Talk:Union Station (Los Angeles)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Although I am generally an advocate of merging smaller articles into large articles, I don't think that this proposed merger serves the Wikipedia. One reason for not doing the mergier is that Union Station LA and Union Station LACMTA are really two different projects that just happen to be one on top of the other with very similar names. Another reason is that the Union Station is going to end up a big hodge-podge of info anyway once you add all the appropriate info on Amtrak and MetroRail, fill out the info on the history of the station, and then add some of the info from the To-do list such as the use of Union Station as a location in movies. BlankVerse ∅ 12:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on this one. As a current non-resident, I'm inclined to combine the two articles into one, but as a former resident, I also think they should remain separate. I've only visited the station once since the Red Line opened, but I seem to remember that the two stations operate more independently than an article merge would indicate. Am I right in remembering that the entry to one is completely separate from the other? If so, then the articles should remain separate (but at least mention and link to each other). slambo 13:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merge-Why not?! Pacific Coast Highway 13:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merge - Conditionally; if anything, Union Station (LACMTA) should be folded into Union Station (LA) as the latter is the more significant entity.--Lordkinbote 19:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merge - There are occasions when having separate articles serves a categorization purpose, but I can't find one here. Combining the articles will make the information more accessible to readers. -Willmcw 19:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

There are a couple of interesting accidents (and one photo!) listed at

The 75 trains per week seems awfully low. The San Diego Santa Fe Depot sees 150 trains per week and I'm sure LAUPT sees far more trains. MrHudson

It is way too low. Metrolink alone has 75 daily departures.--Slightlyslack 10:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the above photo is better, but since I took this photo, can someone else confirm that I'm not biased? --Padraic 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes to SWAP. Your photo is higher resolution, of course. Its only detraction is the nearby building peeking over Union Station's roof. Perhaps if the camera had been nearer the subject and lower to the ground the other building wouldn't appear. At any rate, I agree yours is a better composition and ought to take pride of place in this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not perfect, but so swapped. I encourage any LA Wikipedians to go to the station and try for a better shot - but I won't be back in LA anytime soon.--Padraic 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, top one better. I took one from the left front walk and couple from the court yard side. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see here when using the template {{Rail color box}} a large box was inserted between the two busways. I could not figure out how to get rid of the box so I switched over to the {{Colorbox}} template. Hopefully someone knows how to fix this and can change it back to the original template. Butros (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the work that was done to attempt to improve the page's layout, I think the most recent series of edits should be undone. The page now has large amounts of blank space from infoboxes pushing the boarders of sections down. It is also much more confusing as the page's main info box does not include the information about all the lines. This page should be edited to make it more like other major US railway hubs and to eliminate the glaring white space.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I agree with you that the layout as it stands (including my changes) has some major problems. However, examples of articles using multiple infoboxes exist: one example is

The only exception I would take that example is that that page is NYC's GCT is split up into two articles, one for the building and one featuring the subway stations. Since LAUS only features one subway platform for two lines, I do not think splitting up the article is necessary.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I am looking into this and I hope to have a solution in the next few days. I do ask you to please not undo my recent edits, since they include other changes that I think improved the article and made it more consistent with other articles. Thanks. -- Jcovarru (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One quick observation: like many other L.A. rail station pages, this one seems overly preoccupied with the details of all the various bus connections. That, plus the number rail lines, results in an article that lacks focus. -- Jcovarru (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tried to fix, using {{Fix bunching|...}} tags. Was causing more problems with the text, so I canceled the edit. Could someone with more experience in this area please make the correction? Thanks. Rpyle731^talk 09:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a mention of the Super Chief somewhere in the text as well as in the caption? Seems like being the endpoint for such a well-known train is worth pointing out. Nareek (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting my admin hat on here, as I've seen the mini-war on the article page. Indeed,

Judgment of Solomon

approach. Here's what I removed:

Opened in May 1939, Union Station is known as the "Last of the Great

Catellus Development, officially changed the name to Los Angeles Union Station.{{Citation needed

