Talk:Palms station

File:Metro Expo Line Trousdale Station.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Metro Expo Line Trousdale Station.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Metro Expo Line Trousdale Station.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rebuilt or newly built?

Can we come to an agreement on whether the station is "rebuilt" or "newly built"? It can't be "rebuilt," because the old station was moved bodily to Heritage Square. Also, the old station was in an entirely different area, some 600 yards farther west. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate your strict attention to detail and tenacity - and am aware you are responsible for some wonderful history on the area, I think our views differ on whether this article is about a building location or a stop. I see the stop as "Palms" that serves the Palms neighborhood. A stop has been in Palms at more or less the same location since 1875. To unilaterally declare that it must be different because it's a few hundred yards away is a judgment call which I feel is wholly trivial to the reader. While yes, you're right, I don't think it applies to this readership and further believe they would appreciate the link to more historical information and could be spurred to learn more about the area by seeing it's provenance. It's the Palms stop which is being rebuilt, not the physical building. Do you see my reasoning? Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a good point, which is not made any more forceful when you use a word like "unilaterally." There is nothing unilateral about WP:BRD, which is the beginning of a process, not the end of it. As for the description itself, what about "restored" or "reinstalled" or "reestablished"? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my nonsensical $2 word use, it was late and I was hungry or perhaps needed an adult beverage. In any case, it's the template that uses the word "rebuilt," not the article - but as this same scenario applies to most every other station in the Los Angeles Metro system (see South Pasadena (Los Angeles Metro station) or most any Blue Line station) due to 20 - 50 years of disuse, the template could be modified so the date is preceded by a different word. "Re-activated," "restored," - or something else? What do you think could apply to all Los Angeles Metro stations with such a date? Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Reactivated" would, I think. fill the bill. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Because this is a global template used on stations all over the world it's locked and I had to dig into why such a term didn't already exist. After looking over the template and some past requests on the infobox page, it seems to work this way: "Opened" is the date the station originally opened, "Closed" is the date the station closed and should only appear if the station is currently closed. "Rebuilt" indicates the last time the station was significantly changed and can also apply to stations in service.

So in this case, the closed date would disappear on opening and it would have been "rebuilt." Further, following that logic all the other re-opened stations on the line should have the "closed" date removed as it is only historically relevant. If it were closed for a significant period of time, the article can cover it, but the infobox isn't designed to indicate periods of closure. All that matters is that the station is operating now. Also, consider how it would get particularly confusing if the station were closed for two long stretches - this I think is the resign for the present design. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. You are saying that the Palms station is being "rebuilt" rather than "newly built"? Obviously that is not so, but perhaps I am misunderstanding your remark just above.GeorgeLouis (talk)

Once the station opens, per my understanding the only dates which should appear are 'Opened' and 'Rebuilt.' Since the new station building is in roughly the same place, serving the same street and stop, and the local community has specifically requested it be named after the original stop, I would say that this new station building is simply the next incarnation of the Palms station, and thus a 'rebuilt' station (not remodeled, completely rebuilt from scratch - as it most likely would have been anyway had the station never closed.). Lexlex (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not in the same place at all. It is several hundred yards to the east. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The stop replaces the old stop and is the same name. To say it's not the same since it's a few hundred yards away doesn't really follow precedent (see other stations that have changed buildings, airports, etc.) and the building site difference is already noted in the article. if you want to add further clarification, be my guest. but not sure what you're advocating otherwise Lexlex (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you might be correct if we assume the article is about the "station" as a "stop" and not as a building. The text might be reworked to indicate that, but I won't press the point right now. Cheers, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Palms station

