Template talk:C Line (Los Angeles Metro)

This template 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

Trains: Rapid transit

Trains Portal

This template 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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This template is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

Displaying Extensions

The LAX branch of the Green Line was part of the line's original Phase I plan. In addition, the LAX extension is listed as a Tier 1 improvement in LACMTA's 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan (also included are extensions to central Norwalk and the South Bay Galleria). Future extensions appear on other maps of this type. Is there a convention on line mapping here that I don't know about? Samhuddy (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extension to Aviation/96th

Hi there. Someone placed this extension on the wrong side. Can someone please fix it? 107.77.214.201 (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

conversion to routemap template

I would like to convert this template to use {{Routemap}} instead of the deprecated {{Railway line header}}, {{BS-header}} and {{BS-table}}. Since this operation doesn't change the appearance of the diagram, I consider it a rather minor change. Zr2d2 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would also solve the technical challenge of {{BS-table}} templates not rendering correctly in the mobile version that happens at about 705 pixel width Zr2d2 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There's no need to replace a deprecated template with an obsolete one ({{BS-map}}). Useddenim (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Zr2d2: I don't think it's necessary to gain consensus for converting a {{BS-table}} diagram to Routemap format, given that it was deprecated in 2011. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: agreed, this is the first time I have been reverted for doing so, as seen in the revision history Zr2d2 (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, there's been no comment from KirksKeyKard (who has albeen reverting {{California High-Speed Rail}}). Useddenim (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very different issue and unrelated to the change of template. The issue there is related to the content, not the format. Specifically, the issue was that a huge quantity of additional information on highway bridges was being added that simply cluttered up the map and made it almost impossible to read or understand. That was the basis of my reversions. KirksKeyKard (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KirksKeyKard: Sorry; I had only taken a look at your contributions. Useddenim (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False Positive Sensor is Broken on All LACMTA Templates

The false positive sensor allows people to blank the page, but doesn't allow people to make constructive edits. 71.198.231.208 (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really something anyone on this talk page could possibly help you with, because edit filters are site-wide. You might run into them less if you create an account. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation/96th branch won't happen as shown in the diagram

As explained here, current Metro plans after the Crenshaw/LAX line opens are to split the current Green Line in two: one line would go from Expo/Crenshaw to Norwalk, and the other from Redondo Beach to Aviation/Century (and, when it opens, to Aviation/96th). This hasn't been approved by the full Metro board yet, but it seems that the longstanding proposed pattern illustrated on this template diagram is no longer going to happen -- the other possible option is different as well. Can someone remove the Crenshaw/LAX section of the diagram? Maybe just replace it with a branch showing it's connecting to the new infrastructure without including any stations? I'd do it but the syntax for these diagrams always defeats me. --Jfruh (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add Division 16 to this diagram?

The Division 16 yard is serving both C and K line trains, and it's just beyond the LAX/MTC station at the top end of this diagram with no intervening K Line-only stations or trackage. Seems like it would be reasonable to include -- sorry my skills with these templates aren't good enough to implement it myself. --Jfruh (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Division 22 seems to have been abandoned at this time. All trains are being stored at Division 16 currently. Lars Smiley (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]