Talk:Toronto subway and RT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toronto subway and RT was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Toronto subway and RT has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

2004-2005 archive

Contents 1 The Rocket? 2 GA failed 3 Connecting Routes - All Checked! 4 Digital renderings in infoboxes 5 Future expansion 6 T35A08 7 Edits by 74.121.10.113 8 A candidate for a new table 9 Subway Art 10 Defunct Subway Lines - What?! 11 Toronto Subway System 11.1 Moved back 12 Help from an expert 12.1 Cleanup 13 light rail expansion 14 Subway worker death 15 Changing the Box Photo 15.1 Box Photo Candidates 15.1.1 Candidate #1 15.1.2 Candidate #2 15.1.3 Candidate #3 15.1.4 Candidate #4 15.1.5 Candidate #5 16 Station pages 17 Excessive information 18 Wrong Image

[edit] The Rocket?

When I went to Toronto, I remember this system as being called "The Rocket." This article makes no refernece to it. Did I just remember it wrong, or is it called the Rocket as well? - Hbdragon88 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While you raise an interesting point, this is addressed in the overview of the main/parent article: the term has been applied to any number of TTC vehicle types and the term "Ride the Rocket" is often used to promote the entire system. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

These reasons are given :

• Please cite your sources as the References section is not all related to the article or can only be used as a secondary source.
• The article has too many lists.
• The article has too many sections (the TOC is too crowded.
• Many sections have only 1-line paragraphs, far from nice prose.
• Lots of NPOVness in the article. See this section for example.
• Map duplicate : give only the map with the future expansion.
• Subway facts sounds like a trivia section so there is no need to have that section unless it is has a better prose.
• Too many tables, try to have 1 or 2.

Lincher 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connecting Routes - All Checked!

Hey guys! Just finished a run-through of each of the stations, and checking them against the TTC's own Route & Station list. Although there are a few odd choices in the TTC list (a streetcar running on Wellington apparently is a "connection" to Union Station), I made any corrections necessary. Should be all good from here. Suigi 03:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital renderings in infoboxes

You may note some new digital rendering of the TTC station walls popping up on Wikipedia. These are from "Neurotic" Jose Ongpin, who has releaed the images under the GFDL. Suigi 06:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of updates. Been kinda busy with university right now. Will do what I can when I can. Suigi 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

All done! All stations 'cept Queens Quay are done (Jose never did that one).

[edit] Future expansion

They recently annouced the results of the RT study. They're keeping it as is plus modiflying the track to have bigger trains. Then they're going to have the Malvern extension. The future expansino map should reflect this.

• It's a proposal by Scarborough Community Council. There's no money for it yet. Let's not jump the gun. Ground Zero | t 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T35A08

The section on the new subway cars now being ordered is labelled "T35A08". Does anyone know whether this name has any real status with the TTC? From what I can see, it was a jokey reference used in the "name the subway train" contest, rather than serious code name.

Almost certainly these things will simply be internally referred to as T2, regardless of the contest outcome. But since that isn't known yet, perhaps the section should just be "new car design" or something similar?

Thoughts? Daveharr 12:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The official name was released this past week - it's the Toronto Rocket. See here: [1] Suigi 03:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 74.121.10.113

User 74.121.10.113 has been continuing to revert the article, claiming there are 69 stations on this subway system. I reverted it originally as vandalism, due to the obvious nature of the number chosen, and the fact that the list itself has 74 stations in it. These appear to be bad faith edits. -- Kesh 02:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

After thinking as you did (and reverting this), I rechecked and believe the anonymous editor is correct: TTC operating statistics (2005) indicate 69 stations in the system, with subway interchanges being counted once. The heightened number (74) results when the five interchanges -- Spadina, St. George, Bloor-Yonge, Sheppard-Yonge, and Kennedy -- are double-counted. Psychlopaedist 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha! That would account for it, then. It does appear that interchanges are listed multiple times on the TTC list. It might be helpful to add that specific link to the citations.

I'm going to apologize on the user's Talk page, though I am somewhat puzzled they offered no support for their edits at all. -- Kesh 02:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A candidate for a new table

Toronto Subway/RT
Locale	Toronto, Ontario
Transit type	Rapid transit
Began operation	March 30, 1954
System length	68.3 km (42.7 mi)
Number of lines	4
Number of stations	69
Daily ridership	1,186,050 (2006)
Track gauge	4 ft 10 7/8 in (1495 mm)
Operator(s)	Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)

Or we can change the logo to the original pic at St. Andrew station. Blackjays 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subway Art

Significantly expanded this section and added an image of St. Clair West station. Johnny Au 19:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I also added nine other images of subway art throughout Wikipedia on each station that has images already uploaded. I placed them in a gallery. Johnny Au 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defunct Subway Lines - What?!

