Talk:91/Perris Valley Line

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 91/Perris Valley Line. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 91/Perris Valley Line at the Reference desk.

Trains Low‑importance

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: Inland Empire / Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Inland Empire task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:91/Perris Valley Line.

Temecula[edit]

Does anyone have any information about the extension to Temecula? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Cousert (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me find it since I m the one who mentioned it. Frozenbrains 23:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far it looks like all mentions of Phase 2 or 3 has been removed. I will do so accordingly on this article, also. Frozenbrains 04:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rediscovered the extensions to San Jacinto. Posted accordingly with citations. Frozenbrains (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on the Temecula extension? Is it still in the planning stages or has it been cancelled?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Name[edit]

Is it me, or is naming a rail line after a highway some kind of insult to the train, and the towns along the route? Wlindley (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a deliberate decision to attract ridership from commuters who would otherwise use that particular freeway. 69.42.17.116 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perris extension[edit]

The article states that the Perris extension could be running in 2010. Is this still correct?

Does anyone know if they stated what the operating hours and days will be?

Will there be connecting bus service to Murrieta and Temecula? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Perris Valley line extension was mentioned in the latest issue of "Metrolink Matters", with only four stations, and not really any other info. Article updated. 76.168.213.17 (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line is will be no weekend service on the from/to Perris and also will be open on Monday through Friday Service on 5 days a week of Riverside/Hunter Park, Moreno Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris and South Perris is opens on June 6, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.202.151 (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

stations[edit]

Should Commerce and San Bernadino not be included in this list since no 91 Line (700-Series) trains stop there. The Metrolink schedule shows OC(600s) and IEOC(800s) on the 91 route, and includes other stations which 91 line trains do not stop at, (Anaheim, Orange, and Anaheim Canyon). Source: Metrolink 91 Line Schedule. 66.245.192.101 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, the schedule web page no longer lists stations that are not on the 91 Line. I've updated the article, but kept a specific mention of the Commerce station. 76.168.213.17 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. No such user (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

91 Line → 91/Perris Valley Line – First off, I'm sorry for starting an edit war, that was certainly not my intention here. It was a series of errors that led me to change the page 3 times, mostly because I forgot I made the changes (I haven't edited the Metrolink pages much in the last few years), I didn't watch the page so I never saw the reverts and I neglected to check the edit history. I did however check the talk page each time, because this is the correct venue to discuss controversial page moves, not just in the edit summaries.

Okay... off to the reasoning for the move. Since the opening of the extension to Perris, Metrolink is now calling this the 91/Perris Valley Line. This is clearly supported by a number of primary sources and secondary sources.

Primary source examples:

Secondary source examples:

KABC-TV – Metrolink Rolls Out New 91/Perris Valley Line
The Press-Enterprise – RIVERSIDE: Metrolink offering free rides on new Perris Valley Line – "Metrolink is offering two free rides on the 91/Perris Valley Line on Wednesday..."
KNBC-TV – Metrolink Riverside County Extension Opens Today – "Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line service began..."

In my opinion, continuing to call this page the 91 Line would be like Wikipedia continuing to call the Antelope Valley Line the Santa Clarita Line, or to have decided to continue to call the 91 Line the Via Fullerton Line. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, extra weight is given to sources after a name change. At this point, the vast majority of sources after the extension was announced address the extension as the "Perris Valley Line" or "91/Perris Valley Line", and the entire route as the "91 Line". Take a look: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Even looking through the nom's cherry-picked sources, we see inconsistency on the name of the entire route: ""The 91/Perris Valley Line (91/PV), which will extend Metrolink service on the 91 Line", "The 24-mile 91/PVL extension", " an extension of the existing 91 Line". Metrolink's press release uses "91 Line" for the entire route and "Perris Valley Line" or "91/Perris Valley Line" for the extension, and virtually all third-party sources repeat that wording: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Perhaps in the future, the consensus will change, but as of now, the common name in third-party sources for the route as a whole is still "91 Line". Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 17:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 16 May 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 06:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

91 Line → 91/Perris Valley Line – In the two years since I last proposed this, Metrolink has universally referred to this line as the "91/Perris Valley Line." (See: schedules, station information pages, system map, Twitter, and newsletters) Per WP:NAMECHANGES our naming conventions should follow suit. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 05:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that in the two years since the last discussion, the first bolded title in the story body has changed to 91/Perris Valley Line and the title in the infobox has also changed. The only thing that hasn't changed is the page name. --RickyCourtney (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Support. --Jfruh (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but perhaps relist? RickyCourtney, these sources are all primary sources. Are any secondary sources yet using the new name? Until they do we should not move the page. And it may never happen, particularly in a case such as this when the old name is a natural shortening of the new one. Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Andrewa: That was my mistake. Yes, there are plenty of primary sources that now use the 91/Perris Valley Line name.

Here is a trade publication example:

Railway Age – Metrolink to test trains at full speed on 91/Perris Valley Line

An example from the company that built the line:

STV Group (United States) – Perris Valley Line Extension "Metrolink’s 91/Perris Valley Line rail extension provides..."

Examples from other government agency announcements:

Also, as I highlighted in the previous move discussion, the local news agencies have been using the 91/Perris Valley Line name since the start of service:

KABC-TV – Metrolink Rolls Out New 91/Perris Valley Line
The Press-Enterprise – RIVERSIDE: Metrolink offering free rides on new Perris Valley Line – "Metrolink is offering two free rides on the 91/Perris Valley Line on Wednesday..."
KNBC-TV – Metrolink Riverside County Extension Opens Today – "Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line service began..."

Hopefully you will reconsider your opposition. Thank you. --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.