}}

It's preserved here for wording and because it's likely correct. Feel free to re-add with sources. tedder (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a classic example of purely innocuous statements getting littered with citation tags just because an editor sees a statement without a citation. The "any material challenged" clause in

WP:V ("This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source") and Jimbo's statement ("..pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.") apply here. Maybe it doesn't seem likely to be challenged to you, but it was challenged. Thanks for finding sources. tedder (talk

) 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, encyclopedic content had to be removed. If it wasn't for an excellent editor like myself who bothered to take the time to find, format and insert sources, then this valuable content wouldn't have been seen by the public. I'd rather spend my time doing actual improvement to articles than having to cater to the whims of lousy editors who can find nothing better to do than to carpet tag articles with easily verifiable content (not just "I heard it somewhere") just because they can abuse a statement Jimbo made years ago, which was really meant for controversial BLP content but is technically applied to everything.--Oakshade (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that none of this would have happened if you hadn't removed the cn tag in the first place. --

talk/_contribs

) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please focus further energy at improving Wikipedia, not turning things into personal attacks. Additional sniping and pointy conversation will be dealt with. tedder (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have given this article a pretty serious cleanup today. To be clear I have not added or removed any significant content, only rearranged it and removed duplication. It now has a lead geared towards saying first where it is first, then something about the services from it and finally then a small piece about the history/architecture. There is then a section on the location which needs more work but brings together all the extant text describing the layout of different parts of the station. This is followed by a section on services covering each type of service in order starting with the long-distance heavy rail services and ending with local bus servics. I have then placed history just before 'future expansion' followed by architecture and Film/TV etc. I hope people feel that this is an improvement. Happy to discuss my changes and I will now pause for 24 hours for comment before making further changes. People may notice that I have done a lot of work on many LA transport articles over the past 2 weeks but have delayed touching this article until I understood more about the system. PeterEastern (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this article really needs {{

-}} templates. The infoboxes are sometimes in the wrong sections. —GFOLEY FOUR!

— 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do add them back as you think appropriate. To be honest I was not that clear what they were doing for the article and may have been too enthusiastic in removing them. PeterEastern (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand why you have added the {{

-}} templates back but this creates rather uncomfortable breaks in the body text. Also.. there is a lot of duplication of information in boxes and body text (some introduced by me). Would it be possible to 'hide' some of the detail in these various infoboxes so it only appears if requested or alternatively remove some of this detail and place it in the body of the article where appropriate to balance the body text with the infoboxes better and get rid of the white space? PeterEastern (talk

) 20:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I will say it again - because I keep getting reverted on this. The "line" parameter in the Infobox is redundant when "services" contains succession boxes for exactly the same lines. Clean those out, for a start, and see what that does for spacing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I have taken my chances at getting reverted by removing the line information from the infobox for the reason you give above. Would it be appropriate to now convert the MetroLink table that I copied from the MetroLink article into the previous/next type format or is that not appropriate for a mainline rail service? PeterEastern (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the "services" section in the infobox? I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Secondarywaltz is just referring to the "lines" parameter. I strongly object to removal of the "services" section in the infoboxe. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case could you adjust the infoboxes in the way you feel is appropriate? Another approach would be to combine information into a single infobox avoiding the need for {tl|-}} templates at all which is what I notice is done for other large US train stations such as

Pennsylvania Station (New York City)

.06:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have created a new section below for the discussion on infobox/line/service information arrangement. PeterEastern (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As of 4/15/2011, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has completed the purchase of Union Station. http://thesource.metro.net/2011/04/14/metro-tonight-officially-becomes-new-owner-of-los-angeles-union-station/ The plan, reportedly, is to further redevelop the area and make it more of a destination!

Also, I was there just a week ago, after not having been through Union Station for about 6+ months -- there is now four new retail convenience food shops open: Subways, Starbucks, Wetzel's Pretzels, and Famima. This makes Union Station a far more comfortable place to hang out while waiting for your next train, and a nice transit point between the various light-rail, subway, bus, and heavy rail services.

