Talk:Toronto subway and RT/2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto

  • My suggestion would be to break up List of subway and RT stations in Toronto and give each line an article based on the table there, with its relevant notes, and the geographic layout from TTC. The history summarized in the top of the tables could be fleshed out, and notable stations could get a paragraph or two. If any station has a long enough text, it could perhaps get its own page (Lower Bay being a notable example). Radagast 19:51, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
    I've posted Sheppard Line as a short example. I'd also like a mini line map and an 'article series' box with the other lines, will work on those. Comments on the article welcomed and in fact requested! Radagast 22:52, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding peer review of Sheppard Line---Looks good so far; I particularly like the historical section. I think a map would definitely improve the article(s). I'd suggest using standard emphasis markup (em/strong using double/triple quotes) rather than the purple and greenish-yellow font coloring, though; font tags make the article harder to edit, and IMHO should generally be avoided. -- Wapcaplet 03:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • The reson for the coloured text was to identify each line by colour. I may be overdoing it, though - I will consider that further. the map is in the works. Thanks for the comments! Radagast 16:29, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC) - Removed the colour to the series box, now added; added a map. Very close to final design, IMO. Radagast 01:53, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Bloor-Danforth Line is live, with Y-U-S in progress. I've done up Scarborough RT but since that one's an older article, I'll put up the changes once we're ready to roll. Any more comments? Anyone? Radagast 01:27, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea who they are, but the user at 209.167.50.242 has been making some wonderfully detailed and clarifying additions to this series in the last day or so. I don't know if you'll ever read this, but if you do, kudos and thank you! I really appreciate the additions, as I'm sure the railfans and other Wikipedians who read them will. Thanks again. Radagast 01:16, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I am the anonymous user referred to just above. (For reference, that's not the only IP address I use, nor am I the only anonymous user making changes using that address.) I appreciate the praise. However, while I'm sure it was well-intentioned, I do not appreciate the subsequent restructuring of the articles in December 2004 by [[user::PZFUN|PZFUN]].

This is for two reasons. First, I took advantage of the list of stations being in geographical order along each line to add description, not only of the stations, but of features of interest along the line between them. I thought this was a sensible organization, describing all features along the line in sequence. Breaking up the page does violence to this -- for example, the fact that bored tunnel is used between Lansdowne and Dundas West stations is mentioned on the Dundas West station page alone, simply because the previous version of the article went along the line from west to east. The wording has been retained from that version and now is similarly wrong.

Second, I agree with the comment by Darkcore on the YUS Line talk page that "there is no need for individual station pages, as there is little to say about most of the stations". A few individual stations may merit their own articles, but most of the pages are little stubs that will never be appreciably expanded.

I think it might have been better if PZFUN had put the change up for discussion before creating something like 60 new pages, but that's water under the bridge (or maybe there was discussion in a place that I didn't look). In any case, for the same reason I am not going to edit so boldly as to revert a reorganization that big on my own say-so, particularly when I created enough of the content that I risk feeling ownership of it.

But if there is consensus, or no response to this after a while, that's another matter.

While I'm talking about organization of these pages, I'll add one more thought. I think the pages about the individual lines should be focused on geographical content, describing the present configuration of the lines and stations. (This is part of why I think the "one continuous page" format is more congenial.) The historical content, about the building of the lines, is better placed on a page about the system as a whole: the Toronto Subway and RT page. The histories of the two major lines, in particular, are significantly intertwined, and I hope to write something in the future explaining how.

(2005-01-22, 03:50 UTC)

Anon: Thanks for your comments and response. I, too, have regrets over PZFUN's restructuring; while the work was well-intentioned and met the format being used by metro-system articles elsewhere, it does not lend itself perfectly to the Toronto system.

That being said, I have not had the time to plan or implement a compromise solution. It may be best to modify your interstation notes to fit on the articles of the station before and after, or to do major reversions and go back to the old format.

Should I have time for this in future, I'll look into which is better and ask for consensus; if anyone else would rather do this, feel free. Radagast 17:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, could someone please fix the misspelled "Eglington" West station article? (Anonymous users aren't able to rename articles in the proper fashion that preserves history.)

