The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Wait. There is currently no consensus for a move yet. The proposal to wait until the entire system moves to letter-based naming is a good idea, though. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 21:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) → A Line (Los Angeles Metro) – Official line name change from Blue to A. Edited redirect exists preventing move. See this article. Lexlex ( talk) 07:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: The cited source says that the common name remains "the Blue Line", and asks "will anyone really call it [the A line]?", so this is clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME. Official renamings are irrelevant. — BarrelProof ( talk) 15:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support: They're going to change all the line names in the next year or two and it would be silly if we lagged behind. Obviously it will take a while for usage to shift but it will shift eventually. -- Jfruh ( talk) 17:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Upgrading to Strong support. I find this whole discussion fairly baffling. There's no way we're going to be able to verify that people on the street are changing their usage at some threshold level that would justify us declaring it "common" usage. I would be very curious if there were a single transit line article on Wikipedia where the article title used a "common" name rather than the name used in signage and public documents by the transit agency itself. I would suggest that this really is something of a misinterpretation of the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. Just as an example, the A Line is numbered as Line 801 for a lot of Metro's internal recordkeeping and documentation, but that's never been used publicly; clearly that's an example of something that's "official" but not "common." Changing the public-facing name of the line is an entirely different matter. Obviously Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) will redirect to A Line (Los Angeles Metro), so it's not as if this move would make the article difficult for anybody to find, either. -- Jfruh ( talk) 21:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Your comment about how this article is not known as Line 801 signifies the exact reason why this should be called Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) instead of A Line (Los Angeles Metro). People called it Blue Line before, just like people call it Blue Line now. No one uses Line 801, and most people still are not using A Line.-- 2601:142:1:6F00:19C3:32F5:D488:8EFF ( talk) 01:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • You've very much missed the point of that example. One is an official name that isn't common because it's not part of the public branding. The other is not. -- Jfruh ( talk) 06:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support: According to that article, LACMTA is engaging in a "blitz of publicity" about the renaming, and A is the designation being used to report train status, etc. In addition, updated signage is sufficient to comply with COMMONNAME. WMSR ( talk) 17:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Oppose for now per WP:COMMONNAME. Updated signage doesn't necessarily influence common usage - the latter can sometimes lag years behind, if it ever changes at all. As long as there is a redirect from the official name people will find the article at the common name, which is (by definition) where most people will be looking for it. If and when the common usage changes this should be revisited. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Strong Support: The official name for the line is the "A Line." The name is already in common use over the past couple of weeks by nearly all of the major news sources the area including the Los Angeles Times, NBC, CBS, and the Long Beach Press-Telegram. In my book, that counts for quite a bit, journalistic coverage will inform the public of the name and reflects the common name of record for the line. Yes, people have been calling it the "Blue Line" for nearly 20 years, but that's why Los Angeles Metro is doing a major advertising blitz with banners, posters, a website, and signage to immerse people in the change. Old habits die hard, but the line's official, recognized, and new common name is the A Line. -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 21:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • You've just demonstrated that there is a concerted effort that is intended to change the common name to match the new official name. That is not the same thing as it being the common name - indeed if it was the common name this wouldn't be needed. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support. Reliable sources have switched to using the new name, and that's what matters here. The opposition here is based on a common misinterpretation of WP:COMMONNAME which assumes that the point of this guideline is that we must use the most common name used in everyday speech. In fact, the guideline is pretty clear that it means the most common name used in reliable sources. The common name used on the street really has no bearing as relying on it is a direct violation of our verifiability policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Oppose for now, as per BarrelProof and Thryduulf – LA Metro can call this anything they want, but let's see what people are actually calling it in about six months time. We can revisit this issue then. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 20:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Oppose for now as the LA Metro's official website is still referring to it as the Blue Line. In some places on their site they do refer to it as the "A Line" but with "Blue" in parentheses. I don't see anywhere that states "Blue Line" is a "former" name. Both names should be used in the lead sentence but the article name should remain as is for now. I'm sure in the future a change will be necessary, but for the time being, the official Metro map hasn't been changed and still says "Blue Line". – Dream out loud ( talk) 22:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply

