Talk:Crenshaw/LAX Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California / Los Angeles (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Los Angeles task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Trains / Rapid transit (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I cannot seem to find any reference in any LACMTA documents to an extension of a Crenshaw corridor LRT any further north than Wilshire Blvd. There is an extension of a red line branch down to the Purple Line that is being considered but this would be heavy rail and thus not compatible with the LRT being considered for the Crensaw Corridor. I am reverting the map to the one that is consistent with LACMTA corridor study documents, i.e. Westside Corridor and Crenshaw Corridor -- Arturoramos (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Page Move[edit]

I have moved this article. The former name was LACMTA Crenshaw Corridor. The new name makes it consistent with the naming used for the various other projects (e.g., Metro Green Line (LACMTA)). The new name, -- where the word LACMTA appears at the end in parentheses -- is better because it then acts a disambiguator. This is consistent with other transit systems' wiki pages as well (like NYC subway and Chicago).

Planned Move[edit]

Shortly, I plan to move the following pages, as follows:

  Metro Blue Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Green Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Green Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Red Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Red Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Purple Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Purple Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Gold Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Gold Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Orange Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Orange Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Silver Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Silver Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Metro Expo Line (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro)
  Expo Phase 1 (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Expo Phase 1 (Los Angeles Metro)
  Expo Phase 2 (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Expo Phase 2 (Los Angeles Metro)
  Crenshaw Corridor (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Crenshaw Corridor (Los Angeles Metro)
  Regional Connector (LACMTA) --> moving to --> Regional Connector (Los Angeles Metro)

The purpose of this change is to replace a less-well-known, technical name ("LACMTA") with a very descriptive and very familar name "Los Angeles Metro". This will allow people who are unfamiliar with the acronym "LACMTA" to find information about the system in the Los Angeles area.

(BTW, "Los Angeles" in this case refers to "Los Angeles County", since the City of Los Angeles does not have any system called "Metro".)

Jcovarru (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Standard format for Los Angeles Metro project articles[edit]

I am trying to standardize the format of Los Angeles Metro (LACMTA) project articles. The format is helpful to readers and editors, because it follows the lifecycle of a typical infrastructure project, and allows the article to grow organically as the project progresses.

The format consists of five sections, as follows:

Section name Topics
Background Discusses the motivation/objective/purpose of the line. Also discusses the history of early work to get the project going. Should include major milestones through Major Investment Study (MIS), Alternatives Analysis (AA) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
Environmental review process Describes the history of environmental review, and the alternatives studied in the DEIR/FEIR. May also list some or all of the alternatives considered in the AA. Should list all alternatives studied in the DEIR.
Selected alternative
(after LPA selected)
Describes the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in detail, plus any design options being carried forward for further study.
Other considerations Discusses project funding, planned service, and any other important issues affecting the design and implementation of the project.
Construction phase
(after construction began)
Discusses the history of construction, from groundbreaking through revenue service.

Jcovarru (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Updated: Jcovarru (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


Will this new line have a color designation, or will it be referred to by name only, like the Expo Line? Is Metro planning to do away with color designations? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

Page Move Proposal[edit]

In September 2013, this page was moved from Crenshaw/LAX Line (Los Angeles Metro) to Crenshaw/LAX Line. Now that this line is actually under construction (with a projected opening in 2019), it should be moved back to Crenshaw/LAX Line (Los Angeles Metro), so that it matches the other Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) line articles - e.g. Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro), Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro), Red Line (Los Angeles Metro), etc.

If there are no objections, I will move this page to Crenshaw/LAX Line (Los Angeles Metro) in the near future. --IJBall (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. No objection. The move was done by someone who has never contributed to this page. It was done boldly, and without discussion. While I generally agree with boldness, the rationale was that there was no need to disambiguate as no other articles have this exact title. However, in this case the parenthetical expression was not intended to disambiguate, rather, it is a standard naming convention that has developed on Wikipedia over the last few years for this type of article. Changing the name like this broke the developing standard. I think it should be changed back. Lexlex (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no need for the parenthetical disambiguator. Unlike the other LA Metro lines, whose simple color names are similar to other systems and therefore require disambiguation, this line's name is unique. While that does make it different to the other lines, there has been a general move away from unneeded disambiguators; that is the actual developing standard, and in line with the disambiguation guidelines. Let's not make titles more complicated than they need to be; it makes linking and searching more difficult. oknazevad (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
There's also a virtue in having sets of articles named consistently. E.g. Los Feliz, Los Angeles when there's probably not another neighborhood in the world named this, so it doesn't need to be disambiguated. But by having Los Angeles neighborhood articles named consistently people typing them in, or perhaps more importantly, using scripts on sets of them (which is not just editors but also researchers using the Wikipedia API) know what to expect. Also the uniformity of the naming system gives the reader extra information: that the article is part of the set.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
That is indeed the main reason to do it. If anything, leaving it as "Crenshaw/LAX Line" makes it harder to find than "Crenshaw/LAX Line (Los Angeles Metro)" for the simple reason that all of the other L.A. Metro line articles are named "[Something] Line (Los Angeles Metro)". In this case, I think the naming convention "consistency" argument trumps the "no need to disambiguate" argument... But I'll continue to wait for more comments to see if there's any other opposition before making this move. --IJBall (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Standardized name proposal[edit]

