Talk:Toronto subway/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Template of route map

Hi guys. After Joeyconnick two reverts. So I see there was no initial discussion to include this 'route diagram map' at Template:Toronto subway route diagram; there should've been that initial discussion. I can imagine it took a lot of work for Blaixx to create, but that does not mean it was ever needed. This is "Infobox public transit" not "Infobox rail line" New York City subway vs IND Eighth Avenue Line as one of many example. This creation of this template is inherently confusing as this is attempting to linearly show a route diagram of the entire system which goes in many directions and doesn't have a clear flow, especially as the routes keep expanding, unlike for a singular line where this can be more easily represented. This template certainly does not belong in the 'map' parameter of this "Infobox public transit", the actual map does, and it doesn't even belong in the body in my opinion as it was created on good intentions, but is not helping any cause. @Mattximus:, @Johnny Au: Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all I'd just like to state I won't be offended or hurt if there is consensus to remove the Routemap in question. As to why I made it, I felt like the tiny map image thumbnail didn't really add anything given that a large map is already included in the second section below the top. The route diagram additionally provides the benefit of including links to every station in the system in a compact format. I don't think there is an issue with "Infobox public transit" being "misused" but I will concede that the diagram will become increasingly impractical as Lines 5 and 6 open in the next half-decade. Cheers, BLAIXX 20:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your attitude on this matter. While I understand wanting to link each subway station, this isn't the list of stations page. As we both said, the route map will get impractical, if not already so, once more lines open. Even though the thumbnail in the infobox of the map is small, if readers want to see a bigger version, they will click it, if not they won't. There's no need for an empty section in the body of the article solely depicting an overly large map. If the template belongs anywhere, it is on the list of stations page, but wouldn't be necessary there either as we already have tables. Again, although it might have been a good thought, I really don't think this template is necessary anywhere. Also, talking about WP:STATUSQUO, there was never a consensus to add the route diagram, therefore the real status quo should be using the thumbnail. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi... please note the documentation in Template:Infobox public transit specifically includes a diagram of the type that is here that Vaselineeeeeeee wants removed from the article's infobox. A diagram that consists of multiple lines. We don't ape New York's organization just because it's New York. Secondly, as Blaixx notes, the "map" (which is actually far more of a diagram itself than a map) is useless at the small size it appears in the infobox, whereas the diagram/schematic/whatever we want to call it is at least legible and (again as mentioned by Blaixx) hyperlinked. Then there's the fact we do already include the "map" in question, at a much more useful size, in its own whole section. I don't think there's any question as to why the existing status quo has been unchallenged for so long: it's more functional for readers.

No one challenged Blaixx when they added the diagram, so that is status quo. You don't need to establish consensus for every single edit, but you definitely do if you are reverted on an edit shortly after. And we don't make edits based on potential future awkwardness. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Or it's because no one bothered to raise the issue due to neutral opinions or hadn't noticed? - just assumptions - and although it's been there for one year doesn't make it 'right' - things can always be changed. I would argue the functionality of the template. Although it enhances the functionality link-wise, the flow of it can be confusing for readers who are not familiar with the line. We also cannot be nearsighted in that this template will become very hard to manage in the very near future, and the flow will be even harder to represent. Anyway, that is shocking they chose such a small rail system as the example. That example certainly does not fit with countless stations, New York was just one of them. A single image should not occupy a sole section with no context - that's why we have thumbnails. There are plenty of images that may be too small to see from the thumb, that's why you are able to click them; much better than having an obnoxiously large image thrown at you straight away. I think the Edmonton Light Rail Transit shows a nice compromise with the map in the infobox and the route map collapsed below. If we want to follow Infobox public transit, even though that page should really note the exceptions, I suppose it is permitted to have the route map in the infobox, but the map of the system should not have it's own section, instead it could be moved to the "stations" section and made slightly larger than it would be in the infobox if you are concerned that much with size. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally find the system map far more useful than the strange route map. Especially if it is in the infobox. I vote to have the normal system map placed there as it is far more accessible for the majority of wikepedia users. Mattximus (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. That strange route map is very unintuitive (and will be much more convoluted once new lines open), especially for the vast majority of users reading the Toronto subway article, and we already have a list of subway stations article on Wikipedia. I will get confused myself. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

V, DC and AC

@Joeyconnick: Please see comments at Talk:SkyTrain rolling stock#V and DC SkyTrain rolling stock Peter Horn User talk 00:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Serves Toronto, Toronto and Vaughan, or GTA?

I feel the article should state in the lead that the Toronto subway serves the city of Toronto, or serves the Greater Toronto Area, not just Toronto and Vaughan.