(2005-01-28 02:30 UTC)

Done. Radagast 13:06, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hey I'm new to wikipedia but I'd love to contritbute. I can probably get a pic for every station to add but I don't know how to do the links. Can anyone help me with that?

Links

Wikipedia discourages excessive linking (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)) -- we do not need six links to the same article in a list. Also, Niigata does not link to a rolling stock manufacturer, so the link is not appropriate. If you want to add this link, then you should create an article to link it to. Ground Zero 13:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Facilities

Couldn't the info on the trainyards simply be included in this article? Cuz the individual ones are very tiny at best. --Madchester 16:06, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

August rewrite of the history section

A rewrite of the history section was started on August 4th, and then left half-finished, with empty and missing sections. I am not strongly attached to the attempt I made to complete this rewrite. I cut out two section headings, figuring if whomever put the headings in there returns, they can add the text they felt belonged there, with the heading. I added brief sections for each extension to the system. I only pointed to the main article to each line once. Maybe I should have pointed to those articles for each section I added. I dunno. -- Geo Swan 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The map

The map based on UrbanRail.net is nice, particularly in the way it shows GO lines as well, but what are the grounds for considering it fair use to post it here? David Arthur 17:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hello; thanks for the commentary. Out of a desire to see a legitimate, accurate map of the subway system (and with insufficient time to create one), I decided to modify the UrbanRail.net map. Note it is not precisely the same as the original. However, if I've included an inappropriate licence, etc., please let me know. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 11:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer a GFDL map, whether adapted or made from scratch, over a borrowed-and-adapted map with tighter licensing; as it is, a major point of the article is shoehorned in with a mismatched license.