Both of the links (Yonge-University-Bloor and Yonge-University-Danforth) refer to the page for Bay and the 1966 interlining trials. But why? Is this really necessary? Suigi 01:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just linked it to there because there really is no other refernce article, section and those ones best describe what they were. Unless someone could make a main article for them, its the closest thing to something relevant. --Yllianos 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling them defunct lines is a bit misleading, though — they’re really more former routes that were run (and for just six months) on the same lines as the current, simpler routes. Listing two ‘defunct lines’ suggests that huge amounts of infrastructure has been abandoned, which is not the case; even Lower Bay is still in use, if only by out-of-service trains. I’d say it’s debatable whether they’re even significant to merit a place in the infobox, but if they do, it would be just as one link to the interlining trials. David Arthur 16:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Said interlining information can be found further down on this same page, so to be honest I would prefer if we ditch the defunct lines portion. Suigi 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Subway System

Can someone verify that name? I've never heard that name used to describe the subway system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.213.216 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed — the previous name more closely reflects TTC usage, and the new one plays into the hands of the people who for some reason want to cover the Scarborough line separately. David Arthur 15:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The new title also violates the Wikipedia naming convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer And Video Games). "Toronto subway system" is not a proper noun -- this is not what the TTC calls it. Ground Zero | t 16:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved back

Because this article had been moved without any prior discussion, because the new article name violated Wikipedia naming conventions, and because three editors (me included) have objected to the move, I have moved it back to the original name.

If anyone wants to make the case here for renaming the article to "Toronto subway system" or something else, we can have that discussion prior to any future move. Ground Zero | t 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help from an expert

I would like to eventually see a featured topic on Canadian rapid transit. However, since this article isn't up to snuff yet, such a topic would fail. Is there an expert who is willing to take this up to the featured standard? -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have now tagged the article for cleanup. The TOC is too crowded (does the history section really need that many headings?) The "subway facts" section needs to be ingergrated into the rest of the article. avoid trivia sections in articles. There are no inline citations. Footnotes are the most popular citation style. Finally, the text can use a copyedit. This has some good advice. After this is done, we can submit this to WP:GAN agian. — Selmo ^(talk) 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] light rail expansion

No mention of the new plan yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.47.50 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

See Toronto streetcar system, with which it has most similarity. Radagast 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, the SRT extension to Malvern should be mentioned, as should the Finch Line since it my understanding that it's going to have it's own dedicated right-of-way to the north of Finch along the hydro line. This would make it an actual RT line rather than a streetcar line. Snickerdo 03:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The future expansion map should be changed to reflect the Transit City proposal. Instead of an extension of the Sheppard line, the SRT extension and Yonge line extension from Finch station should be shown.

[edit] Subway worker death

There is presently no mention of today's accident that killed a subway worker and injuered two others [2][3]. I would add it myself, but the article layout is confusing and there is nowhere immediately obvious to place it. Thryduulf 17:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the general feeling about the tendency to include mention of every violent crime or tragic event in the vicinity (with the exception of suicides) in the station articles? While they are arguably relevant, I don't observe the same attention given to comparable articles (eg expressways or traffic intersections). --207.245.10.213 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the Box Photo

Alright, Selmo. Since you continue to refuse to allow anyone to unilaterally replace what myself and others have considered to be an ugly box pic (I didn't think someone like you would be so sarcastic about it, but fair enough, it should be discussed), we should do this practically.

(Frankly, I don't think it's necessary to point out that it should be changed, but I can understand that everyone's tastes are different.)

Here is a list of various TTC subway photos (and diagram) that can be found in the Wikimedia Commons. Keep in mind this list doesn't have to be exclusive, it's just what I could find on short notice.

I propose editors of this page should either choose a new photo from this list, or add other photos to the list for discussion. When we reach some sort of consensus, then we make a final decision about the box picture.--Willmolls 07:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Seems to me we have an agreement on #1. I'll make the change.--Willmolls 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg you pardon? Never was I srcastic. If you feel the pic I "favor" is so obviously ugly, that's your opinion. Just because your pic is not my cup of tea does not make me unintelligent (as you seem to imply). — Selmo ^(talk) 23:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely not what I mean to imply. Selmo, I am most sincerely sorry you feel this way. I tried to make it clear that deeming it ugly was only my opinion, and I absolutely did not mean to imply you were unintelligent for reverting the edits. In fact, this discussion was meant to expand on that - this issue deserves proper discussion, which was my intention here. It was in absolutely no way meant as a personal attack, or mean-spirited. I was hoping you'd have a good sense of humour about it, but I see I was mistaken, so I apologize.

It seemed clear that I, as well as others, wanted a change - but since you reverted them, it became clear to me the best way to resolve the issue was with a discussion. That's what this is for - absolutely not as a personal attack on you. --Willmolls 04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay sorry. Thanks for clearing things up. — Selmo ^(talk) 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box Photo Candidates

Candidate #1: Lovely picture of a T1 in Sheppard-Yonge station on the Sheppard line.	Candidate #2: A lovely route map of the system, in similar style to the map currently on the Moscow Metro article.	Candidate #3: My photo of a T1 in St. George station with the TTC logo visable.	Candidate #4: The current box picture.
Candidate #5: Previous box pic, deemed ugly by Selmo.