I'm not sure how much of the above info should go in the main article. Toybuilder (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The ownership part should be covered, and maybe a line about the shops and approximately when they opened. Famima opened sometime around the end of the year, there's probably a LAT article about it. tedder (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, not the LA Times, but how's this for an article? http://www.csnews.com/article-all_aboard_famima__-1544.html Toybuilder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

The above cleanup section has raised a specific issue relating to infoboxes and I am creating a new section to discuss this issue. Can I suggest we review other station articles now with a view to reorganizing the information in this article to match what we see as 'best practice'. In particular I recommend reviewing these which are all large and use the same structure:

I have reworked the services into the main infobox and removed what seems to be a redundant secondary infobox. I have also removed duplicated service information from the body text. It seems like a big improvement to me. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Much better. I never really liked the separate infoboxes in this case. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. So other than a further clean-up pass through each section and sorting out why the 'lines' don't display in the infobox I think it is in good shape now. Does anyone have any ideas why they don't display?PeterEastern (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Although this is an older conversation, I wanted to respond to the above question about the 'lines' section not displaying. In the infobox, "line" is defined twice, with the second definition completely empty. It is located directly above the long "services" definition (there is also a second "service" definition above the second "line" definition). Since it is empty, it overwrites the previous "line" definition. Remove the redundant parameter and it will work.

I already made the correction, but was reverted by an anonymous user citing this discussion. Therefore, I will leave the changes to someone associated with this article. I would recommend either: fix the error and display the information, or completely remove unwanted information. It is generally never a good idea to rely on a computer bug to display information correctly.Skyman9999 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The infobox seems fine to me, more or less, but the real problem is the shifting of all the other images to the right that's creating that huge whitespace. ----DanTD (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the aerial photo from the Late 1940's or Late 1990's (more likely). The article seems to indicate both. Wayne Loomis (Dr. Detail) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.3.77 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more likely from the 1940's. Aerial photos in the 90's weren't so grainy. 50.178.161.154 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"The MTA Building is a 398 ft (121 m) high rise office tower in Los Angeles, California. Completed in 1995". No high rise building in Los Angeles in 1940s. Ucla90024 (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Union Station page is part of a larger effort to document the Red Line. It has been restored to it's original page. Pacific Coast Highway 02:10, June 12, 2005 (UTC)

Question, the infobox says that Metrolink and Amtrak has 6 island platforms at the station. I'm aware they share tracks and platforms, but I only count 5 island platforms of Metrolink and Amtrak (and one additional island for the Metro Gold Line) on Bing Map's aerial of the site. Is the map outdated, or am I missing the platform somewhere? I count the Metro Gold platforms first behind the station building, and then 5 additional metrolink/amtrak islands behind that. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: On Google Maps, it looks like the easternmost platform was constructed recently, so Bing Maps is probably just outdated. Additionally, maps from Metrolink and Metro both show six platforms. Conifer (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what is it. The Bing Maps don't show the easternmost platform. I used to use Google Maps until they monkeyed around with the format. BTW, when was this new platform constructed? And, actually, I have a second question. I'm looking at the Google map aerial, right now, and I actually spotting an additional platform north of the underground concourse, and west of the furthest east Metrolink platform. It's unconvered. What is that platform? I thought it might be for the BRT stop, but that appears to be all the way on the other side of the station. So, what I'm now seeing - from west to east - is the Metro Gold platform, six platforms for Metrolink/Amtrak, and then this uncovered platform wedged at the northeast corner of the station complex. Maybe, it's just a concrete streetway which looks like a platform, because I see markings on it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Platform 7 was rebuilt to original specification in 2012. There were originally 8 platforms, but at some point 7 and 8 were removed and the tunnels filled in. The new platform 7 looks almost identical to those built in the 1930's, you really wouldn't know. You can see pictures of the new platform at [this link] and a youtube video of the opening ceremony it at this YouTube link. I suppose this should be included in the article. I'll ask the photographer if he can release some shots into PD. Lexlex (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Go to the google aerial of this to help me with one more thing. Look at platform 7 (13 & 14) where the shed ends, and then look directly across the double tracks to the east at this point. Right on the other side of the doube tracks appears to be some concrete section that stretches all the way down to about where the underground concourse is. Is this an additional platform of any kind of is it an optical illusion? It looks to be another platform. --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost positive it's a concrete section of pavement within the fire lane. Note that "KEEP CLEAR FIRE LANE" is painted over both the asphalt and concrete section within the lane, so doubtful it's a raised platform. Lexlex (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not fond of the images captioned “Metro Gold Line train at Union Station” and “The platform view of the Red Line and Purple Line.” and “The upper floor view of the Red Line and Purple Line station platforms” because they are really rather dull, don’t show any passengers and don’t contribute to any understanding of this particular railroad station. What do others think? Sincerely,