DavidArthur, I noticed you did a very passable version for fr:; any chance you could adapt that to English and put it here? On the same point, we may want to consider listing the proposed Spadina extension, now that the route is approved and the wheels have far more grease. Just a thought. Radagast 18:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually do have an English version of that map, and it even has the Spadina extension marked now; if no-one objects to my replacing the current one (and I think it's best, as I don't really see the fair-use argument) I'll put it up. David Arthur 17:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi there; I'm all for including a more 'legitimate' (GFDL, et al.) TTC route map; I adapted the UrbanRail map out of a desire to accurately reflect the system and didn't have time to create one (I also think there were some typos on the previous version). Upon taking a glance at the image by David Arthur (nice!), a few comments:
  • Is it possible to make it less congested?
  • I like the current (UrbanRail) map because, although not to scale, it provides a truer (though rough) representation of the distances between and general/relative locations of stations (e.g., College to Wellesley is far shorter than Eglinton to Lawrence; Eglinton West, Eglinton, and Kennedy should all form one 'straight' line, being on the 'same' street (Eglinton Ave.)).
  • Should the interchange station names be colourised to indicate what lines they belong to, as was once the case with a prior TTC route map? White text for the interchanges seems incongruous with the colourised text for other stations on the map.
  • On the legend, the text indicating lines should be all white or (preferably) all black, not both; see prior comment, too.
Just my two ... tokens worth. Thoughts? Thanks!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The congestedness is a result of my feeling that it ought to fit in a standard browser window on a 1024x768 monitor without scrolling; it's not great, but any alternative would be worse, given how unusually 'wide' Toronto's metro network is for one of its size. Given that the Bloor-Danforth line has to be squished, there isn't much point trying to make the rest of it to scale. As for straight lines, I have Kennedy farther south than Eglinton West and Eglinton Centre because the street does in fact curve slightly to the south; it isn't as much further south as my map suggests, but that's once again because of the limitations on width. Ultimately, this is a schematic map designed specifically for the limitations of a Wikipedia page.
The TTC interchange station names aren't coloured because they belong to more than one line, and I thought the half-yellow-half-green text very readable or communicative; having them white also makes them stand out more. As for the legend, neither white nor black works against all the background colours. David Arthur 22:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I think DavidArthur's version communicates the facts a bit more clearly; the colours work better on a black backround (which is also on the official TTC map, and that gives it a better sense of 'belonging', to me), and the GO lines don't need to be shown on a TTC map. I'm not overly concerned with scale or alignment, myself; so long as it gives a good approximation of their locations, anyone concerned witht he actual location of a given station can look it up in the article and cross-reference to a street map, if needed. Radagast 01:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! Comments and concerns noted and understood; I merely cite suggestions for potential improvements. It's a good map. I'm more concerned with scale and alignment, but not hugely: I don't propose drawing the map geographically, but just enhancing it diagrammatically. The TTC, in actuality, is about as 'tall' as it is 'wide.' Toronto is based roughly on a grid, and 'parallel' stations should be roughly at the same level (e.g., Eglinton Ave.). And genuine TTC route maps have to fit above the narrow advertising space above doors on subways, so this is unworkable in that format! I realise the need to keep the map as small as possible for easy viewing, but we don't have precisely the same limitations in Wikipedia/on screen and I think the space can be used more efficiently. (Conversely, users with high-res monitors would be imperilled to view either map.) Besides: it can be marginally higher but reduced/resized in the article, as currently.
Yes: I like the black background, too! The interchanges stand out, but by having the interchange text one colour (white), you cannot distinguish which station is on which line (though this may be functionally impractical): for instance, Bloor is on the YUS line while Yonge is on the BD line; another Yonge station is on the Sheppard line and Sheppard station is on the YUS (though these are practically the same) (sheesh: this is starting to sound like Chicago!) :) As well, white interchange labels can be confusing with the legend line labels/text, which has white and black text in it (for noted reasons); big white circles clearly indicate them regardless of text.
Yes: the GO lines don't need to remain on the map; it's nice to merely have the stations as you do. Remember: I was working with what I had, not reinventing the wheel ... and neither should we!
Use whatever is best. Either way, just another two tokens worth. :) Again, thanks alot! E Pluribus Anthony 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, I just uploaded the same map as previously but essentially reversed out the colours, etc. (The text should be made larger/more readable, however.) Whatyathink? Anyhow, use what's best. (Do I get a Metropass now? :)) Enjoy; thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 12:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
For the white interchange labels: Sheppard-Yonge is actually the name used for both lines, and while the signs still say 'Bloor' on the Yonge line and 'Yonge' on the Bloor-Danforth line, the idea of the two being 'separate' stations is rather abstract - Spadina is the only station where the two lines are actually separate in any meaningful way (which is why I marked it with an Underground-style linked double circle), and it has the same name on both lines.
We aren't subject to the same limitations as the TTC, but I think we are subject to different ones. I have given quite a lot of thought to the layout, and I don't think people should have to scroll horizontally or enlarge the map in order to be able to read it. Toronto is unusual in two ways that affect its metro network: it has long, straight streets which the lines follow, and its downtown is nowhere near the north-south centre of the city. These make it difficult to make a metro map that will fit on a Wikipedia page without some compromises, but I don't think it could be much better in that respect within the design criteria I used. David Arthur 15:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey there; thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. As I said: I am merely summarising and noting possible improvements to the map given the available 'framework', not contesting your map's validity or practicality. I may work on a home-grown map to dually integrate collective notions mentioned, but please feel free to use your map – which is good! – in the interim, if you wish. This is not a big-ee for me. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Right, take a look at the Train network section: the new map is up. David Arthur 16:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks good! Better than its predecessor, but not perfect. ;) Thanks alot! :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I know it's imperfect - my original version was much better, but I had to squash it and remove some details to get it an acceptable width. David Arthur 22:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The 'new' map