As a note, that site has since been updated reflecting the name change. WMSR ( talk) 18:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support: They're going to change all the line names anyways. I've seen it before, people will call it "THE Blue A Line". The 210 freeway where I lived changed names once. Nobody calls it by its previous highway number but "the 210" instead, its official name. Come in oppositionists? who we kidding. -- Redspork02 ( talk) 16:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support I see a lot of misinterpretation of COMMONNAME in this thread. There isn't a transit article on Wikipedia that doesn't use a transit agency's official nomenclature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haha169 ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • That has nothing to do with COMMONNAME – please see WP:OFFICIALNAME. We don't automatically go with transit agencies' "official names" because sometimes the "official naming schemes" actually fail to catch on with the public. And LA Metro's planned switch to "letter" line names is planned to take years, and may never catch on. This looks to me like a clear WP:NOHURRY case – let's wait and see how this pans out. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • So WHEN do you suppose we should change, if ever? 68.175.29.71 ( talk) 00:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Whenever is appropriate under WP:NAMECHANGES. Dekimasu よ! 05:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support Google and Google Maps now uses "Metro A Line" when giving directions on transit maps. -- 158.61.6.81 ( talk) 15:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Compromise position I generally am in favor of moving this article to its letter name, but perhaps we can compromise on this by moving the article when the entire system moves to letter-based naming. That's supposed to happen next year, when the Crenshaw/LAX Line is expected to open. -- Sky Harbor ^{( talk)} 20:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I'd probably be OK with this, though even then it's best to wait a least a little after that to make sure that WP:RSs have all switched to the new naming scheme... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move the article in the way proposed. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) → A Line (Blue)
• Red Line (Los Angeles Metro) → B Line (Red)
• Green Line (Los Angeles Metro) → C Line (Green)
• Purple Line (Los Angeles Metro) → D Line (Purple)
• Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro) → E Line (Expo)
• Orange Line (Los Angeles Metro) → G Line (Orange)
• Silver Line (Los Angeles Metro) → J Line (Silver)
• Gold Line (Los Angeles Metro) → L Line (Gold)

– Eliminate unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation. While Metro's reference states the parenthetical color names will be removed at some point in the future, that point is likely several years away making system disambiguation meaningless. (e.g. There are no other A Line (Blue)'s, B Line (Red)'s etc. in the world). Lexlex ( talk) 10:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Revert to Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) etc per the consensus of the discussion directly above this one from November. Lexlex moved the articles to the current titles a few days ago, without any obvious discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

To keep this easy to follow, per WP:RMCOMMENT "Revert" is not a choice for this proposal. Please comment/respond only to this proposal—or make another request. Lexlex ( talk) 12:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The automated system for requested moves does not allow multiple requests to be open at the same time. Dekimasu よ! 14:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Revert move(s) as per Thryduulf – this is effectively WP:RMUM that is contrary to the previous RM discussion. IOW, revert to previous AT(s), and then wait to discuss a systematic move as per the consensus of the previous RM discussion. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • As the undiscussed moves have been reverted, I'm changing my vote to: not yet. It is still too soon the move any of these articles for these lines to the letter designations: that shouldn't happen until the entire system goes to letter designations for the lines (which hasn't happened yet). Beyond that, I would oppose the proposed article title formulation anyway as unnecessarily complicated. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Procedural comment. The out-of-process moves have been reverted under WP:RMUM, so it is possible to consider the merits of this request on their own. I have edited the request to reflect the stable article titles. The previous move discussion is quite recent, but I think it is fine to leave this open in order to determine whether moves to the proposed titles are warranted. Dekimasu よ! 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Is there any evidence the common names of the lines have changed since November? At the time there was a concerted effort by the operator to push the new names, but the parentheticals (and apparent intention to use them for a long time) suggests they old names remain in common use. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Whatever name is settled on, I oppose the removal of "Los Angeles Metro". The title is almost meaningless to most of the readers without it. A blue line or an A line can exist anywhere in the world. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - As you ( Lexlex) stated, Metro admits the parenthetical color names will be removed at some point in the future, so it doesn't make sense to use them as the "common name" article title. They will never be the common name, just the transitional name. Whatever name is settled on, I also oppose the removal of "Los Angeles Metro" from the titles. There are a lot of lines named Blue Line and A Line in this world, and the system name is clean, simple, consistent and unambiguous. -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 15:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Both names are currently in use, practically and on the website/system maps etc and no one knows when that will change (or if it will change regardless of intentions). I'd say the title should follow the pattern "E Line (Expo) (Los Angeles Metro)". A brief explanation about the name switch should be in the lead. "Los Angeles is currently renaming the rail system lines from using names to letters. The Expo line is being renamed the "E" line. Both names ("Expo" and "E") are currently in use." The lead picture for each article should be changed from whatever it is now to the colored circle with the letter symbol used for the line.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Double-parantheticals are an absolutely terrible idea for article titles. Based on WP:TITLECHANGES we should just leave it where it is (if somebody wants to create redirects, have at it – WP:Redirects are cheap...), and not move it at all until this naming scheme "settles", and is imposed across the entire L.A. Metro system. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

