Talk:List of Chicago "L" stations

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)

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)

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.
    • Possible exception unique unique cases?

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Featured List

Has anyone though of beefing up the WP:LEAD and sources and taking this to WP:FL?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Format reversion: request for comment

I’ve been working on this list and recently made an edit which changed the basic layout from a line by line station listing to a systemwide listing. This edit was reverted by an IP. I disagree with this revert and in accordance with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I am now bringing this here for discussion.

My intention has been to work on this in order to bring it up to Featured List quality. The past work I’ve done has been to switch the basic bulleted list format into a table format which provides some information about each station. Part of this was to remove duplication and just list each station once, no matter how many lines serve the station, just as is done on Featured Lists such as List of London Underground stations, List of Oslo Metro stations, List of St. Louis MetroLink stations, and List of Washington Metro stations.

The categories were sortable (except for opening date since the sort function doesn’t recognize MDY date format) so specific order shouldn’t be an issue. Additionally since line(s) are listed after a station’s name, it’s a bit redundant to say “Red Line” then list a bunch of stations saying that this station is on the Red Line. Duplication (such as for Loop stations) is also redundant. Breaking the list up into sections also breaks the sort function into the corresponding sections and prevents systemwide sorting.

The benefit to having stations listed the old way is that it provides information on which order the stations appear on a specific line, but, this isn’t required or necessarily helpful in this instance. Line maps showing station order already appear on each line page, and order is even depicted by the system map on ‘’this’’ page.

These are my thoughts and reasons. Please comment and provide feedback so consensus can be reached to either reinstate my changes, or keep this as it is now.

Thanks. Lost on Belmont (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who's written a FL-class station list (List of Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations), I agree with you that the stations should be listed in a single table to avoid duplication. It's the standard format for station list FLs, as you noted, and avoids the difficulty of duplicating stations which serve multiple lines (which the 'L' has a lot of).

Incidentally, I've also thought about bringing this list up to a featured list before, but couldn't find a good source for a lot of the earlier opening dates. If you have one, I'd be happy to collaborate on making this a featured list. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've got quite a few from period newspaper articles. There is also Chicago-L.org, though the dates, as I have discovered, can be slightly off in rare occasions. (I was working on the List of closed Chicago 'L' stations and I'd often find some date for here. I have been... slowly... putting together a new lead that would truly introduce this topic well, and if you're willing to work to bring this to FL, I think we should be able to do a bang up job in much less the time I imagined.

So far that's +1 for the one list. Lost on Belmont (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Great to hear you've found some newspaper sources (my news archive unfortunately drops off in the mid-1950s). I thought of Chicago-L.org too, but it both can be slightly off and might not hold up as a major source in a FLC since I think it's self-published. Another thought: I'm not sure the branches should be in the list. Most of them haven't been official names since the CTA switched to color-coded lines, and the other FL station lists don't include anything like that. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good to see there is a way to make the dates sortable, but I'm wondering if that should wait. If anyone else comments to revert back to the one list, then I was going to just revert to that edit instead of redoing all that work. (I don't think anyone really concerned with the progress of this will oppose.) I was going to wait a few more days and then revert if no one objected. (The list is somewhat broken in its current form anyway.) Lost on Belmont (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Waiting's probably not a bad idea, since I'm not done making all the dates sortable anyway (though I regret doing all the work for that now... oh well, at least I won't have to redo the Loop five times for the one table). There's a few other changes I'm waiting on (I also doubt anyone else will oppose), and I probably should have thought to wait on that one too. Though the process did remind me that there's a few missing dates, for South Boulevard and several stations on the Lake Street branch of the Green Line. If you have any references for those, they would be rather helpful. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If there's just a year, I don't have a ref for it. Yet... but this actually allows me to bring up some topics I'd like discussed. You mentioned removing the "branch" category which isn't required and I see no problem with that. I was in fact thinking of adding a category: Location (Chicago neighborhood, or suburb). The removal of Branch can serve for both I'm thinking: replace instead of remove. (Unless you believe that it is too much for one list.)

