Talk:List of stations on the 'L'

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
List This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Trains Portal
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
List This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit.

Contents

[edit] Namespace

The CTA says CTA’s train system is called the ‘L’, short for "elevated.". Perhaps the article should be named something like:

  • List of Chicago L stations
  • List of Chicago Transit Authority rail stations
  • List of Chicago Transit Authority train stations
  • List of Chicago Transit Authority L stations

Or something else. How are similar articles named? What do others think? Bobblewik  (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The several Chicago L articles use way too many different names for the train station. I'm working on getting all of them to use the same name. This means moving this article to a new name. --Gerald Farinas 18:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Station article names

I have some photos to add and can help with some station articles. Though, I have some concerns with station article naming used here. I suggest dropping the word "station" from the article names, in favor of brevity and consistency with how other many subway station articles are done - e.g. Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line), Gallery Pl-Chinatown (Washington Metro). So, for CTA stations, I suggest Harrison (CTA Red Line) instead of Harrison (CTA Red Line station). Also, for stations served by multiple lines, maybe the station article should use, for example, Fullerton (CTA Red-Brown Line) rather than Fullerton (CTA Red Line)? -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • If this proposed change is acceptable, this version of the article has all the links without the word "station". My edit there broke numerous links in Category:Chicago Transit Authority, so I reverted it back. I'd like a consensus before moving any station articles. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see any outward problem with moving the articles to such a title because it could theoretically go either way, but this might be in conflict with the disambiguation policy and naming conventions (specifically precision). (CTA Red Line) seems less specific than (CTA Red Line station). Keeping in mind that not everyone is familiar with what the CTA is or even public transportation in general, it might be faster for someone doing a keyword search to identify what the article was about through its title if "station" was retained. Most of the links to New York city subway stations still have "station" in them; the decision to move seems to have been made by a single user and was not required by any official WP policy, only personal preference. At the very least, however, I do think that useful redirects and disambiguations are completely sufficient for stations served by multiple lines and more appropriate than trying to jam every single line served by a station into a title. Otherwise we'll have long and clumsy article titles like Belmont (CTA Brown-Purple-Red Line) or Clark/Lake (CTA Blue-Brown-Green-Orange-Purple Line), when the name of the game here seems to be simplicity and redirects will work just fine. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 09:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of using shorter, more common names. With Washington Metro, "red line", "green line"... are not even used in the station names. Doing that here, we would simply have Clark/Lake (CTA). Other subway systems that use this convention include, for example Lubyanka (Metro), in Moscow. With Bay Area Rapid Transit, they are inconsistent with MacArthur (BART) and Balboa Park Station. And London uses "station", though should there be two Paddington station's in the world, then they have a disambiguation issue. You're right about stations with multiple lines. In these cases where multiple stations share the same name, e.g. Oak Park (CTA Green Line), Oak Park (CTA Blue Line), then the line (and branch) should be used in the name for disambiguation. Oak Park (CTA) would be a disambiguation page. I don't think the stations should bear the name of one particular line and not others, as while you may primarily think of Belmont as a purple line station, others don't. By getting rid of "Purple Line", "Red Line", that issue would be cleared up. In all, my primary aim is for consistency across various subway systems, in regards to naming conventions. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I still think that other subway articles are incorrectly named and that the current Chicago titles are much more descriptive, but for the sake of consistency and providing a solution to this problem before too many additional pages are created, I will concede the point and agree that it would be best to drop "station" from the article titles. However, also dropping "Brown Line," "Blue Line," etc. as well will only resolve multi-line conflicts in some cases; in a few places this cannot be avoided. After thinking about this a little, I'd like to propose the following as a potential compromise between both opinions. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 04:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

  • Station name (CTA)
    • Even when there are no articles with the station name alone, (CTA) should always be appended to the title, since it is possible that at some point an editor might want to create an article on the station's street or the person/place/thing for which the street is named, requiring a disambig page.