That "Union Station bus stop for El Monte Busway services" image is pretty awful, too.

talk

) 08:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Those photos don't do much to illustrate what these platforms look like. They need to provide a wider view of the platform, preferably with passengers and trains visible. After all, these platforms are a unique part of Union Station and very different architecturally from the rest of the 75 year old station. I suggest we go to Flickr to find creative commons images that are more appropriate. Here are some suggestions for better photos for the Red/Purple and Gold lines. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe platform view images that I uploaded for Red and Purple Line are both needed, since they're available for other metro pages. Uniformity is a must for metro pages. Some say it isn't efficient, but I believe it is what these pages need. For example, you have the Seoul Subway station pages in Korean having all the same platform view images (https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/종각역, https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/종로5가역, https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/동묘앞역), and it looks fantastic; I'm trying to apply that same, impressing view for LA. And about the dullness, that is what the LA Metro is like, so unfortunately, even though it looks bad, it still well describes how the station looks like; as a metro enthusiast, I know what I want for Wiki pages based on metro stations: the image of how it's like there. You want to see of how their graphic design goes, also (the partial benefit the platform view gives).

talk

) 18:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree with HanSangYoon. We don't have to have all the subway or train station pages look alike: For the most part, they are all different, and all their pages should reflect the differerences. See

talk

) 23:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I honestly cannot interpret your reasons because first of all, these metro pages could have more than one pictures; it isn't illegal to do so (I know this for sure since I re-read the Wikipedia rules just to see if I'm missing out on anything). And to show the platform images, some stations will have beautiful images at the background (Take example: Universial Studios Station or Hollywood/Highland Station). This is where you find differences for the platform images. Some stations do not have too much differences (but sensitive people eventually does find their way and is also one of the reasons why I'm against putting these pictures down), and so you have other images such as upper floor images, or lower floor images, since that's where they start to reflect the differences. Remember: Wikipedia is for everyone. There will be people who's fascinated with the indifference and start delving into it (not all people are the same).

talk

) 01:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I grant you that on the Korean Wikipedia page the sign on the platform is pictured at the top of each page... but that's not the uniform look used here on the English Wikipedia. Take a look at pages for Metro stations in

Portland... in each case the main photo prominently shows a visually interesting wide view of the platform, often with passengers and trains visible.RickyCourtney (talk

) 23:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter, Courtney? So just because it is a Korean Wikipedia they could do it, and because it's English Wikipedia, you can't? I am finding that opinion a bit strange (in fact, it sounds a bit racy). I believe Los Angeles Metro could have this format since its system is more organized compared to New York, Washington, or Chicago, and therefore could be done. The LA Metro stations are also more sophisticated and well-maintained, so it is well deserved to show something like this. Even if these additional reasons I provided sounds absurd, I still cannot agree with taking the photos out, and I will be waiting for the ultimate decision on these two pictures. Nothing to go against you, but I am against putting these pictures away until another better pictures make way.

