Talk:Los Angeles Metro Rail

message: Hello all! There has been an extensive discussion at Talk:LAX_Line#%22K_Line%22_designation over how to graphically represent future service that will travel along the Crenshaw/LAX Line project. There have been some Metro documents indicating some version of the service on this line will be designated the "K Line" and will use olive as the color of its bullet and its color on maps. While that info is reliably sourced, I personally think that, because it isn't really public facing and has evolved over time and may do so further before the line opens, we should avoid using the olive K bullet in templates and infoboxes for the time being (though we should mention the sources that talk about them in article text). To me, using the bullet across our Metro Rail pages implies a certainty about the future that isn't justified, and violates WP:CRYSTAL. However, other editors, including @Lexlex , believe it's important to have some bullet for use in maps, templates, and infoboxes, rather than just the wikilinked phrase "Crenshaw/LAX Line." I thought it would be a good idea to move the discussion over here to get more eyes on it and come up with a consensus. --Jfruh (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been resolved to the satisfaction of people involved in the initial discussion, but if others have opinions feel free to chime in. --Jfruh (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to treat the Crenshaw/LAX line aka the "K Line" until officially opened 

message: Now that the Los Angeles Metro Board has voted to enter a joint venture to jointly own and manage the construction, financing, and operation of the Inglewood People Mover project, with the City of Inglewood, would it make sense to integrate that article into this page as well?  
--SofaKing381222 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise waiting until there are more concrete developments first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Yeah, same. Particularly would wait until the project shows up on Metro's own websites. I don't think there's a need to update these pages with every internal development of projects that might not even happen. --Jfruh (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

text: @SofaKing381222 will IPM even be considered a Metro Rail line? I wouldn't be surprised if they just throw some random 8XX or 9XX on it (maybe 841?) and not give it a system name designation. Until then, any info about IPM should probably be on a page for the project, and if they announce it's part of Metro Rail, can be copied inward. Amyipdev (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course that's still presuming that LA Metro considers it a part of them at all... even if they operate it, it might not get explicitly mentioned with numbering. Amyipdev (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inglewood Transit Corridor 

message: So, I am not as confident with this proposal like my other one that I made for merging the Metro Rapid article into the Metro Bus one, and I acknowledge that it may be more of a wild proposal, and not one that I am really particularly pushing. But I just wanted to at least throw out this idea to see if anyone else had any ideas about it. I was thinking if we combined this article with the one for the Metro Busway article, much like how Metro (Minnesota) is structured. Technically speaking, the two systems are separate, but even Metro themselves likes to usually group them together; i.e. on their system maps and announcing the Metro Busway lines as transfers to riders on the Metro Rail lines. Even then, Metro Busway on its own doesn't really form a cohesive system in its own right; it consists of two completely disjointed lines and one could argue furthermore that the two systems almost function as one altogether. Even the history article for both systems is one and the same on here. Even if there are new Metro Busway lines being planned, I don't really expect this arrangement to change, even as the Metro Busway greatly explodes in size. 
I was also thinking perhaps the new article and the articles for the lines could follow the naming methodology that Metro (Minnesota) and its associated line articles do; perhaps the merged main page could be something along the lines of Metro (California)? After all, there are current (albeit unfunded) plans to extend the A Line beyond Los Angeles County. And the line articles could be named like Metro X Line (California), since Metro themselves even refers to the lines as "Metro X Line" both in public and train announcements. Was curious to hear some other thoughts. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. I see where you're coming from, but there are just too many differences between the pages for a smooth merger. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Also oppose. Different modes entirely, even if Metro gives the busway tours names consistent with the rail lines as part of their total system. Metro Rapid, conversely, may be limited stop service, but they're ultimately still bus lines (and as noted on that talk page, the branding is largely being phased out as it didn't really work that well). oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Support. Though I don't feel super strongly about it, I do think that the two systems are treated more or less as peers by Metro, and I agree that grouping the G and J lines together by themselves is pretty arbitrary. Honestly the biggest barrier to merging them from my POV is the incredibly clunky article title that it would produce. Even if we don't merge the two articles, I do think it makes sense to merge the two templates that list all the stations. --Jfruh (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with the Metro Busway article? 

message: Not too long ago, Arts/Industrial District station was deleted in accordance with WP:CRYSTALBALL. Following this through, I wanted to inquire if any of the other station articles for the East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit Project, Southeast Gateway Line, and the Eastside Transit Corridor are justified in their existence at this time. None of them have shovels in the ground as of the writing of this comment, though this may be quickly subject to change within the end of the year. Still, these stations are at a minimum, due to open in 2031 for the ESFV line’s Phase 1, while others (the SEGW line’s Phase 1 and the ETC’s Phase 2) are due to open in 2035, but then again, these dates are broad predictions and very subject to change. This isn’t even mentioning the fact that some of these station articles are part of even further future phases, which currently have no estimated timeline for completion. However, it seems as though Phase 1 of these projects are seemingly going to break ground not too far into the near future from the looks of things, so I am not sure if we should retain these articles for the time being. I could definitely see keeping the station articles with opening dates of 2031/2035 around, since those stations are part of the phrases set to break ground first, however. Thoughts? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I have to agree that it's WP:TOOSOON to be making articles for stations on lines that are still on the planning stage. Far too much can change between now and actual construction, let alone operations commencing. Redirect them to the articles on the lines until they actually exist as pieces of infrastructure. oknazevad (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with Oknazevad. Take Nordhoff station (Metro Rail). It's mixing tenses talking about a station well before groundbreaking. Location, design, even the name can change before it opens. Does Van Nuys Boulevard even have a median strip right now? Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existence of far-off station articles