Talk:Los Angeles Metro Bus#Proposed split of routes section

I'm wondering who wrote that article, but there are some information missing. The article is partially filled in. Plus, I would like to post this article for cleaning. Also, I would like to see if the text of the article itself meets the Wikipedia's copyright policy (I know where the source for that article is located. I think somebody had managed to extract information from the metro.net website. thanks.

I recommend we merge the two wiki articles Metro Local and List of current Metro Local routes. They contain almost the same information.

I'm not sure we even need one article, given that the information is easily available (with minimal research effort) on Metro's website [http:\\metro.net], a website which is kept current by a staff.

Jcovarru (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@PuppyCatBree I've noticed that you've made changes effective as of mid-December in late October/early November. These changes seem extremely premature. I think it would be okay to add a note that this route will be changing in the future, but fully changing or deleting now seems too soon. I might also suggest using the "show by date" template which would allow you to input the information now, and have it autoswap the day of the service change. I'd ask that you please revert your premature changes. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney , I know where we are getting this information. The five Service Council meetings. My South Bay council actually confirmed that Line 550 will be discontinued with Limes 205 and 246 replacing portions of the soon-to-be-former Line 550. Proof: https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.metro.net%2Fboard%2FAgendas%2F2022%2F11_november%2F20221103asba.pdf&embedded=true

PuppyCatBree (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

:@PuppyCatBree I'm not saying that the information is incorrect. The key phrase there is "soon-to-be-former" -- the line exists today -- and will for another 30+ days. So it seems premature that the route is already missing from this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I propose merging Metro Rapid into Los Angeles Metro Bus. I think that it does not make sense to have Metro Rapid have its own article, since it is not really a distinct system from Metro Bus; it is just a few lines which are more express service than bus rapid transit that do not really exist separately from the rest of the Metro Bus system. Furthermore, the Metro Rapid page even defers to the main Metro Bus article and lacks a lot of proper sourcing other than the sources for the services; a lot of this info is duplicated already on the main Metro Bus article already. Any relevant and useful information like history and background about Metro Rapid could easily be trimmed down with proper sourcing and summarized in the Metro Bus article. Does anyone else want to share their opinions on this? --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

:Furthermore, perhaps even, this article could be repurposed into a list article of all the transit routes (Metro Bus, Metro Local, Metro Rail, and Metro Busway) like for example the article List of transit routes in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. After all, this article is already pretty much a list article in and of itself. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

:I support folding the Metro Rapid page into Los Angeles Metro Bus page. When the Metro Rapid page was created, it made a lot more sense to have it as a standalone page. But with Metro largely abandoning the brand it no longer does. However, I don't support a omnibus "List of routes" article. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

:If you're making a merge proposal you should tag both articles to get some actual feedback.

:as for the proposal, it's not the worst idea. Metro Rapid was intended to be a lot more than it turned out to be, and so I'm not sure it really needs an entire separate article. There's only four routes. They can easily be covered by a section in the list of routes, with some intro text to describe the in that section.

:Conversely, though, New York's Select Bus Service, which is comparable in nature, does have its own article. oknazevad (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I recommend that a ridership column be added for the transit routes. There is a website that has the ridership stats for all the routes. Ex696 (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm proposing to split the routes section of this article to a separate article. I have a draft of it at Draft:List of Los Angeles Metro Bus routes. This follows the precedent set by most other big-city transit systems in the country, including List of bus routes in New York City, List of Metrobus routes (Washington, D.C.), List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines, List of King County Metro bus routes, etc.

I'm also working on expanding the history section even more. Currently, some of that lives at Draft:History of bus service in Los Angeles, although I'm still unsure if I'll get that set up as a separate article or merge it into something else.

DontCallMeLateForDinner (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:I like this idea. It is more simplier for the routes to have their own page. Specifically, for any changes in the routes in June or December, we wouldn't have to scroll all the way down to that route to change it. I agree on the split. PuppyCatBree (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support per nom. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's an interesting idea. Could it be "List of Los Angeles Metro routes" or "transit routes" so the rails (801-805, 807) can be included? --Tv's emory (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Here's the catch: there are about 100 routes that need new citations for their schedules. I've removed all the outdated ones that are currently on Draft:List of Los Angeles Metro Bus routes. About 2/3 of those outdated citations were from 2013, so clearly they weren't very useful anyway.

:Is there any chance that some of you all could start filling the draft in with current timetables? It doesn't seem wise to send that content out into a new article and have it already be outdated.

:DontCallMeLateForDinner (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose This article was created as a sort of “List of Los Angeles Metro Bus routes” page, but it’s become bloated— with an overly detailed history section and far too much trivia in the notes column. The problem was compounded when the Metro Rapid and Metro Express pages were folded into it following the NextGen restructuring.

:However, the solution is not to spin off yet another page, but to slim this one down. Per WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a directory or travel guide. Much of the current content, especially in the tables, veers into that territory. Similarly, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, the history section should be condensed to highlight only the most relevant developments, with undue detail removed.

:In short, we don’t need more pages that can be poorly maintained—we need a leaner, more focused article that better aligns with Wikipedia’s purpose and content policies. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)