talk

) 01:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

For my $0.02, I think the "Metro Gold Line train at Union Station" pic is actually OK (not great – and a picture like that, but of better quality, would be better still...), but it's OK enough that I'd leave it. I agree that the other two pics mentioned are weak and could go without any objection from me. --IJBall (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I could really care less of how dull it looks, for those images are the only images that describes the metro stations for Union Station, and I'm pretty sure there will be some who's wanting to see it; surely not everyone will ignore it. So rather than to delete it, I say put it up until a better, stronger picture comes in to push them away (in which I'll take care by the next two weeks). For now, however, I strongly stand with the point that it should be uploaded. Looks dull? Blame the metro staff and the architect who designed the station, not me who simply went there with effort to upload them for this page. Quality? Blame on my iPad Air. Eitherways repeating: I will try to get a more 'satisfying picture' for these pages (in fact, the entire stations- again).

talk

) 08:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PS IJBall, your Penny-worth advice was quite angering- please refrain from writing rhetorically.

I'm currently waiting for a reply on this section, cause I am not done here. I will revert if there isn't a response by Wednesday (US, PST (California)). Abandoning the platform pictures is considered throwing away minimal information. (Rules of Thumb #3)

HanSangYoon- Look, I honestly think you made the changes to these photos across Wikipedia in good faith, because you were being bold and you think they were the right changes to make. Those are some of the core tenants of Wikipedia... but another is that we come to the talk page to suggest alternative solutions or compromises and come to a consensus. At this point you have the opinions of several very senior editors across this page, your talk pages and your complaint pages (GeorgeLouis, IJBall, Secondarywaltz, Rich Farmbrough, Terramorphous, Mandruss and myself) that disagree with your changes. That's far more input than most changes get. I've seen a few alternative solutions and compromises suggested to you (placing the photos on commons, placing them elsewhere), but you don't get to revert the changes just because you don't agree with our responses. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already created a Commons account. In fact, that is where I have uploaded all my images for the Gold Line Metro pictures, so Commons is out of the list of reasons of why the photos are disqualified. Also, it is important to know that

talk

) 03:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My post here "for the record", HanSangYoon's station pictures are not very good and his insistence to have them in the info box is utter non-sense. Please HanSangYoon by replacing a perfectly good picture with your own for the sake of "owning" the article is extremely disrespectful to the producers of the original pictures. In addition, throwing away minimal information. (Rules of Thumb #3) is being improperly used a sloppy

Look. What have I told you about the pictures? They are still contribution, and inputs information into the pages. I hope you knownot to revert but to discuss, in which you've went against. What's more, it has been stated that only

talk

) 03:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

HanSangYoon makes some good points about simply deleting images (or any other information) from articles, but, really, we are following procedure by discussion these deletions on this page. I applaud Mr. Yoon for his initiative in making photographs at RR stations in Los Angeles, but he should be more perceptive about the results. One of the photos (shown above on this page) seems to show the top of some kind of notice board, looking down at the platform (I am guessing if this is actually what it shows; it is hard to see). Another shows an iron fence in front of four cars, with a white building in the background: These images do nothing to advance the reader's understanding of what Union Station is like. For some good images (and I know we can't use them), go to https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gold+line+los+angeles+union+station&FORM=HDRSC2. I suggest he return to Union Station with a real camera and try to get some images as good as those. I am sure he will do a good job once he decides to do so. Again, I wish him the best in this endeavor.

talk

) 04:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. Agree with GeorgeLouis. "A real camera"? Isn't a smart phone a real camera? Ucla90024 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Rule of Thumb #3 means that if an image is partly relevant then edit (corp) the irreverent part out and use the image on the article BUT don't waste/throw away the orginal image, upload it to Wikipedia Commons for future use NOT ARTICLES, WIKI COMMONS. It does not mean shoehorn images into articles. It means upload into Commons for future use should an article require the need for it.

2. The Consensus is that these images should not be in the infobox. You can't call the Consensus as owning the article that just doesn't make sense. A bunch of editors decided it was not the right course of action.

3. I have been to enough metro station articles to know that station signage pictures is used in the topic. However, they don't use them on the main image space of the infobox. Which is what the other editors have been arguing to you about. That dominate spot should be used for high value images.