While the only cities where stations are located are Toronto and Vaughan, it does not seem accurate to say it serves just those two cities. The presence of Toronto Pearson International Airport in Mississauga does not imply it serves Toronto and Mississauga, it serves the entire region as it is intended. Similarly, the Toronto subway also serves the region and not just the two cities. It is being planned to serve beyond Vaughan (i.e. Line 1 north extension to Markham and Richmond Hill; Line 5 west extension to Pearson). Many subway stations have dedicated transit connections with other transit systems (i.e. Brampton Transit, MiWay). Stations include commuter parking, which attract riders from outside of Toronto and Vaughan.

Therefore, I believe the intro and infobox should reflect this. I have tried to change it that way myself but it has been reverted multiple times. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate to say it serves Toronto and Vaughan, because saying it serves Toronto, leaves out several stations in Vaughan, but saying the GTA makes readers think that the subway goes to Oshawa, or Oakville, or Newmarket which is hugely misleading. The way it is now is the most accurate compared to the two alternatives you presented. Mattximus (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Or we could get over people's near-obsession with having to focus on how it now finally (again!) has stations outside Toronto—like, did you know there are stations in VAUGHAN now?! Nearly 3% of the system's stations are now outside TORONTO! So very outside Toronto! In a city that surely no one outside the region would every mistake for part of Toronto!!! let me take every opportunity to remind you of this!!!—and just say it serves Toronto? LOL

But on a more serious note, yeah, an airport is not a subway system. Listing the locale as "Toronto" and "Vaughan" is certainly fine and the most NPOV approach. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC) (who is looking forward to when Vaughan is subsumed by the megacity and we can stop highlighting that there are a whole 2 stations out of 75 that aren't in Toronto proper... quite.)

I will say that the subway is physically located in Toronto and Vaughan but serves the whole metropolitan region. However, we only list locales the subway is physically located in. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Wonky daily ridership numbers

Something is way off with the daily ridership numbers. Last year they were a little less than 1 million per day average. Now it's listed as 1.5 million per day! There is no way it increased by 50% in one year.... Mattximus (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Line 5 LRV Capacity

There is some ambiguity over the maximum capacity of the Flexity Freedom LRVs used on Line 5. The Metrolinx infographic says each 5-module LRV has a capacity of 163 [1], while the Bombardier document says 251 [2]. GKarastergios (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Track gauge

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Track gauge. Joeyconnick (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Partiality of "Door Operation" Section

I feel as though the 3rd paragraph of toronto subway#Door operation is written in a biased way because of the sources it cites. The sources used in [30] and [31] are websites made by the union that represents subway operators, which has an interest in preserving two-person train operations. The data represented in the article is from the union, and I question how valid the data is since it is coming from a biased source. Should the paragraph be removed or altered in some way? GeoFryer (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I have clarified that the first survey (2020) was undertaken by the union, and removed the 2021 piece in the absence of a secondary source. Will look for a TTC source with the opposing viewpoints for balance. Turini2 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Might need a little moving about, but have added TTC's side - TLDR "it's safe and used around the world, and Line 3 uses it anyway" Turini2 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! GeoFryer (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the Ontario Line "under construction"?

In March, various levels of government held a ground breaking ceremony and "declared" that the line was under construction. While some news agencies mirrored the government's claim, others such as Global News and CTV News (used as the citation for this article) only reported on the event itself. On other Toronto transit projects such as Line 6 Finch West, it was not until major construction began (i.e. not including minor works such as utility relocation) that the infobox was updated to state u/c. Given that the big contracts for the Ontario Line have not even been awarded yet, it could be a while before major construction beings. BLAIXX 15:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If the major contracts haven't been awarded, it sounds premature to list it as "under construction" to me. Making a bigger deal about something actually minor sounds pretty much par for the course for the current provincial government. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It is "ceremonially" under construction, but not actually under construction. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

iirc, Line 5 Eglinton had "ground breaking" ceremonies in 2011 and 2016! Agreed with others that the line isn't under construction yet. Turini2 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

