Talk:Union Station (Los Angeles)/Archive 1

Archive 1

merge with Union Station (LACMTA Station)?

Although I am generally an advocate of merging smaller articles into large articles, I don't think that this proposed merger serves the Wikipedia. One reason for not doing the mergier is that Union Station LA and Union Station LACMTA are really two different projects that just happen to be one on top of the other with very similar names. Another reason is that the Union Station is going to end up a big hodge-podge of info anyway once you add all the appropriate info on Amtrak and MetroRail, fill out the info on the history of the station, and then add some of the info from the To-do list such as the use of Union Station as a location in movies. BlankVerse ∅ 12:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on this one. As a current non-resident, I'm inclined to combine the two articles into one, but as a former resident, I also think they should remain separate. I've only visited the station once since the Red Line opened, but I seem to remember that the two stations operate more independently than an article merge would indicate. Am I right in remembering that the entry to one is completely separate from the other? If so, then the articles should remain separate (but at least mention and link to each other). slambo 13:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merge-Why not?! Pacific Coast Highway 13:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merge - Conditionally; if anything, Union Station (LACMTA) should be folded into Union Station (LA) as the latter is the more significant entity.--Lordkinbote 19:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merge - There are occasions when having separate articles serves a categorization purpose, but I can't find one here. Combining the articles will make the information more accessible to readers. -Willmcw 19:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

rail accidents associated with LAUPT

There are a couple of interesting accidents (and one photo!) listed at List of rail accidents. I won't get a chance to add them today, but will try to come back to this article sometime this next week. BlankVerse ∅ 13:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

The 75 trains per week seems awfully low. The San Diego Santa Fe Depot sees 150 trains per week and I'm sure LAUPT sees far more trains. MrHudson

It is way too low. Metrolink alone has 75 daily departures.--Slightlyslack 10:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo swap?

I think the above photo is better, but since I took this photo, can someone else confirm that I'm not biased? --Padraic 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes to SWAP. Your photo is higher resolution, of course. Its only detraction is the nearby building peeking over Union Station's roof. Perhaps if the camera had been nearer the subject and lower to the ground the other building wouldn't appear. At any rate, I agree yours is a better composition and ought to take pride of place in this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not perfect, but so swapped. I encourage any LA Wikipedians to go to the station and try for a better shot - but I won't be back in LA anytime soon.--Padraic 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, top one better. I took one from the left front walk and couple from the court yard side. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox problem

As you can see here when using the template {{Rail color box}} a large box was inserted between the two busways. I could not figure out how to get rid of the box so I switched over to the {{Colorbox}} template. Hopefully someone knows how to fix this and can change it back to the original template. Butros (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent Page Redesign

While I appreciate the work that was done to attempt to improve the page's layout, I think the most recent series of edits should be undone. The page now has large amounts of blank space from infoboxes pushing the boarders of sections down. It is also much more confusing as the page's main info box does not include the information about all the lines. This page should be edited to make it more like other major US railway hubs and to eliminate the glaring white space.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I agree with you that the layout as it stands (including my changes) has some major problems. However, examples of articles using multiple infoboxes exist: one example is Grand_Central_–_42nd_Street_(New_York_City_Subway).

The only exception I would take that example is that that page is NYC's GCT is split up into two articles, one for the building and one featuring the subway stations. Since LAUS only features one subway platform for two lines, I do not think splitting up the article is necessary.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I am looking into this and I hope to have a solution in the next few days. I do ask you to please not undo my recent edits, since they include other changes that I think improved the article and made it more consistent with other articles. Thanks. -- Jcovarru (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One quick observation: like many other L.A. rail station pages, this one seems overly preoccupied with the details of all the various bus connections. That, plus the number rail lines, results in an article that lacks focus. -- Jcovarru (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Bunching

Tried to fix, using {{Fix bunching|...}} tags. Was causing more problems with the text, so I canceled the edit. Could someone with more experience in this area please make the correction? Thanks. Rpyle731^talk 09:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Super Chief

Should there be a mention of the Super Chief somewhere in the text as well as in the caption? Seems like being the endpoint for such a well-known train is worth pointing out. Nareek (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial, contentious, or slanderous"

User:Oakshade has removed a citation needed tag in the introduction, saying that "this sentence is not controversial, contentious or slanderous." I'm wondering if this is some new standard for unsourced information I haven't heard of? WP:CHALLENGE says that "any material challenged" must be sourced, and the addition of the cn tag is a "challenge" by definition. The documentation for the cn template only mentions an exception for "common facts", which the renaming of this station is not. The documentation also states that the template should be used "when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided", which appears to fit this situation. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 17:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting my admin hat on here, as I've seen the mini-war on the article page. Indeed, WP:BURDEN is fairly clear. I've taken the Judgment of Solomon approach. Here's what I removed:

Opened in May 1939, Union Station is known as the "Last of the Great Railway Stations" built in the United States, but even with its massive and ornate waiting room and adjacent ticket concourse, it is considered{{By whom}} small in comparison to other union stations.{{Citation needed}} It was formerly designated the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT), but its owner, Catellus Development, officially changed the name to Los Angeles Union Station.{{Citation needed}}

It's preserved here for wording and because it's likely correct. Feel free to re-add with sources. tedder (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a classic example of purely innocuous statements getting littered with citation tags just because an editor sees a statement without a citation. The "any material challenged" clause in WP:CHALLENGE is frequently abused, as I think it has here, and it frequently only serves to remove encyclopedic and useful content from the public. --Oakshade (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:V ("This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source") and Jimbo's statement ("..pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.") apply here. Maybe it doesn't seem likely to be challenged to you, but it was challenged. Thanks for finding sources. tedder (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, encyclopedic content had to be removed. If it wasn't for an excellent editor like myself who bothered to take the time to find, format and insert sources, then this valuable content wouldn't have been seen by the public. I'd rather spend my time doing actual improvement to articles than having to cater to the whims of lousy editors who can find nothing better to do than to carpet tag articles with easily verifiable content (not just "I heard it somewhere") just because they can abuse a statement Jimbo made years ago, which was really meant for controversial BLP content but is technically applied to everything.--Oakshade (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that none of this would have happened if you hadn't removed the cn tag in the first place. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please focus further energy at improving Wikipedia, not turning things into personal attacks. Additional sniping and pointy conversation will be dealt with. tedder (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Major cleanup - 4 August 2011