[edit] Candidate #1

I like this photo because everything is included in it. First of all, the train in the picture is the most current model in use, the T1. Secondly, it's at Sheppard-Yonge, a relatively new and clean station. Thirdly, a big plus is all the (modern and still fresh) TTC signage in the picture. Overall I find it aesthetically pleasing, and does a nice job of covering all the bases (with the exception of representing the RT).

• This one looks the most aesthetic and shows the most aspects of a subway. –Pomte 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• It's a crisp picture if nothing else, I vote for #1 Jack1254 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the above two. Johnny Au 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate #2

Given that the article covers not only the subway but the RT, a simple route map seems like a good comprimise that represents both systems in one box picture. The Moscow Metro article currently employs a map rather than a picture of it's trains. Further in the article, pictures of both the subway and the RT could be included.

[edit] Candidate #3

My photo. Less going on in this picture, and again, it's of the most current train in use right now, the T1. Open doors show both the interior of the train and the platform itself, although not as much of the platform is visible. A nifty bonus is the TTC logo on the train which is clearly visable in the picture.

[edit] Candidate #4

I really don't like this photo representing the system, but that's just me. Admittedly it's not that different from the others, but I find the others simply more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. The photo in the picture is of an older H-model train.

[edit] Candidate #5

Once the box pic but subsequently replaced. Selmo says it's ugly, I don't think it's that bad. It's of Bloor station, one of the busiest. Yet again (as it's on the Yonge line) it's of a T1. As well, the TTC logo is again visible on the train. In this photo we have a wider view of the platform, giving an overall better impression of what a Toronto subway train looks like.

[edit] Station pages

What do people think about consolidating the station pages (e.g. Finch (TTC) ) into pages such as "Stations on the Bloor-Danforth line"? A lot of the pages are one paragraph or less, and don't seem like there is much more that can be added. Jack1254 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That would definitely make them easier to maintain, especially when some upgrade info is copy pasted across several articles. Obviously the long articles would remain with a summary in the "Stations on the..." article. –Pomte 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Many stations have multiple paragraphs, like the Bay (TTC) station page, for instance. There are too many stations to put on just one page, even if they have only a paragraph or two to describe them. So I'm inclined to keep individual pages for each station, and expand them (yes it takes work, but a better product will be the benefit).--Abebenjoe 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I say keep them separate — it follows the precedent of most of the articles documenting the world’s railways. The stations are significant structures in their own right, and even if Wikipedia doesn’t have a great deal of information on many of them, that doesn’t mean that their isn’t more that could be said. Besides, if they were grouped by line, then how would we handle the stations that form junctions between two lines? David Arthur 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Try taking this up with WP:TWP and possibly WP:RTPJ. Station notability has been disputed for a while. — Selmo ^(talk) 02:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree they should be separate, as per longstanding convention. Cleduc 03:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive information

Well, I tried removing non-notable, trivial details from the article yesterday, but it was reverted because it does not violate the letter of the rules. I say it is irrelevant to the article, major news articles are only notable for a certain period of time. The chime information is more suitable for a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. The sign information in that depth of detail is not suited for Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#INFO. — Selmo ^(talk) 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I generally find Selmo tries to quote rules and regulations without reading them fully, and therefore attempts to sound authoritative, when the rule in question is not appropriate for the use that they ascribe to it. I probably wouldn't mind changes to some of the items Selmo mentioned, but it is their rationale that I find very problematic. Keep in mind, these aren't additions I contributed to this article, so I actually do not have a stake in them. I suggest that maybe the chime information is too detailed, but a mention of them should be in the article, because they are part of the subway's signaling system, which falls under its operations and procedures. However, only a brief mention is needed. I agree with Selmo that as it is currently written in the article, the paragraph is too long, hence too detailed. As well, mentioning the only child-birth to occur on a subway car, which paralysed the system for a significant period, does merit a line or two because it was a major news story for multiple days, hence that confers its notability. Maybe someone can rewrite it more concisely.--Abebenjoe 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks better, haven't given it a full read yet though. — Selmo ^(talk) 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Image

The image that accompanies the following text is from the NYC subway(see the map on the picture and read the sign on the floor at the lower left):

Toronto Transit Commission's Bay Lower Station, during the 2007 Doors Open Toronto festival. The station has been closed to the public since 1966. This view is looking westward from the Bay St. entrance.Notice the big 'Y' floor tile for Yorkville Station/Y junction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.236.10 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The closed lower level of Bay station is frequently used in films set in New York, and so parts of the set stay up (notice, though, that one of the signs is just sitting on the floor). In the same photograph, you can see part of a TTC logo on the stopped train. Look at Image:Bay_Lower_Station_stairwell-Panorama.jpg for another view of the same scene. David Arthur 18:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)