Talk:Expo Phase 2

Splitting-Out Project History Into Separate Articles
I have separated the article "Metro Expo Line (LACMTA)" into three articles: the original article (which becomes the main article), a new article covering Expo Phase 1, and a new article covering Expo Phase 2.

When I made this change tonight, the article was ranked "C" on the quality scale for train articles, and was in the "C" category for California articles. Even worse, the article had developed a reputation for advocacy and bias. It was overly long and, for the person interested in factual data, far to full of historical minutia to be useful.

By splitting the historical characteristics of the Expo Line from the less-controversial core information, I hope to both provide a resource that is easier for people to use, while simultaneously making it easier for contributors to avoid making non-neutral depictions of history.

By making these changes, I am attempting to follow the spirit and letter of the "be bold" directive. All three changes will require some additional editing over the coming days and weeks. I hope this is acceptable to everybody. Jcovarru (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While being bold is admirable, after two years, the views and updates to this page seem to indicate it's an experiment that didn't work. Nominating to be merged back into the main article. Lexlex (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Especially now that phase 1 is open; the continued existence of a seperate phase 1 article means that we now have two articles on the exact same subject, and a third article (this one) covering the what should be little more than a section of the single article. They're the same line, and separating them out like this only gives undue weight to unencyclopedic details of the pointless politics. If anything, having a seperate article makes it more difficult to maintain NPOV. I agree that the split was a bold idea that didn't work, making the coverage of this line a mess.oknazevad (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Planned Move
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) 23:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fact vs. opinion
The text of this article (which I largely moved wholesale from the article Expo Line (Los Angeles Metro)) was until recently written like an opinion piece. In wikipedia, articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. This means that all sides of an issue to be represented fairly and proportionately. The arguments were clearly disproportionate: I have replaced them with a simple dispassionate description of the claims and counterclaims, with references. Please keep this article clean and usable by the public. Thank you. Jcovarru (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)