Talk:L Line (Los Angeles Metro)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Fate of this article?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Future of this article

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)

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)

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)

Future of this article 2

Since the consensus on my proposed merger was to not merge, I'm curious about the future of this article's name when Metro inevitably reuses the "L Line" designation. I'd imagine this wouldn't be an issue for the time being, not until Metro announces the designation closer to the opening of the line in question, which doesn't seem to be the case until some more years down the line with either the East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit Project or the Southeast Gateway Line. I was curious how we would then resolve there being a situation of having two "L Line" articles. A parenthetical indicating the years of existence could be an option, their operating status, or even the region the line is in, though that may be a bit clunky in my opinion, but my main and best option to me seems to be moving the name of this article back to "Gold Line". The L Line was (and still is) known as such even after the renaming, and it was only discontinued three years after the fact, indicating that the L Line name didn't really catch on and that the "Gold Line" name would be more appropriate via WP:COMMONNAME. I think similarly the adjacent stations module for the system could also be moved back to "Gold Line" and the line also consistently referred to as across affiliated pages to prevent confusion. Thoughts? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)