I have given this article a pretty serious cleanup today. To be clear I have not added or removed any significant content, only rearranged it and removed duplication. It now has a lead geared towards saying first where it is first, then something about the services from it and finally then a small piece about the history/architecture. There is then a section on the location which needs more work but brings together all the extant text describing the layout of different parts of the station. This is followed by a section on services covering each type of service in order starting with the long-distance heavy rail services and ending with local bus servics. I have then placed history just before 'future expansion' followed by architecture and Film/TV etc. I hope people feel that this is an improvement. Happy to discuss my changes and I will now pause for 24 hours for comment before making further changes. People may notice that I have done a lot of work on many LA transport articles over the past 2 weeks but have delayed touching this article until I understood more about the system. PeterEastern (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this article really needs {{-}} templates. The infoboxes are sometimes in the wrong sections. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do add them back as you think appropriate. To be honest I was not that clear what they were doing for the article and may have been too enthusiastic in removing them. PeterEastern (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand why you have added the {{-}} templates back but this creates rather uncomfortable breaks in the body text. Also.. there is a lot of duplication of information in boxes and body text (some introduced by me). Would it be possible to 'hide' some of the detail in these various infoboxes so it only appears if requested or alternatively remove some of this detail and place it in the body of the article where appropriate to balance the body text with the infoboxes better and get rid of the white space? PeterEastern (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I will say it again - because I keep getting reverted on this. The "line" parameter in the Infobox is redundant when "services" contains succession boxes for exactly the same lines. Clean those out, for a start, and see what that does for spacing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I have taken my chances at getting reverted by removing the line information from the infobox for the reason you give above. Would it be appropriate to now convert the MetroLink table that I copied from the MetroLink article into the previous/next type format or is that not appropriate for a mainline rail service? PeterEastern (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the "services" section in the infobox? I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Secondarywaltz is just referring to the "lines" parameter. I strongly object to removal of the "services" section in the infoboxe. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case could you adjust the infoboxes in the way you feel is appropriate? Another approach would be to combine information into a single infobox avoiding the need for {tl|-}} templates at all which is what I notice is done for other large US train stations such as Union Station (Chicago), San Francisco 4th and King Street Station and Pennsylvania Station (New York City).06:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have created a new section below for the discussion on infobox/line/service information arrangement. PeterEastern (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes in ownership, expansion of retail at the station

As of 4/15/2011, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has completed the purchase of Union Station. http://thesource.metro.net/2011/04/14/metro-tonight-officially-becomes-new-owner-of-los-angeles-union-station/ The plan, reportedly, is to further redevelop the area and make it more of a destination!

Also, I was there just a week ago, after not having been through Union Station for about 6+ months -- there is now four new retail convenience food shops open: Subways, Starbucks, Wetzel's Pretzels, and Famima. This makes Union Station a far more comfortable place to hang out while waiting for your next train, and a nice transit point between the various light-rail, subway, bus, and heavy rail services.

I'm not sure how much of the above info should go in the main article. Toybuilder (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The ownership part should be covered, and maybe a line about the shops and approximately when they opened. Famima opened sometime around the end of the year, there's probably a LAT article about it. tedder (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, not the LA Times, but how's this for an article? http://www.csnews.com/article-all_aboard_famima__-1544.html Toybuilder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

Infobox rationalisation

The above cleanup section has raised a specific issue relating to infoboxes and I am creating a new section to discuss this issue. Can I suggest we review other station articles now with a view to reorganizing the information in this article to match what we see as 'best practice'. In particular I recommend reviewing these which are all large and use the same structure: Pennsylvania Station (New York City), Union Station (Chicago), Union Station (Washington, D.C.), Union Station (Denver, Colorado) and Union Station (Toronto). For me the main thing seems to be that other article have only one infobox with details about all relevant lines and services and don't repeat these tables in the body. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reworked the services into the main infobox and removed what seems to be a redundant secondary infobox. I have also removed duplicated service information from the body text. It seems like a big improvement to me. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Much better. I never really liked the separate infoboxes in this case. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. So other than a further clean-up pass through each section and sorting out why the 'lines' don't display in the infobox I think it is in good shape now. Does anyone have any ideas why they don't display?PeterEastern (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Although this is an older conversation, I wanted to respond to the above question about the 'lines' section not displaying. In the infobox, "line" is defined twice, with the second definition completely empty. It is located directly above the long "services" definition (there is also a second "service" definition above the second "line" definition). Since it is empty, it overwrites the previous "line" definition. Remove the redundant parameter and it will work.