Did a bit of research and discovered that the Los Angeles times, refers to this project as the "Crenshaw line." So does curbed.LA. Even our mayor referred to it as the "Crenshaw line" in his remarks at the groundbreaking. Looking at the history of this article it was also originally called: Crenshaw Line (Los Angeles Metro) until it was changed to, I assume, try and match Metro's website at one time. However, Metro's website does not refer to this project in the same way across different pages. It sometimes refers to it as the Crenshaw line, however it also sometimes adds /LAX, and refers to it as a transit corridor, a transit project, or some combination of the preceding.

Therefore I propose that we match the newspaper of record and not try to come up with some version of the name we think is correct. I propose that the article be changed back to its original title, and what is easily confirmed as the most common name: Crenshaw Line (Los Angeles Metro)

Lexlex (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but my inclination is to stick with what Metro calls it, and consider that the "official" name, for now. I fully concede that Metro themselves will likely simplify the name to "Crenshaw Line" in the near future. But, until they do, I think their "Crenshaw/LAX" name should probably be considered the definitive version (and Metro seems to use that name most often when referring to it). --IJBall (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I also have no super-strong opinion, although I will note that a search of seems to show that it's called "the Crenshaw line" by out-of-town politicians like e.g. Barbara Boxer and also in the comments section, whereas the official text seems pretty consistently to use Crenshaw/LAX line. Obviously it will be called "the Crenshaw line" as soon as people start riding it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So, where do we stand on this, and the page move, proposals? --IJBall (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The recent page move to Crenshaw/LAX Line omitting "(Los Angeles Metro)" while seemingly correct in that there is no need for a disambiguation in the title, is not in line with the naming convention for transit line related articles. You will notice that every article related to a transit line (.e.g. Stations, lines, etc) have the name of the system in parentheses. In line with WP:Title, consistency, precision and easy recognition are considered most important when selecting an article name. Eliminating the system name from the title makes the article title confusing to the reader. Lexlex (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
While I fully agree with you, unfortunately the strong current push on English Wikipedia is to fully eliminate any and all "unnecessary disambiguation" (broadly defined) from article titles, even when such provides "standardized" titling among related articles. We're seeing exactly the same push at the various train, subway, etc. station articles (e.g. removing most instances of the use of the parenthetical system name from the article title) around Wikipedia right now as well. Personally, I pretty strongly dislike this policy. But it is what it is, and I doubt we'll get much sympathy trying to argue that the title should be moved back to where I earlier moved it, as most will chime in that it's "counter to policy"... --IJBall (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It has been unwritten style for years, it just needs to be codified into a special policy in the same way flora and a couple of other article types have been so it can be easily referenced. Any objections? Lexlex (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I definitely don't object on my end. But I will warn you that I have found my few forays into trying to influence or revise Wikipedia guidelines even less rewarding than pounding my foot with a hammer... --IJBall (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

LAX connector approved[edit]

See [1]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This definitely seems like a done deal, see also here on Metro's page. Anyone object if I edit the article to reflect that? --Jfruh (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a "done deal" yet – for example, the new station that will allow transfers to the people mover will still have to go through the environmental review process. (Additionally, I think the actual planned people mover is at the same point in the process...) I'd oppose categorizing either this station or the people mover as "approved" right now, as there are no finalized plans to build it yet, just an expectation that it will go through the environmental review process. I don't think it'll be in the "definitely will be built" stage for a couple of more years... --IJBall (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crenshaw/LAX Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park[edit]

Any word on a stop, that would service this location. Only in Los Angeles would they build a Light Rail Line, and make not connect to the biggest place along the route! And I live there.--Subman758 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The stadium is going to be more than a mile away from the line, and the line was planned and designed in the early '10s, when nobody had any idea the stadium was going to be built. There's some talk of building a spur line to the stadium but it would cost $$$ and nobody, certainly not the Rams, has agreed to pay for it. I think there's going to be shuttles running to nearby Crenshaw and Green line stations to the stadium on game days. --21:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

LAX People Mover[edit]

NEWS - - • SbmeirowTalk • 10:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably a separate article should be made for this, now that it's been approved. --Jfruh (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)