The boldface type in the first paragraph should reflect the name of the article, which is "Palms station." "Palms" is the name of the neighborhood, not of the station. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about the neighborhood, but there is a new convention you may not have seen. You can read about it here: WP:USSTATION and would appreciate any help you can lend fixing any you happen to come across. (e.g. Blue line, and CALTrain still have quite a few that don't follow). Per Metro documentation and local resolution, which is referenced and mentioned in the article, the station is named simply 'Palms' - the reason 'station' is in lower case within the article title is because the word 'station' is not part of the name, if it were, 'station' would be capitalized (e.g. Union Station). The lower case 'station' in the article name is what indicates the article is about a station and not the surrounding community. This format came about after years of back and forth in Wikipedia and was only recently finalized, so you will still see a lot of articles that don't use it. Recently there has been a push to make all California station articles conform to this convention. Lexlex (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Also, this USSTATION policy is being applied to articles about railway stations across the US. Only if "station" is part of the proper name, and capitalized, should it be boldfaced. epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting information, but I don't see anywhere in WP:USSTATION that the word "station" should be omitted from the first sentence of the article. Did I miss it? I wouldn't doubt it, because I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the implication is that 'station' would not be bolded, whether it appears in the lead or not would be up to the author's style. "Palms is a station in Palms..." or "Palms station serves passengers in Palms..." or "Palms serves commuters in Palms..." etc. - all would be just as valid. Lexlex (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Palms" is the name of the station. This fact is already cited in the article. Multiple things can have the same name. Per the MOS, redundancy in the first sentence should be avoided. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 22:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Per Lexlex's comment, I've changed the lead to one I hope we can agree on. Thank you all. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. Please gain a consensus for changes before implementing them. Per WP:BEGIN, the first sentence should give a concise definition of the topic. Additionally, I don't follow the objection to the tunnel material. Is it that it is not close enough to the station to be relevant? The provided source appears to be a dead link, so I was unable to look into it myself. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 00:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, we certainly don't all agree on the way the lead reads now. Can you make a better suggestion than the lead which I wrote. As it is now, the sentence says that Palms is a station, which is wrong. Palms is the name of a station. There is no consensus for the present lead, so I proposed one which I can support. Also, when you write "Please gain a consensus for changes before implementing them," that is not how the system works. See WP:BRD, I proposed a lead, you reverted it, and no we are discussing it. So, can you propose a lead that does not call "Palms" a station? We have to be cooperative here. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with BeenAroundAWhile on this – the first sentence should say "Palms station" (whether the word station is "bolded" or not). "Palms" is a neighborhood – this article isn't about that. It's about the Palms station on the Expo line. The lede sentence should explicitly use the term "Palms station". The "elevated light-rail station" portion can be moved to the second sentence. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't bold disambiguators, ever. At least I've never seen it. The lower case 'station' is not part of the name other than here, remember, per the WP guide, 'station' in the article name is a Wikipedia convention and used only as a disambiguator in articles about US train stations. Whether or where the disambiguator appears within the article is wholly irrelevant. The station is officially and unquestionably named 'Palms' and the bolding should reflect only its name. Lexlex (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't care if it's "Palms station..." or "Palms station...". I just think that, whatever's bolded, it needs to start with "Palms station is..." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The point above is that 'station' is just a disambiguator word, and merely for article title name clarification within Wikipedia. Just like any disambiguator, It does not have to be in the article unless it's capitalized as part of the proper name. Lexlex (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Tunnel

There is tunnel on the Palms line; it lies beneath the freeway between Palms and Cheviot Hills. We should not mention the tunnel in this article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Palms station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725104613/http://backup.buildexpo.org/phase2/Phase%202%20FEIR%20Documents/02_ProjectAlternatives_FEIR.pdf to http://backup.buildexpo.org/phase2/Phase%202%20FEIR%20Documents/02_ProjectAlternatives_FEIR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Pre-revenue"

@TJH2018: the reference you refer to in your edit summary does not contain the words "pre-revenue" anywhere. Please remove the unsourced content or provide a cited reliable source. Additionally, the content is overly detailed and unencyclopedic. We do not need to repeat Metro's specialist terms on wiki. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 16:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)