I already made the correction, but was reverted by an anonymous user citing this discussion. Therefore, I will leave the changes to someone associated with this article. I would recommend either: fix the error and display the information, or completely remove unwanted information. It is generally never a good idea to rely on a computer bug to display information correctly.Skyman9999 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The infobox seems fine to me, more or less, but the real problem is the shifting of all the other images to the right that's creating that huge whitespace. ----DanTD (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Errata - Aerial Photo

I'm confused. Is the aerial photo from the Late 1940's or Late 1990's (more likely). The article seems to indicate both. Wayne Loomis (Dr. Detail) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.3.77 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more likely from the 1940's. Aerial photos in the 90's weren't so grainy. 50.178.161.154 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"The MTA Building is a 398 ft (121 m) high rise office tower in Los Angeles, California. Completed in 1995". No high rise building in Los Angeles in 1940s. Ucla90024 (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

LACMTA Red Line

The Union Station page is part of a larger effort to document the Red Line. It has been restored to it's original page. Pacific Coast Highway 02:10, June 12, 2005 (UTC)

Platforms

Question, the infobox says that Metrolink and Amtrak has 6 island platforms at the station. I'm aware they share tracks and platforms, but I only count 5 island platforms of Metrolink and Amtrak (and one additional island for the Metro Gold Line) on Bing Map's aerial of the site. Is the map outdated, or am I missing the platform somewhere? I count the Metro Gold platforms first behind the station building, and then 5 additional metrolink/amtrak islands behind that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: On Google Maps, it looks like the easternmost platform was constructed recently, so Bing Maps is probably just outdated. Additionally, maps from Metrolink and Metro both show six platforms. Conifer (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what is it. The Bing Maps don't show the easternmost platform. I used to use Google Maps until they monkeyed around with the format. BTW, when was this new platform constructed? And, actually, I have a second question. I'm looking at the Google map aerial, right now, and I actually spotting an additional platform north of the underground concourse, and west of the furthest east Metrolink platform. It's unconvered. What is that platform? I thought it might be for the BRT stop, but that appears to be all the way on the other side of the station. So, what I'm now seeing - from west to east - is the Metro Gold platform, six platforms for Metrolink/Amtrak, and then this uncovered platform wedged at the northeast corner of the station complex. Maybe, it's just a concrete streetway which looks like a platform, because I see markings on it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Platform 7 was rebuilt to original specification in 2012. There were originally 8 platforms, but at some point 7 and 8 were removed and the tunnels filled in. The new platform 7 looks almost identical to those built in the 1930's, you really wouldn't know. You can see pictures of the new platform at [this link] and a youtube video of the opening ceremony it at this YouTube link. I suppose this should be included in the article. I'll ask the photographer if he can release some shots into PD. Lexlex (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Go to the google aerial of this to help me with one more thing. Look at platform 7 (13 & 14) where the shed ends, and then look directly across the double tracks to the east at this point. Right on the other side of the doube tracks appears to be some concrete section that stretches all the way down to about where the underground concourse is. Is this an additional platform of any kind of is it an optical illusion? It looks to be another platform. --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost positive it's a concrete section of pavement within the fire lane. Note that "KEEP CLEAR FIRE LANE" is painted over both the asphalt and concrete section within the lane, so doubtful it's a raised platform. Lexlex (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What photographs should we use?

I am not fond of the images captioned “Metro Gold Line train at Union Station” and “The platform view of the Red Line and Purple Line.” and “The upper floor view of the Red Line and Purple Line station platforms” because they are really rather dull, don’t show any passengers and don’t contribute to any understanding of this particular railroad station. What do others think? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That "Union Station bus stop for El Monte Busway services" image is pretty awful, too. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Those photos don't do much to illustrate what these platforms look like. They need to provide a wider view of the platform, preferably with passengers and trains visible. After all, these platforms are a unique part of Union Station and very different architecturally from the rest of the 75 year old station. I suggest we go to Flickr to find creative commons images that are more appropriate. Here are some suggestions for better photos for the Red/Purple and Gold lines. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe platform view images that I uploaded for Red and Purple Line are both needed, since they're available for other metro pages. Uniformity is a must for metro pages. Some say it isn't efficient, but I believe it is what these pages need. For example, you have the Seoul Subway station pages in Korean having all the same platform view images (https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/종각역, https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/종로5가역, https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/동묘앞역), and it looks fantastic; I'm trying to apply that same, impressing view for LA. And about the dullness, that is what the LA Metro is like, so unfortunately, even though it looks bad, it still well describes how the station looks like; as a metro enthusiast, I know what I want for Wiki pages based on metro stations: the image of how it's like there. You want to see of how their graphic design goes, also (the partial benefit the platform view gives). HanSangYoon (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The platform view of the Red Line and Purple Line.

The platform view of the Gold Line.

I can't agree with HanSangYoon. We don't have to have all the subway or train station pages look alike: For the most part, they are all different, and all their pages should reflect the differerences. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I honestly cannot interpret your reasons because first of all, these metro pages could have more than one pictures; it isn't illegal to do so (I know this for sure since I re-read the Wikipedia rules just to see if I'm missing out on anything). And to show the platform images, some stations will have beautiful images at the background (Take example: Universial Studios Station or Hollywood/Highland Station). This is where you find differences for the platform images. Some stations do not have too much differences (but sensitive people eventually does find their way and is also one of the reasons why I'm against putting these pictures down), and so you have other images such as upper floor images, or lower floor images, since that's where they start to reflect the differences. Remember: Wikipedia is for everyone. There will be people who's fascinated with the indifference and start delving into it (not all people are the same). HanSangYoon (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I grant you that on the Korean Wikipedia page the sign on the platform is pictured at the top of each page... but that's not the uniform look used here on the English Wikipedia. Take a look at pages for Metro stations in New York, Chicago, Boston and Portland... in each case the main photo prominently shows a visually interesting wide view of the platform, often with passengers and trains visible.RickyCourtney (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter, Courtney? So just because it is a Korean Wikipedia they could do it, and because it's English Wikipedia, you can't? I am finding that opinion a bit strange (in fact, it sounds a bit racy). I believe Los Angeles Metro could have this format since its system is more organized compared to New York, Washington, or Chicago, and therefore could be done. The LA Metro stations are also more sophisticated and well-maintained, so it is well deserved to show something like this. Even if these additional reasons I provided sounds absurd, I still cannot agree with taking the photos out, and I will be waiting for the ultimate decision on these two pictures. Nothing to go against you, but I am against putting these pictures away until another better pictures make way. HanSangYoon (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