No doubt about that. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to have to be the lone dissenter here, it is officially under construction [3] from the official page of the company responsible for its construction. Many of us may have different definitions of what it means to be under construction, but that would be WP:OR. I think we must simply report what the official site says. Mattximus (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Calling Metrolinx a 'company' is an odd description, it's a government agency that answers directly to politicians (who are pushing a narrative that work is under way, for their own ends). As no major work has been tendered to a private firm as yet, I have to side with the previous commenters. Radagast (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I think your intentions are good but "simply reporting what the official website says" is absolutely NOT what we should do on Wikipedia! It is Wikipedia policy that articles should primarily be based on secondary sources. This is because the primary/official source may be biased. To elaborate on what Radagast said, Metrolinx is an agency of the Government of Ontario which is only two months away from a general election so we need to be cautious of what they claim versus what other reliable sources are reporting. BLAIXX 14:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify what Blaixx said, the Eglinton West Subway was "officially" (i.e., ceremonially) under construction in 1994, but was filled in the next year under a new premiership. Therefore, we should use reliable secondary sources. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

That too but all I meant was that the people making the claim may be doing so for their own benefit (i.e. the government seeking re-election in June may be embellishing the progress of their major infrastructure project). BLAIXX 15:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

IF the purpose of wikipedia is not to use primary sources but secondary, then try these: [4], [5], [6], and many more. Just because you or I think it isn't under construction, if I have at least a half dozen secondary sources (including CBC, CTV, etc...) and they all say it has begun, it's WP:OR is it not? Mattximus (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Neither the tunnelling contract, the stations designs contract, the rolling stock contract, the signalling contract or any other major engineering contract has been awarded. Ergo, it's not yet under construction - remember there's a general election two months away, and Metrolinx is in the business of making the Government look good. Turini2 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The CBC and CTV articles you linked do not say that the line is under construction, they say that the government says that the line is under construction. There is a difference. BLAIXX 21:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I have read both articles and both said what Blaixx said. There is a difference between what the provincial government says and what the journalists say, especially given what journalistic standards reliable sources abide by. At least the CBC and CTV are being honest in this case, unlike certain clickbait sources (such as BlogTO). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

So, if anyone was looking out for actual on the ground construction to start for Ontario Line, great news. Work on Adelaide Street (Duncan Street to Victoria Street) begun just a couple of days ago (October 24th, 2022). This work is being done for Ontario Line, as it consists of upgrades to the Streetcar tracks that will enable Streetcar diversions for 501 Queen Line.

• City of Toronto Construction notice and info
• City of Toronto update, Oct 20
• CP24 News Article

BasilLeaf (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This is still not the line itself undergoing construction, so there's no change to that status. Radagast (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• There's early works underway at various locations in the city under various Metrolinx contracts. At Exhibition station, work began in March 2022. Work at the Corktown station also began this year, with demolition of the existing buildings. Meanwhile the main tunnelling and stations contract has been awarded along with rolling stock and operations/maintenance contract. There's no doubt the line is under construction, given the contracts, and the hoarding around sites on both sides of the city that say that construction is underway for the Ontario Line. Not to mention the reliable primary and secondary sources saying that construction is underway. Nfitz (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  As many above say - u/c = major construction rather than minor things like utility relocation or minor preliminary work. I think demolition and clearance of station sites does count as major construction - so if you have a source for that, that would be great! It also helps that the major construction contracts have been awarded. Turini2 (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do we need a source for what can be seen easily, driving down Front Street? Yeah ... probably. If you go to Google Earth (full version), the March 2022 airphoto, you can see the hoarding has been erected around the block between King and Front where Staples was; and on the block to the south between Front and Esplanade/Mill is. By the most recent airphoto (June 2022), it's all been demolished - along with the remaining buildings on Atlantic Avenue, next to the tracks, and the "New Road" along the cancelled Front Street east extension. Last time I was in Exhibition station, in November, they were erecting the hoarding for the construction of the new pedestrian overpass, over the tracks and Ontario Line alignment. Metrolinx reported on the construction status in August 2022. Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Sure - but "putting some hoardings up" isn't major construction. Demolition is! I'll see what I can find in terms of secondary sources. Turini2 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  BTW, here's the official groundbreaking date - March 27, 2022. Here's media reports about the groundbreaking ceremony - CBC, International Railway Journal, Railway Gazette. I can see hesitation while the project can still be cancelled - but it's almost impossible to cancel now that 2 major $billion+ PPP contracts were signed last month. Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  A ceremony is also not major construction. I think we've established that in this thread. BLAIXX 17:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• I am not a valid source, but I drove by the site and the demolition and land flattening is complete at the corktown station site. That to me is stations under construction. There are pictures here [7]. I don't know what else needs to be shown for construction but there are users here for some reason want "major" construction to occur before calling it under construction, despite demolition and land clearing to be "major" in my opinion. Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  As the photos are from the official Metrolinx website, it is safe to say that the Ontario Line is under construction. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Have made edits in this regard, now we have consensus! Turini2 (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)