The second thing I ask about is dates. So far wikipedia had been going by Chicago-L.org's system of dates: that a station opened when 'L' service began to that station, regardless of whatever prior service was in place. This isn't too much of an issue here, but Forest Park was originally an Aurora and Elgin station be for the track-share, and most stations north of Wilson to Calvary were originally Chicago and Evanston Railroad stations. How do we count these? Personally I say we go with the whole history, not just while the station was an 'L' station.

Thoughts? Lost on Belmont (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, the reverting IP quacked quite loudly, as the latest in a long string of IP socks of banned user:Television Radio, AKA the CTA bad grammar vandal from February of 2009, and has been reported to the authorities. WuhWuzDat 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

When does a station really open? Request for comment

So far in my work on this list, there have been several stations which I have avoided putting references for namely because the "opening date" is of dispute in my mind. These stations are as follows:

Argyle, Bryn Mawr, Granville, Loyola, Morse, Jarvis, Howard, Main, Dempster, Davis, Noyes, Central, Forest Park, Harlem, Oak Park, and Austin.

So far we've been using the dates as appear on Chicago-L.org which count a station as opening when "L" service started at a station. I find myself disagreeing with this format. The stations north of Wilson existed before the "L" extension but were rebuilt for the "L". Forest Park also existed as an AE&C interurban station prior to the Garfield Park extension and continued to serve as such until 1957. It can be argued that the reconstruction of these stations for rapid transit service constitutes different stations, but the electrification didn't add or change the location of stations. The people using them still had their stations; only the type of service (steam to rapid transit) changed.

It is my stance that the stations are the same stations and should reflect their entire history from opening as stations on the Chicago and Evanston Railroad in the 1800s. (Or the AE&C in the case of Forest Park.)

The other three stations (the Congress stations) also use the Chicago-L.org system and consider the stations only having opened when the current stations opened. I won't dispute the idea that the Garfield and Congress stations were different stations, but the switch is were the devil is. Unlike the rest of the stations, these stations remained opened throughout construction. There was no specific close of one and an opening of another, such as at Halsted. The line was converted over and "temporary" stations were opened in intervals for the switch from Garfield to Congress. Newspapers of the day heralded the switch from the old Garfield Park trackage to the New Congress trackage and mentioned that new temporary stations had been opened on the new Congress tracks. This suggests that the new trackage on the new branch with new (albeit temporary) stations would be the opening of the new stations, not rebuilt versions of the old Garfield Park stations on Congress tracks.

So what are any thoughts? Did the north side stations start off as steam stations? Do we consider the opening of the Forest Park station to have occurred in 1902? And is a temporary station on a new right of way part of the old station or the new one?

Lost on Belmont (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A question that I've also thought about. As this article is called "List of Chicago 'L' stations", perhaps the date that they opened as 'L' stations is the date that should appear in the list, with a footnote explaining that there had previously been a non-'L' station operating at the same location. Otherwise you will end up with 'L' stations that have opening dates before the first 'L' route opened (I think the north-side stations opened on May 21, 1885—see ref in the Argyle article). It begs the question, is the oldest 'L' route really the south-side Green Line or is it the north-side Red and Purple Lines? —Jeremy (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the north side and Evanston stations were all rebuilt and electrified for 'L' service, and became part of a different line run by a different company, I'd say to use the dates they opened as 'L' stations, though I like the idea of adding a footnote. Forest Park is a slightly different case since the station was transferred between two lines, but as JeremyA said, the scope of the list suggests that we should use the beginning of 'L' service (at the earliest, since it's a Congress Line station) for that one, too. The Congress Line stations are a bit trickier, especially since Chicago-L.org is inconsistent about their opening dates (Forest Park is listed as 1905, but the rest are 1960). For the three that aren't Forest Park (and probably the closed Central station too, though that's a different list), the opening dates for the temporary stations should probably be used. Forest Park appears to be a similar case, since a temporary station was definitely constructed there for the opening of the Congress Line; aside from the C&AE having served the station (and it had closed by the time the Congress Line opened, though it was supposed to reopen and never did), I'm not sure why Chicago-L.org treats it any differently. Am I missing something about the transition there? TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason Chicago-L.org treats Forest Park differently is because the station was never actually replaced during Congress construction. The station wasn't relocated, but it was rebuilt as you pointed out. This was primarily done to facilitate the end of the CA&E's Chicago service and to make transfers easier between lines and to turn trains. The rebuild of the station is seen much in the same way as the rebuild, of say, Fullerton. It is a new station, but still the same station. (Consider the "swing" the line takes to get to the station from Harlem.)