For my $0.02, I think the "Metro Gold Line train at Union Station" pic is actually OK (not great – and a picture like that, but of better quality, would be better still...), but it's OK enough that I'd leave it. I agree that the other two pics mentioned are weak and could go without any objection from me. --IJBall (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I could really care less of how dull it looks, for those images are the only images that describes the metro stations for Union Station, and I'm pretty sure there will be some who's wanting to see it; surely not everyone will ignore it. So rather than to delete it, I say put it up until a better, stronger picture comes in to push them away (in which I'll take care by the next two weeks). For now, however, I strongly stand with the point that it should be uploaded. Looks dull? Blame the metro staff and the architect who designed the station, not me who simply went there with effort to upload them for this page. Quality? Blame on my iPad Air. Eitherways repeating: I will try to get a more 'satisfying picture' for these pages (in fact, the entire stations- again).HanSangYoon (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PS IJBall, your Penny-worth advice was quite angering- please refrain from writing rhetorically.

I'm currently waiting for a reply on this section, cause I am not done here. I will revert if there isn't a response by Wednesday (US, PST (California)). Abandoning the platform pictures is considered throwing away minimal information. (Rules of Thumb #3) HanSangYoon (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

HanSangYoon- Look, I honestly think you made the changes to these photos across Wikipedia in good faith, because you were being bold and you think they were the right changes to make. Those are some of the core tenants of Wikipedia... but another is that we come to the talk page to suggest alternative solutions or compromises and come to a consensus. At this point you have the opinions of several very senior editors across this page, your talk pages and your complaint pages (GeorgeLouis, IJBall, Secondarywaltz, Rich Farmbrough, Terramorphous, Mandruss and myself) that disagree with your changes. That's far more input than most changes get. I've seen a few alternative solutions and compromises suggested to you (placing the photos on commons, placing them elsewhere), but you don't get to revert the changes just because you don't agree with our responses. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already created a Commons account. In fact, that is where I have uploaded all my images for the Gold Line Metro pictures, so Commons is out of the list of reasons of why the photos are disqualified. Also, it is important to know that reverting pictures just because it contributes so little isn't a reason at all to get rid of them. That's what you guys are saying: contributes to almost nothing so we should get rid of the pictures. If you guys have that much hatred on the platform pictures (sigh...let me explain: London Underground Roundel Sign is like the placards of Los Angeles Metro. See what I'm talking about?), then hold on, cope with the rules and don't revert them yet so that I could replace them with a better one (not the same one). Andjust because you guys altogether say no to this, then what am I (the central user of this controversy)? Does my strong opinion becomes nullified? I advised you all not to delete the pictures for several reasons in the Wikipedia policies, but does this become nullified just because the majority doesn't want to follow it (Necessary reverting,Explaining before ultimate reverting, information still matters, and etc.)? HanSangYoon (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My post here "for the record", HanSangYoon's station pictures are not very good and his insistence to have them in the info box is utter non-sense. Please HanSangYoon by replacing a perfectly good picture with your own for the sake of "owning" the article is extremely disrespectful to the producers of the original pictures. In addition, throwing away minimal information. (Rules of Thumb #3) is being improperly used a sloppy WP:CIR form of WP:WL. This is more appropriate.Terramorphous (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Look. What have I told you about the pictures? They are still contribution, and inputs information into the pages. I hope you knownot to revert but to discuss, in which you've went against. What's more, it has been stated that only NECESSARY revertings are allowed. That means, "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation." On top of that, you have failed to respond on my statement that little information is more than no information, and therefore shouldn't be reverted out of the page. I already confirmed days ago that I do not / do not act (like) owning these articles; I am contributing them with my own effort, in which you guys are acting like it's YOUR article so that you could take them out of the pages (see where I'm going? You claim I'm acting like I own the pages because I continuously persuade inserting the pictures, but I say you act like it's your article because you don't want the pictures in there). And what kind of excuse is that, that my reasoning of Rule of Thumb #3 is 'poor'? HanSangYoon (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

HanSangYoon makes some good points about simply deleting images (or any other information) from articles, but, really, we are following procedure by discussion these deletions on this page. I applaud Mr. Yoon for his initiative in making photographs at RR stations in Los Angeles, but he should be more perceptive about the results. One of the photos (shown above on this page) seems to show the top of some kind of notice board, looking down at the platform (I am guessing if this is actually what it shows; it is hard to see). Another shows an iron fence in front of four cars, with a white building in the background: These images do nothing to advance the reader's understanding of what Union Station is like. For some good images (and I know we can't use them), go to https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gold+line+los+angeles+union+station&FORM=HDRSC2. I suggest he return to Union Station with a real camera and try to get some images as good as those. I am sure he will do a good job once he decides to do so. Again, I wish him the best in this endeavor. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. Agree with GeorgeLouis. "A real camera"? Isn't a smart phone a real camera? Ucla90024 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Rule of Thumb #3 means that if an image is partly relevant then edit (corp) the irreverent part out and use the image on the article BUT don't waste/throw away the orginal image, upload it to Wikipedia Commons for future use NOT ARTICLES, WIKI COMMONS. It does not mean shoehorn images into articles. It means upload into Commons for future use should an article require the need for it.

2. The Consensus is that these images should not be in the infobox. You can't call the Consensus as owning the article that just doesn't make sense. A bunch of editors decided it was not the right course of action.

3. I have been to enough metro station articles to know that station signage pictures is used in the topic. However, they don't use them on the main image space of the infobox. Which is what the other editors have been arguing to you about. That dominate spot should be used for high value images.

4. There is nothing wrong with adding images to the article, good or bad, but substituting a perfectly good image with yours is only ok if your image is vastly better than the old one. Judging from the edits and the reactions that is not the case here at all. It is disrespectful to the owner of the replaced image.

I hope you take these into consideration becuase I see that everyone's patience is wearing thin.Terramorphous (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Whereshall I start...