[edit] Name conflicts

  • Station - disambiguation page at Station (CTA)
    • X Line: Station (CTA X Line)
      • Redirects should be allowed in this format for stations which don't need this type of disambiguation

[edit] Exceptions
  • Belmont - disambiguation page at Belmont (CTA)
    • Red/Purple/Brown Line station at Belmont (CTA Brown Line) with redirects Belmont (CTA Red Line) and Belmont (CTA Purple Line) so it can be found no matter on which line someone considers the station; keep formally at Brown since the station will have more commonality with others on the line upon the completion of the Brown Line Capacity Expansion Project
    • Blue Line station at Belmont (CTA Blue Line)
  • Chicago - disambiguation page at Chicago (CTA)
    • Purple/Brown Line station at Chicago (CTA Brown Line) with redirect using Purple
    • Red Line station at Chicago (CTA Red Line) or Chicago/State possibly with (CTA)
    • Blue Line station at Chicago (CTA Blue Line)
  • Grand - possible disambiguation page at Grand (CTA)
    • Red Line station at Grand (CTA Red Line) or Grand/State possibly with (CTA)
    • Blue Line station at Grand (CTA Blue Line) or Grand (CTA) (if not disambig page, leave disambig note to Grand/State)
  • Roosevelt - disambiguation at Roosevelt (CTA)
    • Orange/Green Line station at Roosevelt/Wabash possibly with (CTA); redirects at Roosevelt (CTA Orange Line) and Roosevelt (CTA Green Line)
    • Red Line station at Roosevelt/State possibly with (CTA); redirect at Roosevelt (CTA Red Line)
  • Harlem - disambiguation page at Harlem (CTA)
    • Green Line station at Harlem/Lake possibly with (CTA) with possible redirect at Harlem (CTA Green Line)
    • Blue Line disambiguation page at Harlem (CTA Blue Line)
      • Both stations disambiguated by (CTA Blue Line O'Hare branch) and (CTA Blue Line Congress branch)
  • Western (Blue Line)
    • Blue Line disambiguation page at Western (CTA Blue Line)
      • Both stations disambiguated by (CTA Blue Line O'Hare branch) and (CTA Blue Line Congress branch)
  • "Silver Line" stations
    • once the line's official color is given tomorrow, move stations to Station (CTA "New Color" Line) if disambig is needed, do not consider rush hour Blue Line service and create redirects to Station (CTA Blue Line Douglas branch) if necessary
  • Ashland and Clinton (Green/"Silver Line")
    • Both stations were originally renovated as part of the Green Line project and share many design cues with those series of stations, keep both at Ashland (CTA Green Line) and Clinton (CTA Green Line) with redirects for the new color line

[edit] Unique cases

  • Loop Elevated stations: Station name (ex: Quincy/Wells)
    • Since all the stations have a backslash in their name and no other article will probably ever be created with that title, we could drop (CTA) altogether.
  • Loop subway stations (as above):
    • Red Line: Station name/State with redirects at Station name (CTA Red Line)
    • Blue Line: Station name/Dearborn with redirects at Station name (CTA Brown Line)
  • Disambig pages for Loop stations sharing similar names:
    • Washington (CTA)
    • Monroe (CTA)
    • Jackson (CTA)
  • Other unique names, no real need to disambiguate except for consistency's sake:
    • Conservatory-Central Park Drive
    • 35-Bronzeville-IIT
    • Cermak-Chinatown
    • Sox-35th
    • Ashland/63
    • East 63rd-Cottage Grove
    • 35/Archer
    • Kedzie-Homan
    • UIC-Halsted
The proposal sounds reasonable. It's helpful to have this worked out before I spend time on articles, and for a few stations where I have photos, adding them. Though, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the last group of stations, "other unique names, no real need to disambiguate except for consistency's sake"? Please clarify. Thanks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the last group have names which probably won't ever conflict with another article, the (CTA) disambiguation may not be necessary. For instance, if someone were to create an article on 35th or 35th Street (Chicago), there would be no conflict with the CTA stations since they're named 35-Bronzeville-IIT, 35/Archer, and Sox-35th. However, for consistency and to make editing easier, it might be just as simple to make sure every station has (CTA) in its title.
I'll start making the suggested changes to the list and moving articles where appropriate. Let me know if the new titles are acceptable. Additionally, we may need to employ a bot in order to change all of the red links using the old names on several pages. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Is there any interest in developing some kind of infobox for CTA stations? I started playing with ideas in my sandbox. --JeremyA 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Track segment names

It's a little weird to me to see Wellongton listed under Ravenswood Branch, for example, (to me it's on the North Main segment) or discussion of pink line trains entering the loop "via the Green Line" (Lake St L seems more descriptive). The system names track segments distinctly from service routes, and I wonder if anyone is interested in making that a thorough distinction here? It has the benefit of disambiguation and also can be a nice resource for helping readers & riders to get past system jargon. --- scbomber (only bombs in [[netrek]] 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)