As far as the North Side stations are concerned, I was thinking that the original C&E dates should be listed but without the inclusion of a footnote. Instead, the explanation for the discrepancy in dates would appear in a yet-to-be-written section of the lead which would discuss the history/development of the system in accordance with other rapid transit and light rail FLs. Keep in mind that while the service type changed at these stations and the track was electrified, the Milwaukee Road (which bought out the C&E--still need to find a date for that) still owned the trackage and the right of way and still operated freight service over the line. The argument that this is a "list of Chicago 'L' stations" would seem valid to a point, but would we therefore exclude the stations' histories in their individual articles just because the stations were rebuilt and some wire was strung over the tracks? (I really hope not.) But if this was done, it would provide a discrepancy in opening dates between the list and the individual articles. (Some mention has already been made at Argyle.)

In the end I think the main point is that the dates given are supposed to be for opening, not "L" service inauguration. But if it is the will of the majority that we not count the opening, I believe the column heading should be changed to reflect this.

By the way, what are the thoughts for the Westchester stations on the list of closed stations? The ones on the CA&E main line were CA&E stations before and after "L" service and this is why they still have empty dates. Lost on Belmont (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I take your point regarding the north side—there are newspaper articles from the early days that say that the Northwestern had to count passengers exiting at the stations to provide numbers to the Milwaukee Road (presumably this somehow affected how much money changed hands). I don't think, however, that dealing with it using footnotes ignores the history of the stations, or stops us from explaining the history more completely in the station articles. I think that either way could work though, so do what you think is best. If you can find out when Berwyn opened too, I'll be very impressed.

The Milwaukee Road was involved with the C&E almost from the start. It looks like they acquired some interest in the company in 1882, and bought them outright in 1887. [1] (this source gives May 1, 1885 as the opening date for the C&E)—Jeremy (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken in regard to Forest Park. I couldn't really tell if the other 3 stations had been relocated or not, so I'll take your word for it; placing the stations geographically is a little hard when I have to account for the Eisenhower not being there at the time of the Garfield branch, and I didn't know if the swing only came about because of the expressway or if the line had moved substantially. As for the other closed former CA&E stations, on the Westchester branch, Garfield branch, and Metropolitan Main Line, I'd say to just list the dates of 'L' service; it's the same thing as the north side stations, and that's my position on them (see below).

I'm still agreed with JeremyA about the north side stations, and the similar cases. Since this is a list of 'L' stations, it should only list the dates in which 'L' service opened and closed at the stations. As a comparison, for a list like List of Metrolink stations (which I wrote most of), there's several stations which served Amtrak or even older passenger trains long before Metrolink opened in 1992; Union Station (Los Angeles), for example, has been open since 1939. These dates aren't really relevant to Metrolink service, the topic of the article, so I saw no need to list them, footnote or not. This article is much the same; the original opening dates don't affect 'L' service in any way, so they don't need to be in an article which specifically discusses 'L' service. Of course, that sort of thing is still relevant in the station articles, but keep in mind that the station articles aren't supposed to focus exclusively on 'L' service while this page is. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stations needing references

Since I took this to FLC, there has been one major complaint about the table and it keeps coming up: not all of the opening dates have references. Here's a list of those that don't:

Stations still needing references

Station	Lines	Transfers	Location	Opened	Grade
Pulaski	Green Line	—	West Garfield Park	March 1894	Elevated
Logan Square	Blue Line	—	Logan Square	May 25, 1895	Underground
California	Blue Line	—	Logan Square	May 25, 1895	Elevated
Western	Blue Line	—	Logan Square	May 25, 1895	Elevated
Damen	Pink Line	—	Heart of Chicago	September 7, 1896	Elevated
Wellington	Brown Line   Purple Line	—	Lake View	May 31, 1900	Elevated
Oak Park	Green Line	—	Oak Park	January 25, 1901	Elevated
Ridgeland	Green Line	—	Oak Park	January 25, 1901	Elevated
Kostner	Pink Line	—	North Lawndale	May 22, 1907	Ground level
Kedzie	Brown Line	—	Albany Park	December 14, 1907	Ground level
Francisco	Brown Line	—	Albany Park	December 14, 1907	Ground level
Rockwell	Brown Line	—	Lincoln Square	December 14, 1907	Ground level
54th/Cermak †	Pink Line	—	Cicero	August 1, 1912	Ground level
Berwyn	Red Line	—	Edgewater	1916–17	Elevated
Washington/Wells Ⓣ	Pink Line   Brown Line   Purple Line   Orange Line	Union Pacific North   Union Pacific Northwest   Union Pacific West	The Loop	July 17, 1995	Elevated

As you can see, it isn't exactly a small number. As stated somewhere, Chicago-L.org won't work because it's self-published and therefore not reliable. Some of these do have a few notes about them.

• Wellington is mentioned in the article (sort of). The problem is that some overeager writer 112 years ago mistyped "Wellington" as "Wrightwood" and then wrote "Lincoln" for "Wrightwood." (An obvious error as Wrightwood and Lincoln are less than 100 feet apart at the 'L' line and therefore wouldn't both have stations.
• Damen, Pulaski, Oak Park, Ridgeland, Kedzie, Francisco, and Rockwell all have sources for stations that opened as part of their respective lines/line extensions, but these sources omit the "middle" stations.

If anyone out there has means of searching, I would greatly appreciate it if you could help out and bring this to a close. Thanks. Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Chicago-L.org isn't reliable on its own, but you might want to try contacting the webmaster to see if he would know where to find some of the original sources for their dates. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling that for the middle stations noted above, he just assumed they opened with the rest of the line since (from what my research has shown) that it was very uncommon to open stations after the fact. Unfortunately, such reasoning fails several wiki procedures and that leaves this list at square one. Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Planned stations

I feel like the section on planned stations may be out of date. I cannot find any recent references for the Cermak, Washington/Wabash, or Asbury stations that say they are definitely going to be built. I know that they were all proposed at one point, but that doesn't mean the CTA is still planning on constructing them at this point. There is no mention of any of them (that I could find) on the CTA's website. On the other hand, the stations on the Yellow Line and Orange Line planned extensions are not mentioned, and should be added. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

CTA is still very much going to build the Cermak and Washington/Wabash stations. Both were delayed. There's a recent article describing the updates here. I'll go ahead and update the info in the proposed list.

The reason you don't/won't find mention of Asubry on the CTA site is because CTA has nothing to do with that one. The city of Evanston will be funding and building that. They haven't updated their website in a long time, but that is still in the works. They're working on funding. Keep in mind that they're following Skokie's methods for getting the Oakton station and that took 10 years. They've already searched for and decreed the locally preferred alternative. As for the Old Orchard extension, not much is happening with that because of CTA's chosen alignment which prompted much backlash from residents. Mayor Van Dusen, who once championed the project, has backed off due to outcry. There isn't much support for that at the current time.

Then there's the Ford City extension. That was one of those big three (Circle Line seems to have vanished) projects, but has taken a back burner to the Dan Ryan extension. When I made this section, based off of those seen in other lists with FL status, I picked those that seemed like they were actually in the works. But yes, since it is a planned and proposed stations, I suppose *all* proposed stations should be there, Orange, Yellow, and Circle Line along with alteration of the section header to include proposed stations.Lost on Belmont ^3200N (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Chicago "L" stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170922100909/https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170831/downtown/futuristic-washington-wabash-l-station-opens-this-is-gold-standard to https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170831/downtown/futuristic-washington-wabash-l-station-opens-this-is-gold-standard

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Navbox malfunction

The navbox 'Current and former Chicago "L" stations' does not expand when I click on [show]. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed with this edit to the template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

After consulting with WOSlinker I have implemented a different fix, here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)