1. The opinion of yours of my images being 'shoehorn' is false. This doesn't squish up the space, as it's not like I'm inserting more than two or three pictures per page. What's more, the Rule of Thumb #3 applies to all dimension of pictures, shoehorn or not. Therefore, going against it is going against it.

2. Again, I have to repeat that I am saying nothing about owning the articles; just a matter of contribution. What's more, just because bunches of users want to push beyond the policies I showed as an example above doesn't mean it is right, and therefore doesn't mean it should go the way they want it, either. Discussion is the key (as we do here).

3. Really? Have you been to 'enough' articles? Really? I see enough too, and almost all of them has placards in the front? Seoul, Busan, Gyeonggi, Daegu, Tokyo...Explain.

4. It is not about who's picture is better or not that goes up in the front. It is the meaning of pictures that decide whether it should go up in the front. Putting the title sign of the station out of the title doesn't make sense.

I hope you also take consideration that my patience is diminishing too.HanSangYoon (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You said "Some here in LA take pictures for the LA metro pages (Simon H., Jonathan Menyhart), then I upload them." Can you confirm that you have not actually taken these photographs yourself? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The metro Red and Purple Line images, yes, that's what happened. After I got the Commons account and went for the Gold Line, they were gone. And since I gave these users permission to photograph with my iPad for the Red and Purple Line stations, the ownership came to me. HanSangYoon (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the copyright/ownership lies with the photographer, not the equipment owner. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1. WP:WL Just so we are clear you are talking about this clause right?

Within reason, crop an image to remove irrelevant areas. But do not "throw away information"; for example, if a photograph shows George Washington and Abraham Lincoln together at a birthday party, and the article you're working on requires only Lincoln, consider uploading both the original image and the crop of Lincoln. Also, if an image has captions as an inherent part of the artwork (as with book illustrations, early cartoons, many lithographs, etc), don't crop them, or at least upload them cropped and uncropped.

— Rules of thumb, Wikipedia

How does this rule help you, it's talking about something totally different. If this is the rule you are referring to explain to me in clear simple English what it means.

2. Your just one person going against the consensus. We all heard your arguments but do you hear ours?

3. Really? Because on the Korean pages of those respective stations all but one don't use station nameplates as the infobox image.

4. your pictures = not better + little meaning most editors already have said that. It is not Infobox material. Terramorphous (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Should I create a page filled with the pictures I took for metro, and let people vote for the preferred ones?

I have had enough with these ridiculous criticisms. I recently got my pictures back, and instead of continuing the image inserting which would most certainly stir a huge criticism, I have a great idea. I'm just gonna create a referendum-like page filled with the metro pictures (ones that were taken by ME, not the other two people), and selected users in this controversy will be able to select the pictures they think qualifies for each station. That would create a lot less controversy. Don't you all think? HanSangYoon (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do the pictures we get to select have to be by you? Terramorphous (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said that all the pictures in the metro pages should be of my origin (now that IS ridiculous). What I'm saying is my contributions. Which one should qualify? I'm not saying to delete the other pictures other contributors made. And why does it have to be me, not my other photographers that I fired recently? It's against the policy for me to put up images not done by me. You know well. And after all, we get into lots of talk page arguments, so why not do a referendum? It actually seems like what you'd favor. HanSangYoon (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, read yet another section WP:SHOUT. Do you expect to be taken seriously, BOLDING an entire section? --

Allamericanbear (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I was only trying to grab the user's eyes. Guess I didn't do it the right way. HanSangYoon (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Too bad Ansel Adams and Julius Shulman can't see them. Or maybe they will. Ucla90024 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's actually quite funny...thanks for the statement. HanSangYoon (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I now have a referendum page which I invited everyone who was involved in this controversy (pretty much every user who discussed with me about or near the issue of the Los Angeles Metro has been invited. Click here.HanSangYoon (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Cooperation off-Wikipedia on articles

The following discussion 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.

---

Should there be a cooperative group of people outside of Wikipedia who are making additions and suggesting policies for this and other articles? Go here for background on this question. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The following messages are copied from the page mentioned just above:

Regarding the notice on your home page of the above title, kindly explain who these other editors are and direct us to the page where they decided to make these changes. Please also read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never said that we own these articles, and never have we said anything about acting like so. We consist of people OUTSIDE of Wikipedia (in fact, my user is controlled not just be 'me', but several people (Credits: Han SangYoon, Simon H., Jonathan M. Daniele D.S, Bobby C., Trey V.T, J. Dong Hyun (HSYKorea), J. Ji Hoon (HSYKorea), K. Shoujyun/Nao Uruo (HSYJapan)). We share accounts, and we're working together under one account as our favor. Some here in LA take pictures for the LA metro pages (Simon H., Jonathan Menyhart), then I upload them. So whatever it is, I'm just organizing the metro pages for their benefit, and just because I have a big list on the bottom of my homepage doesn't mean I own it. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Take note of what I said on the bottom of the page: Our edits follow the rules of Wikipedia in all dimensions and every way. New photos were made by us, and we are also adjusting the pattern of the subways are the sign placard on the top (just like most other subway pages). HanSangYoon (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not nice. Read Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. I am assuming your good faith, but this is not the way the encyclopedia is fashioned. Thanks, and I hope you guys decide to do all of your future planning within WP and not outside of it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That meat puppetry isn't related to my account. the three different regional accounts aren't sepearte; they're all one account used in different languages, so Korean or Japanese HSY account cannot interfere into the English one. What is this link for again? HanSangYoon (talk)

