 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
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)
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)
- 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)
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 Having these articles still remain only duplicates the information on the A and E Line articles, albeit outdated by half a year (will be more as time goes on) is no longer necessary and now redundant.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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
Disagree This is a major transit/construction project that clearly warrants a page of its own.
Jg10101 (
talk) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
-
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)
- 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)