (look up "the Empire Builder" sometime if in doubt), as could be easily confirmed by numerous published history books on the region that can attest to that FACT, or is this site to be based on what Hollywood tells simple minds what is or is not a 'fact'? Since both the original IE (as widely used by her millions of residents and people from the neighboring regions) and also the new IE down in CA use the same regional name now for whatever reason (never mind the movie by the same name), this by definition should justify use of a dis-ambiguous page to educate people that there is more than one region going by this name now, rather than falsely/misleadingly taking people directly to a CA article ONLY. At least have that much courtesy and respect for genuine regional names and history, or else why bother having any articles in a so called 'encylcopedia' if it's all going to be based on Hollywood fiction or marketing ploys?--72.90.204.68 (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Inland Empire (California) gets the more views and is the 14th largest metropolitan area in the United States, 25th in the Americas, making it the most important (at least from my view). House1090 (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There does not appear to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, rather the geographic areas and the film appear to be equal. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 04:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it seems. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The only other contender is the movie but the fact that it's derivative bolster the case for a move. — AjaxSmack 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even though the film might be a derivative of IE-CA, they are still two completely different articles. We have no idea which the reader is looking for. Since we don't know what the reader is looking for when they type in "Inland Empire", and it appears there is only a 50/50 chance they are hoping to find the article on the IE-CA, then I think we should err on the side of making the reader aware there are several different possibilities. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why we have a See also__ link on the top of the page, similar to the one Inland Empire (film) has already. House1090 (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I am not a fan of creating pages that require "(disambiguation)" in the title, I am also not a big fan of creating articles that need a "see also" at the top. They both strike me as unnecessary clutter, in most cases. Unless there is a an overwhelming likelyhood that a particular article is what most readers will be looking for, then I think "(disambiguation)" and "see also" should be avoided. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but its already there so it wont make a difference. I think most users would agree with you, but it looks like most readers are looking for Inland Empire (California), per article view-count above. House1090 (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not already there. Currently "see also" does not appear at the top of the IE-CA article. According to the counts above, it is not true that "most" readers are looking for IE-CA. Only about half are. The other half are primarily looking for the film, but as Amerique pointed out, if the IE-PNW article were more developed, it might get more hits. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to any compromises and I did not want a move in the first place, I am just supporting it. IE-CA is the most developed and its not our fault the other article are not well developed, besides it just your theory that it the other articles were more developed they would get more hits, there are no facts, just saying. House1090 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IE-PNW is not the issue here. Taking that one point and focusing your argument on the IE-PNW completely side-steps the main point that currently only about 50% of readers who are looking for "Inland Empire" appear to be looking for the IE-CA article. In my view that is not anywhere near the overwhelming majority that I feel would justify the move. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it makes sense to have Inland Empire as it is, but remember 50% are looking for the Inland Empire (CA), while the other 50 % is divided into all the other Inland Empires (PNW, GA, & Film). Does that not make IE-CA the majority. That is what I understand your trying to say, correct me if I'm wrong. House1090 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Splitting the others up doesn't make IE-CA the majority. It is still roughly 50%. Even if it can be shown that IE-CA has a simple majority of the traffic, I feel an overwhelming majority is necessary to justify the move, not just a simple majority. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[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.

Recent changes by 72.90.204.68

[edit]

Hi 72.90.204.68: I am requesting that you reconsider your recent changes to the Inland Empire disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are strictly intended to direct readers of Wikipedia to the correct article whenever there are multiple articles that have similar names. I respect your position that the term Inland Empire was used in the Pacific Northwest before it was used in other areas of the United States, but that information is not particularly useful on the disambiguation page. It would not help readers of Wikipedia to find the article they are looking for. Regarding the sort order, disambiguation pages should generally be sorted alphabetically, unless one particular article is much more commonly referenced than other articles on the disambiguation page. Since the IE in the Pacific Northwest is accessed much less often than the IE film or the IE in California, it is not appropriate to put it first. The fact that the IE Pacific Northwest used the name before anyone else in the United States is not relevant to the disambiguation page. I mean no disrespect, and I support your view that redirecting this page to the IE in California is not appropriate. I just want to make sure we help the readers of Wikipedia find the main IE-related article they are looking for, and remove appearance of bias whenever possible. Thanks for listening. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. 2 questions: 1) How do we restore the pointer to disambiguous for all 3 (or 4?) Inland Empires that exist today, since regardless of when they may have taken on the name, they are now all equally valid regional 'nicknames' today. 2) How do we restore the proper regional name "Inland Empire (Northwest)" article title from the modified "Inland Northwest (United States)" title now displayed? Thank you for your assistance (and bearing with a wiki virgin)Wikiphoto 2010 (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you may be referring to hatnotes? These are not usually used on articles that already have a disambiguated title. And the Inland Northwest article is at that title because that is what the [[WP:COMMOelwlle.eleNNAe

ewweME|common name]] of the area has been determined to be. If you can provide reliable sources that show that "Inland Empire" is the common name of that area, feel free to move the page. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 16:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


[1]

References

  1. ^ sdw

History of the term

[edit]

I'm not sure to what extent these findings could be incorporated, but for the sake of future discussion, I thought it would at least be interesting to note that the Inland Northwest seems to have been known as the Inland Empire longer. Inland Empire (California) dates the usage there to 1914. Up here in the Northwest, there's a book, Art Work of the Inland Empire: Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho, that was published in 1906. Spokane's Spokesman-Review dates the Spokane and Inland Empire Railroad to 1903 (although our own article is less clear about foundational dates and names). However, I was also told there was an earlier use of the name still referring to... somewhere in Utah. So that's some food for thought, and some possible fodder for references. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inland_Empire_(disambiguation)&oldid=1245856501"