So you accuse other users of using multiple accounts, when it's quite possible they don't. But, you think it's okay to have multiple people using one account? Who are we talking to at each time? How do we know who is editing what? I see problems with this. --Allamericanbear (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And how does this affect the Wikipedia page? It isn't illegal to have several people team for a user, AllAmericanBear, at least I wouldn't sock puppet multiple users under a single account in the first place. And your reference to Secondarywaltz is illegitimate once again, since I never said that user was 100% a sock puppet; I wanted this user investigated as suspicion. By the way, tell me how multiple users using one account a bad thing, AllAmericanBear. Let's see how you defend to this issue. HanSangYoon (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote: You have been breaking the three-revert policy by using multiple accounts, which is not an okay action to do. You have been undoing so many of my work for the Los Angeles Metro pages, and I've already warned you not to do such an action again unless you were reasonable. However, you used four accounts in total to undo my reverts, and four times. I've REALLY had enough with your logic-less actions. HanSangYoon (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC) You didn't say "I think", you said "you have been breaking the three revert policy". What is misunderstood with that comment? --Allamericanbear (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And exactly what kind of logic again did you use when you placed this unrelated comment here? I made a proper statement and you're picking out criticism so pitifully...maybe that 'I think' issue was a mistake, but really? You're trying too hard to criticize me. HanSangYoon (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also to GeorgeLouis, do you notice this is a talk page for Union Station? The private discussion you just made public isn't a good idea. I appreciate none of it.HanSangYoon (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Innocence? Your peers on here will clear you of all wrongdoing. Your bullying actions are not logical ways of dealing with this.--Allamericanbear (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I advise you not to make up false facts that I'm the bully here. I'm the mortified one here, and I am simply trying to get my issues cleared. I believe there is something amiss with Secondarywaltz, so I requested an investigation, and what, eavesdroppers decide to criticize me for that? You're the one currently bullying, not me. I don't have any wrongdoings, so stop making yourself one by lying here. HanSangYoon (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Requesting an investigation is one way to go. Let your peers decide once and for all. I'm definitely waiting for the outcome on this. --Allamericanbear (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, perhaps it is best to take this WP:RfCU?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, he's already got his own SPI "investigation" going after lodging a complaint against a couple of long-time (and pretty much beyond reproach) editors, so I'm not sure there's much point – hopefully they'll figure it all out investigating his charges. But taking him to SPI now will just look "retaliatory", so it's probably best to leave this one alone for now... --IJBall (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

HanSangYoon You can request a Courtesy blanking from an admin for specific sections, but just deleting talk page posts from others is not within policy. Please see When_to_archive_pages for more information. Lexlex (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing the instructions, and it told me to first delete this entire thing, then add on a notification tab- it seems I was reverted again because that's not how it goes?

What am I not getting? This was the instruction for me to request deletion? I'm not used to these things so I will need help.HanSangYoon (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose "courtesy blanking" – this discussion should be left out in the open as public record. --IJBall (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm getting that this should be taken to WP:RfCU instead, since this is a discussion about user conduct, not the article's subject. Epic Genius (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's already something available – might I suggest stopping by his SPI filing and mentioning your concerns there?... --IJBall (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"IJBall showed a high level of incivility in this case. He accused HanSangYoon of incompetence numerous time both here and at the ANI. That is not a good practice at all. Competence is required, but it is not inherited. IJBall, if you find out that the user is acting wrongly, try to help him, to teach him, and not to accuse him of being ignorant or dishonest. Acting like that only makes the situation worse." Wonder if you're ever gonna fix yourself... HanSangYoon (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am – by putting a self-imposed IBAN with you in place. (Starting now.) --IJBall (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed with an admin quoting the statement surely confirms you're simply being parasital- which is why I'm so glad you're ending the misery between us. I'm gonna seek IBAN as well in case your ban only is towards me. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@HanSangYoon: I'm not an admin, just a clerk. Anyway, I don't like to see you using my words as some kind of confirmation of your innocence. You are not innocent here, and I said that both of you went too far. This discussion is about whether or not several people may use the same user account. Although HanSangYoon claimed above that "it isn't illegal to have several people team for a user", actually it is. That is called a role account and is prohibited per WP:ROLE. If you really allow other users to use your account, you have to stop that immediately. If you continue to share the account with other people, you may be indefinitely blocked form editing. That can be easily checked using the WP:CheckUser tool, as the IP addresses are different in different parts of the World. I call on you to state here and now that you'll stop sharing your account and to stop such a practice now. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I have already explained earlier, that originally I had no other people touching this account; I had friends giving me advises and resources like information. Currently to make sure everything's clear, I got rid of these people too several days ago (in fact, my IP Address and other technical evidence could prove that no one has even touched my account). So as a confirmation, I don't have anyone on or near my account; these criticisms really needs to stop now. Also, I'm aware that I am nowhere near innocent, but right now, can you please take a look at IJBall and tell me what he's doing? I'm trying to cooperate and listen to your words, but IJBall took advantage of your words. You could warn me, but my mortification on the terrible bullying I'm receiving from that user is so obnoxious and corrupt. HanSangYoon (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment I was randomly invited to comment here by a bot. I recommend HanSangYoon stop editing this article due to issues with civility (and/or English). Jojalozzo (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that HanSangYoon has a conflict of interest. He is not profiting at all from his endeavors in Wikipedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

comment I was also invited by a bot. am unable to get my hands around the question here. It does not appear to pertain to the article itself so I decline to comment on other editors, especially since there seems to be some huge and incomprehensible history. If the question is whether the account is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or whatever there are admins who specialize in researching this. If people want to talk to one another about edits they are making on given articles using distinct accounts I personally see no issue with this although then principle of anonymity is important in some topic areas. But if the account holders don't care? I have made a number of remarks that are revealing to anyone who cares of my field of work and general location. But that is me. I am unsure what the rules are but I do know that it is frowned upon to dig too deeply into who/what another editor is. If several people are sharing an account, I am uncertain how the rules apply -- I think there may be issues of possible repudiation, but this is not an area where I do wiki-work. It might not, for example, be a bad idea for a municipal government to want to beef up its wikipedia page. But I am not familiar with those rules, and I doubt your average random editor is either. I tend personally more to the reliable source, undue weight, which picture is better and how should we do this kind of question and I think that comment from random editors may not be the best way to address -- whatever the question is here. It is really unclear, but I hope some of what I said helps a little. Elinruby (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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.

