Template talk:K Line (Los Angeles Metro)

Aviation/LAX not part of the project

There's a bit of confusion here because there are two different ways people use "Crenshaw/LAX line." The name is used for the current construction project extending from Expo/Crenshaw to the current Green Line. It's also used to refer to the eventual Metro service that will run on the infrastructure being built.

The project as it's currently under construction does not include the Aviation/LAX station, as that's already been built and is not being added to as part of this project. As this map somewhat awkwardly shows, the new line connects just to the west of Aviation/LAX.

The planned service patterns that will use the new infrastructure are shown on the map on the final page of this PDF. There will be a line (designated K on that map, though that may change) that runs the length of the Crenshaw/LAX Line project and also along the southwest leg of the current Green line (although as you can see it will not pass through Aviation/LAX). Another line (labelled L on that map) will run along the eastern portion of the current Green Line, through Aviation/LAX station, then turn up and travel a bit along the new infrastructure of the Crenshaw/LAX line project. Since that map was put out, and additional station to the north of Aviation/Century has been added, Aviation/96th, which will also be served by Line L. Since Aviation/96th will be ultimately be the place where passengers connect to the LAX Train people mover, it's likely that the current Aviation/LAX will get a new name.

At any rate, there's no real sense in which the current Aviation/LAX station is part of the project. It will be connected to the new infrastructure, but it's no more part of the project than Mariposa or the other South Bay stations. Once the line is open and we know the service patterns, we can tweak this, but while it's under construction, I think only the actually new stations being built should be on this template. --Jfruh (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Integration with C no longer set in stone -- needs an update

Hello all -- as I've noted in my latest update to the K Line (Los Angeles Metro) article, Metro is once again rethinking the future service patterns of how this line will integrate with the rest of the system once it connects to the C Line in 2023. I've updated the article text, but I'm not savvy enough with the syntax to update the diagram here. Can someone modify this template so that it only includes the under-constrution section, or perhaps hides the connection to the C Line behind a "see more" link and notes that it's only proposed? I feel strongly that including it on the template in its current form, without any note that planning is in flux, violates WP:CRYSTAL. If Metro does decide to go with the service pattern now portrayed in this diagram, it would be easy enough to revert back to it. --Jfruh (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Detailed diagrams

With the return for the detailed diagram of this template, we ought to clarify their continued roles.

For context, following the opening of the Regional Connector on June 16, 2023, User:Mjdestroyerofworlds expressed their concern with the growing amount of water features detracting from the conciseness of the first condensed map on the A Line template due to that line having become very long. In line with the concerns of conciseness, I inquired about whether preserving the detailed diagrams were necessary, since they are quite large in size, and because of this when opened, are not easy to read. Their large sizes also meant that they also futz with the rest of the page, and I thus questioned if the information conveyed in them was really that important to retain. User:RickyCourtney agreed with moving them to their own dedicated subpages because of the poor mobile user experience, where most Wikipedia readers are on, as well as bringing up the context behind why these diagrams exist as a compromise from when a past user was ardent with more detail on the E Line template in its early days. However, recently, these subpages were deleted for being unused, except the one for this template being restored.

My personal stance is against bringing them back in any form, even as a link to a subpage. They weren't used at all after they were split off, hence their deletion. As previously discussed, I simply don't see any important value being conveyed. Especially as a local, I just don't see the significance in highlighting each and every at-grade crossing, no matter how minor and insignificant they are. An average reader isn't really hellbent on knowing this kind of information, and the "simple" diagrams to me already convey enough relevant information. Even then, they were just very clunky in general. I also found it peculiar that we had detailed diagrams for these, especially since these are very localized urban rail lines, and that the very few detailed diagrams that even exist are more for major inter-regional rail corridors than smaller localized urban lines. Virtually every other urban rail transit template from what I've seen simply doesn't posess these detailed diagrams. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. I am also against bringing them back in any form. I’ll also point out that since we started using the map switcher in the infobox, these diagrams have become less important. I’d venture to guess that most readers never see it since they must select the “Show route diagram” option. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree also. rdt templates have sort of become so flexible and powerful in the breadth of features displayable that I know it becomes alluring to make hyper-detailed diagrams, but features realistically need to scale with the service, in as much as I don't think that any single grade crossing is notable, let alone citeable, for the vast majority of diagrams. some diagrams certainly are aided by such detail: station-specific diagrams come to mind; if you're trying to diagram out an accident or crash then lots of details are welcome; and some heritage and shortline railroad diagrams need detailed mapping. But in the context of a 6-mile (9.7 km) long light rail line that operates at least partially at-grade and crossing every cross street, then running underground some of it and not interacting with any, I don't think they are really necessary. -MJ (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)