IJBall "Double-parantheticals are an absolutely terrible idea for article titles" I agree, reading it again I wish I hadn't made the suggestion. The current names really are fine, I don't think they will ever drop the color designations (at least in my lifetime). I do think replacing the article lead image with the line symbols would be a good idea if anyone wanted to put in the time.   //  Timothy ::  talk  20:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, per lack of evidence that common name has changed. If the common names change, I presume the new article title would be "A Line (Los Angeles Metro)", etc., but we'll mind that gap when we get to it. Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak support Oppose (in the specific form proposed). I understand the hesitation that some of the people in this discussion have about waiting a bit and don't feel that strongly about making the move right now, but am a little amused by those saying "Oh, we don't even know if it's going to happen." It's absolutely happening and they're already starting to put up official maps with the letter line names -- not just for the A and E, but for all the lines. See for example pics here and here of maps actually out in the wild at stations. Print publications are starting to follow suit, e.g., article in Curbed, which after explaining the name change refers to the former Red Line as the B Line throughout. I would however very strongly oppose using article titles like Line A (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) or even just Line A (Blue). The parentheticals are meant as an aid to memory; they're not part of the official name itself, and it seems wildly unlikely that anyone will ever say "Line A (Blue)" out loud. If you click the FAQ tab on this page, you'll see that even Metro doesn't use the parenthetical after the first reference, e.g., "We’ve made the transition to the A Line (Blue) — there’s brand new signage on the A Line — and the E Line (Expo). The rest of our rail lines are now following suit ... For instance, since the Blue Line was Metro’s first rail line to open in 1990, it becomes the A Line." I would also add that I think keeping the color names as article titles will cease to be tenable once they open the Crenshaw extension later this year, because that'll be a brand new line that will get a new letter, so presumably we'll use that for the article, but then why would we use a letter name for that line and not the others? -- Jfruh ( talk) 22:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It sounds like you Oppose "Line A (Blue)", which is the RM proposal at hand. Axem Titanium ( talk) 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I suppose so, though I feel like we're hashing out a lot of larger points on this thread. Anyway, I changed the vote to make it clearer. If someone suggested voting to move to just plain "A Line (Los Angeles Metro)" now I would vote yes. -- Jfruh ( talk) 00:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all. The common names remain the color names at this time. O.N.R.  ^(talk) 01:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose – these colors as parenthetical disambiguators make no sense w.r.t. our usual pattern. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all for the multiple reasons given by all above In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Wikipedia should not put the cart before the horse. On LA Metro's schedules page, when I currently open the rail lines menu, it still lists "Metro Red", Green, Gold, etc. The search box at the top of that page does not seem to recognize any results for "B Line", but still is able to find "red line". The schedules download page with schedules current as of December 15, 2019, is also the same. But even though the names of Blue and Expo are the only ones that have been updated to A and E on the LA Metro web site, respectively, I would still error here on WP:COMMONAME and WP:CONSISTENT. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 18:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) Jack Frost ( talk) 07:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) → A Line (Los Angeles Metro)
• Red Line (Los Angeles Metro) → B Line (Los Angeles Metro)
• Green Line (Los Angeles Metro) → C Line (Los Angeles Metro)
• Purple Line (Los Angeles Metro) → D Line (Los Angeles Metro)
• Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro) → E Line (Los Angeles Metro)
• Orange Line (Los Angeles Metro) → G Line (Los Angeles Metro)
• Silver Line (Los Angeles Metro) → J Line (Los Angeles Metro)
• Gold Line (Los Angeles Metro) → L Line (Los Angeles Metro)

– Move line pages to reflect Metro's official name as A) Over six months have now passed since the official name change of the lines; and B) All previous editor objections from the January proposal seem to have been met within that time: For example [Metro Schedules https://www.metro.net/riding/schedules/] and have all changed to reflect the names, and they are now in common use within media. Lexlex ( talk) 08:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Can support this version. The names have been changed and the changes phased in. Don't need the temporary color parentheticals, which were the real problem with the last proposal (as they go against Wikipedia naming conventions). This proposal omits them, so we are fine. oknazevad ( talk) 14:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I support this version. Metro has changed them. Lets get it over with. Color names confuses readers. Redspork02 ( talk) 17:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Support as all lines are indeed in the new system. Station signs are in the process of being replaced network wide. Lars Smiley ( talk) 18:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Support not least because people have gone ahead and changed the line names in text on most pages anyway, so that it's only the page titles that still have the old system. My main request would be to not do a simple search-and-replace on the text of History of Los Angeles Metro Rail and Busway and other history-related pages and sections so that we don't end up talking anachronistically, i.e., we shouldn't say "Line A opened in 1990" because it wasn't called that then. -- Jfruh ( talk) 20:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Support per all of the reasons listed above. -- RickyCourtney ( talk) 13:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Support as there is no real reason not to and new names are currently in use. Jspace727 ( talk) 05:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Support enough news outlets report letter names - time to do it. Mjdestroyerofworlds ( talk) 23:50, 19 July 2020 (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.