4. There is nothing wrong with adding images to the article, good or bad, but substituting a perfectly good image with yours is only ok if your image is vastly better than the old one. Judging from the edits and the reactions that is not the case here at all. It is disrespectful to the owner of the replaced image.

I hope you take these into consideration becuase I see that everyone's patience is wearing thin.Terramorphous (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Whereshall I start...

1. The opinion of yours of my images being 'shoehorn' is false. This doesn't squish up the space, as it's not like I'm inserting more than two or three pictures per page. What's more, the Rule of Thumb #3 applies to all dimension of pictures, shoehorn or not. Therefore, going against it is going against it.

2. Again, I have to repeat that I am saying nothing about owning the articles; just a matter of contribution. What's more, just because bunches of users want to push beyond the policies I showed as an example above doesn't mean it is right, and therefore doesn't mean it should go the way they want it, either. Discussion is the key (as we do here).

3. Really? Have you been to 'enough' articles? Really? I see enough too, and almost all of them has placards in the front?

Tokyo

...Explain.

4. It is not about who's picture is better or not that goes up in the front. It is the meaning of pictures that decide whether it should go up in the front. Putting the title sign of the station out of the title doesn't make sense.

I hope you also take consideration that my patience is diminishing too.

talk

) 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You said "Some here in LA take pictures for the LA metro pages (Simon H., Jonathan Menyhart), then I upload them." Can you confirm that you have not actually taken these photographs yourself? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The metro Red and Purple Line images, yes, that's what happened. After I got the Commons account and went for the Gold Line, they were gone. And since I gave these users permission to photograph with my iPad for the Red and Purple Line stations, the ownership came to me.

talk

) 19:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the copyright/ownership lies with the photographer, not the equipment owner. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1.

Within reason, crop an image to remove irrelevant areas. But do not "throw away information"; for example, if a photograph shows George Washington and Abraham Lincoln together at a birthday party, and the article you're working on requires only Lincoln, consider uploading both the original image and the crop of Lincoln. Also, if an image has captions as an inherent part of the artwork (as with book illustrations, early cartoons, many lithographs, etc), don't crop them, or at least upload them cropped and uncropped.

— Rules of thumb, Wikipedia

How does this rule help you, it's talking about something totally different. If this is the rule you are referring to explain to me in clear simple English what it means.

2. Your just one person going against the consensus. We all heard your arguments but do you hear ours?

3. Really? Because on the Korean pages of those respective stations all but one don't use station nameplates as the infobox image.

4. your pictures = not better + little meaning most editors already have said that. It is not Infobox material. Terramorphous (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Should I create a page filled with the pictures I took for metro, and let people vote for the preferred ones?

I have had enough with these ridiculous criticisms. I recently got my pictures back, and instead of continuing the image inserting which would most certainly stir a huge criticism, I have a great idea. I'm just gonna create a referendum-like page filled with the metro pictures (ones that were taken by ME, not the other two people), and selected users in this controversy will be able to select the pictures they think qualifies for each station. That would create a lot less controversy. Don't you all think?

Why do the pictures we get to select have to be by you? Terramorphous (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said that all the pictures in the metro pages should be of my origin (now that IS ridiculous). What I'm saying is my contributions. Which one should qualify? I'm not saying to delete the other pictures other contributors made. And why does it have to be me, not my other photographers that I fired recently? It's against the policy for me to put up images not done by me. You know well. And after all, we get into lots of talk page arguments, so why not do a referendum? It actually seems like what you'd favor.

talk

) 23:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, read yet another section

WP:SHOUT

. Do you expect to be taken seriously, BOLDING an entire section? --

Allamericanbear (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I was only trying to grab the user's eyes. Guess I didn't do it the right way.

talk

) 23:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Too bad Ansel Adams and Julius Shulman can't see them. Or maybe they will. Ucla90024 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's actually quite funny...thanks for the statement.

talk

) 23:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I now have a referendum page which I invited everyone who was involved in this controversy (pretty much every user who discussed with me about or near the issue of the Los Angeles Metro has been invited.