Talk:History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

Trains

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Daghys.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge

I propose we merge the article History of the LACMTA into the page History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway. They cover almost exactly the same issue - differing only by perspective of the system and it's pre-existing agency. Whereas the former is the older of the two articles, the Rail and Busway article is much more in-depth and descriptive at this point, so should probably serve as the base. Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway page so I may be biased, but I think there's a value in separating out the history of the rail/BRT system (some of which actually predates the merger that created the LACMTA) from the history of the institution itself. That said, it appears most of the content on the History of the LACMTA page is actually about the rail system, which is honestly sub-optimal. My purpose in creating History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway is spelled out here, but basically I did it to get a lot of the updated-in-the-moment cruft off the individual line pages and put the whole thing in a larger chronological order that can provide more overall context for the system. I also wonder if trying to add history of the bus system here would create something too long and unweidly. I don't feel that strongly about it and obviously I'm not claiming to WP:OWN the page, but at this point I'd vote to oppose. --Jfruh (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the uncontested objection (noting the clear COI notice with thanks) and no support. Klbrain (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with L Line and Regional Connector articles

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.

To not merge, given that the daughter pages are well-developed and provide a distinct historical summary of projects that would be lost within the broader History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway page. Klbrain (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a half year overdue for these articles to be merged into the main history article. Both articles concern segments of the system which are still active but now integrated into the A and E lines. Having these articles still remain only duplicates the information on the A and E Line articles, albeit outdated by half a year (will be more as time goes on) is no longer necessary and now redundant. Not to mention that the expectations are for that the two segments for both articles (the Gold/L Line and the Regional Connector) are expected to be integrated into the common everyday lexicon of the general public and by news agencies as parts of both their individual lines (I even remember seeing one source which explicitly stated this), especially the Regional Connector underneath downtown, especially since the name "Regional Connector" mainly referred to the construction project itself. Additionally, it is highly likely that Metro plans on reusing the "L Line" designation for a new line in the future, so inevitably having the old L Line article still up would cause a potential issue there when the new "L Line" is officially announced by Metro. I propose splitting up whatever relevant information there is on both pages into their respective main history, A Line, and E Line articles each (mainly the history one, which is why I chose this as the target article), with whichever leftover duplicate or redundant information being discarded. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - While enthusiasm for transit detail is appreciated, I suspect most readers feel we're well past WP:TOOMUCH and should cut these pages back, aiming for a general audience. Lexlex (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having a page for this doesn't harm anyone and allows the more advanced reader to access additional information. We can always summarize an article in the main page and then link to that article. No need to delete information in the name of simplicity. I would argue that history is not WP:TOOMUCH and should be preserved. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I think we should merge the articles into History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway, and for some of the information from the L Line article to merge into the A Line (Los Angeles Metro) and E Line (Los Angeles Metro). The L Line incidents section and photo from the history section (virtually all of the info in L Line’s history is already in the A/E Line articles) could easily move to the A Line article since that information is currently missing. However, how should we merge the L Line ridership section? Should we combine the original L Line stats to the A/E Line ridership graphs or just forget about it completely?

When merging the Regional Connector article, let’s add the Restructuring of service operating plan graph to this article (History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway) to continue to clearly show the changes of service, even if the Regional Connector article goes away. Otherwise, most of the project information is already included since 2023. Like said earlier, any extra or redundant info should be discarded. We can do this!! Peterlaxamazing (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: While obviously nobody WP:OWNs an article, I did create this one, and did so with the intention that individual project pages and the accumulated historical cruft that builds up on individual line pages would eventually be merged here exactly as OrdinaryScarlet describes things above. I've been meaning to tackle the task myself when I could find the time but would definitely encourage others to do so if they are up to it. --Jfruh (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree This is a major transit/construction project that clearly warrants a page of its own. Jg10101 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree This project was a substantial investment of billions of dollars, and is clearly deliminated as a seperate project that joined 3 light rail lines. There is enough information going into detail about this project, and I think a lot of the detail would be missing if moved into this page. Also it would be harder to navigate for users seeking information only about Regional Connector. Kylerschin (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This project was in the works for a long time and has had such a monumental impact on the Los Angeles transit network. It's more than just extending a line or two, the Connector united the city (in a sense). SteelersDiclonious (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, especially with the Regional Connector article. Major construction segments, especially those that involve tunneling segments, should be their own articles. -MJ (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like how the NYC Subway articles here differentiate between the service (the actual numbered/lettered trains and the stations they serve) and the underlying infrastructure (the tracks themselves along with the stations built for them). The first one, I admit, is a little more nebulous, but really at one time there was a thing called the L line and it was used by 15,000 people per day, and is infinitely cite-able. -MJ (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to deny the existence of the L Line by deleting it from the records it would be historical revisionism. Let's not go down that road. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Both projects have significance. The A Line between DTLA and Pasadena is still frequently referred to as the Gold Line in 2024 (and from my observations, the latter designation is still much more common). The Regional Connector is also highly significant because it unified LA transit for the first time ever, really. We should not be deleting pages that contains valuable information that cannot reasonably included on the overall history page for the system. That is against the foundational principles of Wikipedia and goes against free access to information. Any speculation as to whether the L Line designation is just that and may or may not result in anything. We should not be making decisions about our current articles based on speculation about the future. If we were to do so, people would start deleting the pages for presidential candidates they think will fail and so many other absurdities. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.