Station Name Plates

I noticed HanSangYoon pointed out that New york has the station nameplate and the platform picture together. New york's nameplate is not an image it is a wikitemplate, much more professional than taking a picture of the actual thing. I would also like to point out that LA already has what New York has. So here is the compromise: I will edit the LA templates to took like the signage of its rail network just as New York's station pages do. Then we will not have to post a picture of the subway signage. As I have done Here. Now HanSangYoon, does this look like the sign you took in your picture? Terramorphous (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I like the way it is, but what changed? HanSangYoon (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so you're trying to tell me of the differences between this and something like the platform view I've put up for Chinatown Station or Fillmore Station? I don't know if you've been to these stations, but Lincoln/Cypress is a station where there are split platforms. That's why as you're on the other side of the platform, it is easy to take the picture across, letting both the signage and the platform come out. But Chinatown and Fillmore Station are island platforms. Taking a picture from one edge of a platform to the other side is a very hard thing to do, and unfortunately, those pictures were the best outcome; I can't just jump on the tracks and take the pictures, you know.HanSangYoon (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Approve. Great minds think alike Terramorphous... I was already thinking of making the very same change after seeing station pages for Boston and Toronto. I was going to wait to propose the change until after this photo flap calmed down a bit... but I say let's do it. I'll be happy to help make the changes. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@HanSangYoon: look at the title of the info box, see how it matches the "placard" of the station. You said you liked how new york has a "placard" and a platform picture of the station this is the exact same set up as New York's pages. I left the "placard" image so you can see the resemblance but however it should be replaced with platform picture like now or like this. Terramorphous (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

So let me try to comprehend that...you left up the placard image because of the title and the color dot? HanSangYoon (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait...you just changed the placard image. Now it makes me a little uncomfortable. But don't decide right now; I'm opening up a referendum page soon. We'll all take care of the image issue there. HanSangYoon (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I just showed both versions to my daughter, without indicating which was which (which came first, etc.), and she felt that the picture that showed perspective was much better than the straight-on picture. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@HanSangYoon: The title and the color dot is exactly what a the "placard" looks like. The article looks like every New York City Subway station.

They are not called "placards" anywhere in the U.S. or Canada (or the U.K., as far as I know) – so let's stop calling them that, shall we? They're just "station signs" or "station signage". Thanks... --IJBall (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: Of course they are not but I'm going to try my best to speak his language so he at least gets what is going on.Terramorphous (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. IJBall, you can add Australia to that list too, we don't call them placards here either. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall:@ColonialGrid: Can we please stop the discussion at this page? Whatever it is called, signage, placard, whatever is is, I've created a referendum page for a reason, not just for fun. It may be moved later, but the referendum is gonna stay. Click here. Also to @Terramorphus:, were you trying to describe my English negatively? I have studied English for 14 years, and sure, I may be from a country not from an English-speaking country, but I do have common sense, you know? I'm trying to communicate in an appropriate manner, in which I do not find in you guys who criticize me for defending placard images. HanSangYoon (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, I'll discuss issues wherever they are pertinent. I wouldn't be so confident that your malformed RfC will stay, and only you support moving. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@ColonialGrid:, In my view, the only way this image controversy will settle (including me) means a consensus is required. It seems that a consent will be the easiest option. If you don't want to join, then really, it's your choice, honestly. I, however, recommend that you do so. HanSangYoon (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You're not being criticized for defending placard images, you're being criticized for rejecting everything you're told about the suitability of the placard images. If you haven't read WP:I didn't hear that lately, you should. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: I haven't, actually. I listened to them, and replied to their reasons. And when they ignore it or talk about something else all of a sudden, the discussions end there, then later on, they criticize me for not listening to them. I am ridiculed as a result, and to end the nonsense from all dimensions, I have placed a consensus page, which I am presume will end the controversy. I try to keep this organized and proactive. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What if you made a consensus page and nobody came? Frankly, it might be a better use of your time to go out and take some better photos of the train stations in L.A. Then nobody would complain. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@GeorgeLouis: George, I hope you know, I am still a student. I do not have time to travel around in metro systems everyday; I am not an enthusiast that spends every single second on editing this article. I go for a photo trip with the metro twice every month, and I am therefore unable to do the actions immediately. Rather than to break my schedule, I'd rather hold a referendum. Did you get a notification about it? HanSangYoon (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there are too many pictures on these pages already. No need to post a lot of photos that do not add much meaning to the article. Therefore I have not post the pictures of stations that I have taken. Ucla90024 (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ucla90024, although there may not be space in the article now, that doesn't mean that your images would be unwelcome. If you upload them to Commons that gives editors more choices in images, allows for more images when the articles grow, and provides future historical photos. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ucla90024: What? There are too many images? I don't know about that, dude. The Gold Line pages truly lacked images. And the Red Line lacked description of what the station was like. I believe pages like these are geographically orientated, and therefore should show how they look. HanSangYoon (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Image Consensus is Here (Everyone is Invited to partake)

There has been severe controversies with image selections in the Red Line/Purple Line and Gold Line section of the Los Angeles Metro. To cease the controversy in a fair and a peaceful way, it has been decided of a referendum to take place starting from Monday, March 2, 2015. Please participate!
Click here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HanSangYoon (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

On another note, the MfD for this consensus is located...

here.