Hello! I hope you're well. I took a crack at creating a TTC subway/RT route map that dually addresses points of our prior discussion (I merely uploaded this file and changed the link in the article; I haven't replaced anything). The map is not in the 'London' style as previously, but harks more of the route maps in use on the TTC (and somewhat similar to those in Beantown, DC, et al. except for the black!); it provides a truer representation of the route shapes/stations (and other stations/streets they are in line with) without getting claustrophic. Comments? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 07:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly attractive and very Toronto, though it is quite wide - I have to scroll way over to see it all. I can't say I like the multi-coloured interchange station names, but I suppose I can't really complain too much since it was the TTC's idea. David Arthur
Hey there; thanks! It is a wee-bit wider (800px), and should still fit reasonably – without scrolling – within a 1024px monitor (as I've tested this) on the first/article page, but can be resized; I also have a 1680x1050 monitor, so it's actually smaller than desired. I'm either way on the interchange names: I actually like(d) the dual colouring of the names, but also wouldn't mind 'em all white (since the TTC now uses all-white for the text). I feel a mix of the two (colour and white) is potentially ambiguous. Thoughts?
My preference, as well, was for the proposed extension to appear as a variable black/yellow line (not grey) with unbound circles, but am yet unsure how to get CorelDraw to do that ideally. Thanks? E Pluribus Anthony 16:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The reason I like having the interchange names white with the others coloured is that it makes the names stand out in the way the icons do. It's also helpful where the map is a bit packed (as tends to happen around Toronto's 90° interchanges); on your map, my eyes tend to first associate the name Bloor-Yonge with the circle that actually represents Rosedale, whereas that wouldn't happen if the name was more visibly distinguished.
As for marking proposed extensions, the broken line is probably how I would tend to do it too (my map dates from when I was doing them with Photoshop, where such things are awkward), but the grey might actually be better, since it emphasises that they are not part of the current network, or even under construction yet.
While we're on the subject, since your map is so roomy, do you think it might be a good idea to also mark the Sheppard extension to Scarborough Centre? The station names are on the line's article, and it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out the route.
Another idea that I had but wasn't able to implement because of lack of space is marking the names of GO stations. It's not necessary for Kipling and Kennedy, where the TTC and GO stations have the same name, but perhaps for Main Street and Dundas West, the GO icon should be followed by Danforth and Bloor? That's what London does when an Underground station interchanges with a BR station of a different name, and I think it helps avoid confusion (though not as much as if they simply renamed the GO stations). David Arthur 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey there; thanks for the comments ... they are appreciated! There are small white lines where station/names appear 'cramped'. I'll upload a map with all-white station names ... I'm easy (but not cheap). Whatyathink?  :)
In labelling names and proposed extentions, et al., I used the TTC map and particularly used a prior map of the DC metro as reference (and have also been there; it's a good system!) which has undergone much extension. However, I couldn't jig CorelDraw to get the desired effect ... just yet. But, agreed: the grey does work.
I think the GO symbols are sufficient; I wouldn't want to collude the map with the names of extraneous stations (though am open to this). Besides: Kipling and Kennedy (and Union) are direct connxns in the same facility (I should know, since I pass through the latter two almost every day), while the others are not and a small trek away. Food for thought, however.
(As a segue: maybe I'll create a GO map for Wikipedia, too?)
Speaking of which: I think the Sheppard (TTC) extension should be left off for now merely because it is not as imminent and, thus, not as much a priority for the TTC (though I realise it was, or perhaps still is?). If so, we need to revise the station list/articles as well. We should focus more on what is or what will (likely) be, not what may be. The one thing I wouldn't want to do is to include every proposed line/station under the sun, since these are merely proposed and may not at all materialise (God forbid). For instance, do we include the proposed Sheppard line between Sheppard-Yonge and Downsview as well? The proposed Brimley station on the SRT (which I erroneously labelled as Midland in the prior map; ack!)? Perhaps consulting a recent TTC 'expansion' report (e.g., ridership strategy?) or the like may prove fruitful in this regard. (Again, I'm easy.) Let's work on it. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 18:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
PS: I don't know if there's a need or value, but I'll gladly assist (you) in producing other TTC/transit maps for Wikipedia/public use, in any consistent style. Let me know!
I believe the Sheppard extension from Don Mills east to Scarborough Centre remains a priority for the TTC, and could begin immediately upon funding becoming available, as the environmental assessment has already been performed.
The only reasons that the Spadina extension gets all the attention or seemed any more likely are that a) the environmental assessment is happening right now, and b) Sorbara liked it, and so funding seemed more likely - what his recent troubles will mean for the TTC, I don't know. West on Sheppard to Downsview and any Scarborough RT expansion, on the other hand, aren't really on the list any more.
(Of course, the Spadina extension does seem to have a stronger public voice behind it, and would replace an overloaded express bus rather than extending an under-performing line, so I suppose there is a reason to consider it more important than the Sheppard extension.)
I appreciate your reasoning in terms of the GO stations; I suppose I tend to think in terms of the British systems, where main-line railways are much more a major part of the system and interchanges, even circuitous ones, become correspondingly more important. David Arthur 22:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I like it. The feel is definitely different from David's, and it is larger; it looks fine now, I'll have to compare on my 800x600 monitor at work.
While both subway extensions have been formally routed in an environmental assessment procedure, I would hesitate to add the Sheppard plan - it's a longer project with a less immediate future.
I don't think GO station names are needed, it's sufficient to indicate a connection exists. One thing I mentioned to David, that would be great if you could do, would be to indicate where the Viva York lines connect - perhaps just by placing the 'VIVA' logo in the appropriate line colour, and indicating in the legend. As of tomorrow, three Viva lines will be connecting with TTC stations.
Good work, glad to see so much effort from all corners! Radagast 22:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments, praise, and assistance ... I appreciate it! Let's investigate Sheppard; if it officially appears to trump the York U extension, and stops confirmed (and this is variable from what I gather), let's include it; however, I suspect that the YUS extension may see the light of day earlier (given the current zeitgeist). The other option is to remove both Shepppard and York U proposed tracks, since neither is officially confirmed.
I'm unsure about the utility of including YRT BRT notations (or any other regional authority connxns) on this TTC map, or GO station names. I believe the map should provide a summative view of its topic: TTC train/RT rail network and little else. Do we also include notes for Mississauga Transit? Brampton? Ajax? (Where applicable.) GO (trains) differ: they are kindred rail lines that provide inter-regional service within Toronto and over all of the GTA. All of these connections, however, somehow should appear on an anticipated GO/inter-regional map, which I'll work on, with a similar style. Make sense?
I'm glad to help! Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 00:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion of Viva was because it is such a distinct kind of BRT (no other transit agency in the area has such a separate, branded service with unique vehicles), and that it's intermodal and intermunicipal. In my mind, that justifies noting the connections.
As for the subway extensions, the Sheppard line extension has been on the books since before it was built; it has, however, been on the back burner since the decision to build no further than Don Mills. The York U line, however, is gaining momentum rapidly and has strong support from both the university community and York Region interests. That seems to be the more likely to be built first, and justifies putting it on the map but not the other.
Note these are style suggestions by a non-Torontonian who just has strong interest in the article. Do as you feel best. Radagast 03:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey there; thanks for the feedback. I'm gonna leave Viva off for now: while unique, it isn't rail. I'd like to keep the map as simple as possible. (Similarly, Viva does not appear yet in the articles listing TTC stations; streetcars do, and yet I wouldn't generally include them on this map either.) However, I can be coerced. (Besides: Viva, et al. can also appear in a similar more appropriate map, with GO and or with other GTA/'905' transit services.) :)
I know about the plan for Sheppard, but how active or how much a priority is it now (vis a vis the York U extension, since I recall that it has also been on the books for awhile)? I'm gonna dig a bit for an authoritative answer. More thoughts?
If only more Torontonians exhibited your zeal and long-term interest (in such articles, and the system too), not to mention all of your input, we'd all be laughing! Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 03:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
On a related note, check out Lower Bay: I've added a new map, showing how the TTC worked during the 1966 interlining/branching experiment. David Arthur 15:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice! Is there some way to marry (i.e., amalgamate) your map (on the main page, not on Lower Bay per se) with the B&W track map below it, providing a summary of prior/current TTC stations/rails?
And perhaps another series of maps which details TTC rail evolution? E Pluribus Anthony 15:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As well, upon consulting the TTC's rapid transit expansion study (RTES) of 2002, both the Sheppard and York U extensions are included (being retained for future consideration). To that end, I think it prudent to include both proposed extensions in a map.

