Template talk:C Line (Los Angeles Metro)

Displaying Extensions
The LAX branch of the Green Line was part of the line's original Phase I plan. In addition, the LAX extension is listed as a Tier 1 improvement in LACMTA's 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan (also included are extensions to central Norwalk and the South Bay Galleria). Future extensions appear on other maps of this type. Is there a convention on line mapping here that I don't know about? Samhuddy (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Extension to Aviation/96th
Hi there. Someone placed this extension on the wrong side. Can someone please fix it? 107.77.214.201 (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

conversion to routemap template
I would like to convert this template to use Routemap instead of the deprecated Railway line header, BS-header and BS-table. Since this operation doesn't change the appearance of the diagram, I consider it a rather minor change. Zr2d2 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 07:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It would also solve the technical challenge of BS-table templates not rendering correctly in the mobile version that happens at about 705 pixel width Zr2d2 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. There's no need to replace a deprecated template with an obsolete one (BS-map). Useddenim (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to gain consensus for converting a BS-table diagram to Routemap format, given that it was deprecated in 2011. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * agreed, this is the first time I have been reverted for doing so, as seen in the revision history Zr2d2 (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, there's been no comment from (who has albeen reverting California High-Speed Rail). Useddenim (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a very different issue and unrelated to the change of template. The issue there is related to the content, not the format. Specifically, the issue was that a huge quantity of additional information on highway bridges was being added that simply cluttered up the map and made it almost impossible to read or understand.  That was the basis of my reversions. KirksKeyKard (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I had only taken a look at your contributions. Useddenim (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

False Positive Sensor is Broken on All LACMTA Templates
The false positive sensor allows people to blank the page, but doesn't allow people to make constructive edits. 71.198.231.208 (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 08:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not really something anyone on this talk page could possibly help you with, because edit filters are site-wide. You might run into them less if you create an account. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;

Aviation/96th branch won't happen as shown in the diagram
As explained here, current Metro plans after the Crenshaw/LAX line opens are to split the current Green Line in two: one line would go from Expo/Crenshaw to Norwalk, and the other from Redondo Beach to Aviation/Century (and, when it opens, to Aviation/96th). This hasn't been approved by the full Metro board yet, but it seems that the longstanding proposed pattern illustrated on this template diagram is no longer going to happen -- the other possible option is different as well. Can someone remove the Crenshaw/LAX section of the diagram? Maybe just replace it with a branch showing it's connecting to the new infrastructure without including any stations? I'd do it but the syntax for these diagrams always defeats me. --Jfruh (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)