– Epic Genius (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• It has not been decided to do anything, you have unilaterally started this process. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So he used the passive voice? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

@ColonialGrid: There was no consensus even attempted here, and nothing was settled here. I'm unwilling to leave the pictures the way it is now if no agreements made. And that's the point of the consensus page I made. If you don't want a consensus, it means you don't want to take care of this controversy. HanSangYoon (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

HanSangYoon, there is a consensus here, though you refuse to recognize it. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors states that The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What, about leaving the images this way? First of all, I believe these image settlement went berserk. One showing the upper floor view, one showing a train, one showing a mural...it is just not right! If you're not gonna post placard signs (which I still believe is fine), then at least make the entire page either upper floor view, mural, or something at shows unity! And sure, maybe what I'm actually trying to do isn't a consensus, but an event of picking new images that could add on or replace images. Whatever it is, this is still happening, and I bet at the end, you guys will find it better than expected. HanSangYoon (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"The platform view ..." photos shown on the Talk page should not be posted in the article. Adequate photos already in the article. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is rather lack of photos than abundance of photos Union Station page is proving. I wonder if you undertsand the definition 'adequate'? HanSangYoon (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Former services in infobox

I've just restored a heading in the infobox, Former services, but am unsure why discontinued services are even in the infobox. Surely the infobox should be for pertinent current info, many services would have run to Union station over the years. Why include just these ones? This info seems more suited to the article body, probably in Union Station (Los Angeles)#Services. Would anyone object to me removing these services and making mention on them in the Services section of the article? Usually I'd just go ahead and do it, but, this page has been a little contentious lately, so I figure it's easiest to play it safe and ask first rather than be bold. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, "former services" are generally included in the Infoboxes at articles like this one. I dunno if that was a decision made by Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains or not, but it's very commonly done. --IJBall (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Former services in infobox, hopefully that'll generate some discussion on the matter. ColonialGrid (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Some station articles have not put the succession templates in an already overloaded Infobox, but have opted to include them in a section about those former services. I can't immediately find an example. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's precisely because this infobox already has so much info that I think the former services should be removed. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. The former services are nearly useless. The stations needed to make this template useful are non-existant (for example Pasadena is a red link) and I don't think it really adds much to the page or helps the reader. If the consensus is that these former service boxes are needed... I'd support splitting them off... and putting them in a separate infobox maybe in the history section. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, the services are not included in the infobox, since this can easily make the infobox longer than the article text, due to width constraints. The routebox is usually located either in a dedicated "Services" section, or at the bottom. Former services are included if those ran along lines that have lost their passenger service, or served stations that are since closed. See for example Banbury railway station#Services and operators. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The former services portion of the inbox allows a reader to easily determine (and visit) stations on a former route which may no longer exist or exist only in part. Moving such information to another section, if done, should incorporate wikilinks to preceding and former stations in a standardised/template-type manner that can be easily understood and followed by editors. Moving such information to a generic text "history" section would undoubtably be modified and/or deleted over time— breaking or removing links in a chain of stations on a former route. Ensuring this functionality remains and is clear to use would be important. Perhaps something already exists? It seems the succession template is pretty close to what this would be. (See Template:Succession box/doc) Lexlex (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point. If we moved it to the body text, as suggested by Redrose64, we could link directly to that section of the article and use a hidden text saying that <!-- other pages link to this section and should be updated if this heading is renamed or removed --> to preserve the wikilinking voyage. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lexlex: I didn't suggest to convert to text. If you follow the link that I gave, you'll see a section which has no text - just a routebox. It falls into three horizontal groups: the upper one is current services, and may change as the stopping patterns or franchisees change; the middle ("historical") part is for former services over routes that are still open for other passenger services, and for space reasons we confine this to services which ceased prior to the Privatisation of British Rail (there have been many alterations since that time); the lower ("disused") part is for services that ran over lines which no longer have any passenger service - they might still have freight trains, or be closed completely. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

OK Enough chat! I have boldly moved the Former train services out of the Infobox into a new section where details should be added. It could have been part of History too. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Union Station (Los Angeles). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130518192210/http://blogs.chapman.edu:80/huell-howser-archives/1994/09/26/union-station-visiting-222/ to http://blogs.chapman.edu/huell-howser-archives/1994/09/26/union-station-visiting-222/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Future Expansion

Should the West Santa Ana Branch also go under the Future Expansion section, or is it too soon in the planning stages? Tvjames (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Union Station (Los Angeles). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207154706/https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/736/509/CALIFORNIA15.pdf to https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/736/509/CALIFORNIA15.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100728073131/http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am%2Fam2Station%2FStation_Page&code=LAX to http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am%2Fam2Station%2FStation_Page&code=LAX

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Fun/Odd Union Station Facts

I have a Newspapers.com Plus subscription and I was just reading the 1939-05-04 edition of the LA Times. I'm not much of a writer for articles. I can add a fact here and there, but this deserves it's own paragraph or more, which isn't something I do very well. For this reason, I thought I'd share some of the facts that it listed in case anyone is interested. I have linked to my clippings of the article, but I'm not sure if they're something you can see without a subscription or not. One I did add and source in the article already and that's in 1939, it cost $11,000,000 to build (so really there are two sources but I only did the other one). Here are the other facts:

1. They celebrated its opening with a parade.
2. It was estimated that 500,000 attended the parade.
3. In attendance were a number of railroad presidents, unspecified millionaires, people who owned private rail cars, governors (yes, plural) and mayors and people from "all the 48 states".
4. The actual dedication was on the 3rd. It says, "... it was really just the people of america—from all the 48 states—who really drove the spike that nailed down a chunk of history on Alameda St. yesterday noon." (sic)
5. People were climbing trees to see.
6. The parade route became so clogged with people, it took soldiers from the 63rd Coast Artillery battalion of the US Army to clear it.
7. Someone shot at the facade, which caused horses to "veer toward the squealing crowds" and a dog chased "a United States Army cannon expert across the station patio".
8. People were fainting from the heat.

That's only a few but the most important. The article is found on pages A1—A2, 6 (image pages 1—2, 8). Links: part 1, part 2 and part 3. There are a lot of other articles for further information in the same edition. I just selected the main article. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)