Talk:Expo/Crenshaw station

File:Metro Expo Line Trousdale Station.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Metro Expo Line Trousdale Station.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Metro Expo Line Trousdale Station.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Expo/Crenshaw station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004224042/http://backup.buildexpo.org/phase1_overview.php to http://backup.buildexpo.org/phase1_overview.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004230238/http://backup.buildexpo.org/expoartistsbiopage.php to http://backup.buildexpo.org/expoartistsbiopage.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504115514/http://www.metro.net/projects/exposition/ to http://www.metro.net/projects/exposition/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Both in the same article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not split the page. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

---

I get the feeling the fact these two are completely separate stations would effectively mean they should be split into their own articles. The E line is staggered and a relatively simple surface stop while the K line has a "proper" station building and interior being underground. To get between the two you'd have to exit one and go into the other. Why should they share an article beyond having the same name? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Probably a good example to follow is what's done for station complexes on the New York City Subway. For example: Times Square–42nd Street station. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Updated with vote. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really sure how that applies since at least that is one continuous space while this is literally a surface light stop and a metro station with no interior connection. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The walk from one platform to the other is no longer than the walk between platforms at many station complexes around the world with the same name and multiple lines/platforms. More importantly, there's nothing particularly unique about each station that would merit its own article -- they are in the same location (within a few hundred feet), same neighborhood and local landmarks, have the same access to parking places, etc., etc., so making two articles would entail repeating a lot of the same information. I don't see much point in separating them just to be pedantic about what makes something "one station." I agree with RickyCourtney above that NYC subway station complexes are a good guide. --Jfruh (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This wouldn’t apply when you have to exit one station and enter another to transfer, like with a few stations in London with duplicate names or when we split mainline intercity stations from the corresponding metro station. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. -MJ (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Per reasons stated above. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Don't really know what content one would have that wouldn't apply to the other. SECProto (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.