Now: to not collude the existing map (e.g., what is real or not, to visitors), I propose to replace the map up-top with one of current stations only, and include an expanded map down below in the Future expansion section. Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 15:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Although the York extension seems more likely at the moment, these things change constantly - witness Sorbara's departure - and since the TTC place the two lines at roughly the same status, I think we should too.
I see someone has already added a thumbnail of my map to the main page. :) I put it on Lower Bay since that's where the most detail about the interlining system was found, and it seemed an appropriate place, especially since there was room for me to display it full-size.
I created this one in particular since the interlining/branching system was so different than anything else the TTC have done, and it's much easier to convey in pictures than words how it worked. I was thinking about also making one of the original Yonge subway, but I don't think I'll take on the entire history of the TTC at the moment - I've still got some British tramways I want to map that don't have as many crowded sections. :)
The track map doesn't have any copyright information attached to it, but I think I've seen it before, and not on a GFDL or public-domain site, so I'm afraid we may not be able to keep it. (It also doesn't show the Scarborough and Sheppard lines.) David Arthur 16:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. I'll make the current/future map editions as proposed (I've already made the map w/Sheppard and Spadina extensions).
It would be good to exhibit on the subway page a map of the station and track information, thereby killing two birds with one stone. However, we all have capacity limitations, just as the TTC does. :) In good time ... Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 16:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I've done the 'map' switch; looking good! Thanks so much! E Pluribus Anthony 20:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Formerly-planned lines: copyright issue

