Talk:L Line (Los Angeles Metro)

message: Someone created redirects for the new Metro letter names before they were officially announced -- and, apparently, before they were officially settled -- which has caused an inaccuracy. J Line (Los Angeles Metro) now redirects to this article, when it should redirect to Silver Line (Los Angeles Metro). In addition, there doesn't seem to be a redirect for L Line (Los Angeles Metro), which is what should be pointing here. See the Metro announcement for more details.
Unfortunately I don't know enough about how redirect pages work to wade in and fix this. Can someone who does please hop on this? --Jfruh (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much! Appreciate it. --Jfruh (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prematurely created redirects now causing a problem -- please fix 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Hi, since the Regional Connector will affect the layout of this rail line, what fate shall become of this article? Shall it be a general info page with the A and E Lines listed as the main articles? Should this be split? Or leave the article as is, but list this line as defunct? Any other suggestions?
I'm putting the topic out there now so that it could be open for discussion ASAP. Last I heard, Metro is about 60% complete with the project. They are building this quite quickly; they might finish ahead of schedule! Kaio mh (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They're actually quite a way behind schedule -- it was originally supposed to be done this year, but probably won't be until 2022, so we have quite a while to think about this. I would suggest merging it to the relevant sections of History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway when the time comes, but this isn't a pressing problem by any means. Hopefully the long-simmering debates on what the name the individual line articles will have resolved by then! --Jfruh (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: so, it's about time that this will become an issue. I think we should keep the article largely intact, as no one page will adequately describe the situation that led to the current system configuration if this gets split up. -MJ (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree for a couple of reasons. One is that the "L" designation is almost certainly going to be reused for whatever new service opens next (probably the NoHo-Pasadena BRT). Another is that the History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway article was specifically created to absorb the big picture history stuff, while content specific to the operations of the two branches should be integrated into the A and E articles. --Jfruh (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with @Jfruh. Once the regional connector opens, the operational stuff should shift to the A and E Line pages, while the history should move to the dedicated history page. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of this article? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Almost everything on this page is either outdated, duplicates material that's now on the A Line (Los Angeles Metro) and E Line (Los Angeles Metro) articles, or belongs on the History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway article. I'm going to start paring a lot of it down in the coming weeks. I suppose in line with practices on the NYC subway pages we should keep the article around but it I feel it's important to not have a repository of duplicated material that slowly drifts away from what's being maintained on more active pages. --Jfruh (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would further argue in favor of splitting the article up entirety and moving the materials to each of the respective pages you linked to above and retaining this article's namespace for a future line LA Metro decides to christen in the future. They would most definitely reuse the name, considering the amount of new lines they are proposing to construct. For the time being however, I would suggest converting this article to a redirect to the history article, however this page could easily be repurposed into a full article in the near future whenever that new line is announced as such. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. perhaps one step further, perhaps the same procedures can be done with the Regional Connector article. That article similarly contains outdated, duplicate material, much like this page. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of this article