The new additions to the 'Formerly-planned lines' section is copied directly from this Transit Toronto page; unless User:Yllianos is connected with that site, this appears to be a copyright violation. David Arthur 20:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes! It needs to be referenced, edited, and shortened ... severely. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, fully, everyone just blasted me for making a few "unethical" decisions, then again you should moderate other pages too. It's not like Wikipedia is a Democracy, is it? Now in regards to the whole "Eglinton West Subway", I FOUND it on someone else's website; I typed on a search engine about it, and found it on some random page.
Hello! Thanks for the input. Yes: they were, er, "crazy." We don't discourage input, but a number of recent contributions made were lengthy, unreferenced (some of which were copied), require editing, and may be better placed elsewhere. Since there's so much information and other users edit these pages periodically (present company included), we strive to organise information efficiently. And, yes: we monitor/moderate other pages too. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 02:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Stations table, et al.

Hello! Moreover, an extremely unwieldly table of stations (current/proposed) has been added and (other editions made) to the article by the same contributor as for 'formerly-planned lines'. I'm not averse to a table, but I think it's redundant here (given other content in the article and links thereof); if it is somehow retained, it needs to be significantly massaged. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 23:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The table definitely is overkill; it's straight duplication of details which are already in the line articles. I'm taking it out myself. As for the 'former plans' business, I second trimming it down, or if it's copyvio, nixing it. Radagast 00:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed (thanks!); we should nix, move – and significantly edit – relevant text to the appropriate articles; e.g., details regarding former lines can be added to their respective articles. It only needs brief mention in the overview. E Pluribus Anthony 01:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey there; whew! Thanks for helping to consolidate and restore the prior 'virginal' state of the article. :) I think the 'Track' section needs significant manipulation, but I cannot do this just yet. Game? In any event, please let me know if assistance is required. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 01:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Track Information and Vehicles Excessive

Seems a little dense here. Shouldn't most of the track information and Vehicles stuff go to separate pages? I expect most people don't need a list of turnouts, or 50+ service vehicles! Just a suggestion Nfitz 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nick

Hi! I think the track information is due for much pruning/editing, but the vehicle information as presented (although hefty) is informative. There's always room for improvement, however. E Pluribus Anthony 01:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Informative yes! Just wondering if it should have a separate page ... Nfitz 01:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm: I think the information would be more useful as part of the current article ... if it was organised more effectively. E Pluribus Anthony 04:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/r/Talk%7EToronto_subway_and_RT_2005_48d6.html"