Talk:List of Toronto subway stations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

merge it with the subway page, not the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.64.118 (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Basic inaccuracy of street addresses

I have looked at numerous entries for TTC subway stations and they all give incorrect street addresses. Merely as an example, Greenwood station is not on Danforth Ave.; Bathurst isn't on Bloor. The actual entrances are on other streets. It is incorrect to give addresses on e.g. Bloor, Danforth, University, or Spadina for stations without actual doors on those streets.

Here is the test: If you directed yourself to the stated address, would you find a door to the subway? If not, then you haven't given the right address. An encyclopedia cannot publish known incorrect facts even if they are more concise to express. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeclark (talk • contribs) 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

• I don't know about the actual accuracy of the numbers on the list, but the TTC itself posts the address, for example, of Bathurst Stn as 565 Bloor St W. This is a mailing address and is likely valid. Canada Post surely knows where that is meant to go if the TTC marks them on the maps. (As a related note, Toronto Parks & Rec gives parks numbered addresses, but they are not served by Canada Post, so the relationship between location, address and mail might not be so cut-and-dry)

• • I have seen MANY houses that say they are ### Anystreet. They are a corner house. But the door is on Anyroad and there is no actuall door at Anystreet. The numbering system is based upon the survey's done on land, and where Canada Post and the City of Toronto want them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanVS (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is written as a travel guide

Recently, there has been a template stating that it is written as a travel guide. Any suggestions would be welcome to maintain an encyclopedic style. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor who added that template did not explain why, but I certainly see nothing objectionable in this article - and I wouldn't have thought it even had enough text to read like a travel guide. David Arthur (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get around to commenting. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Only things that are notable should be mentioned; not every feature, restaurant, store, etc needs to be mentioned. As a note, WP:NOTTRAVEL talks about this. Thanks. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

The amenities column contains original research. If a source can be found for this, great, if not then I think it's another reason to remove that aspect of the page. I think this also falls under Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. jack1254 (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As one of the main submitters of the info in the Amenities, I (and I think Johny AU), put this info in for people who were interested in knowing this information. I for one, have used this page several times to see where the ATM's are. This is valuble info, and while it may seem 'travel guide' like, it's also encyclopeic as well. I say keep the info. One other thing I'd like to see, is a link with images to the busbays, and the bus numbers at each bay. Anyone want to join in on that new project? AllanVS ^{talk contribs} 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AllanVS, but I believe that the info should be modified not to resemble a travel guide. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Amenities

• I'd like to make a suggestion on a change. Take the Wheelchair and move it right to the end, in the SAME column as the Washroom. As a header call it "Amenities", and include a restaurant logo, and interac logo as well. Perhaps, we can also add in the "Amenities" column a way to differintiate (sp?) between a "Restaurant" and a "walk up" (like the McDonald's at Dundas West). Just a suggestion. AllanVS (talk)
  • I like the idea of amenities, such as the McDonald's in both Dundas West and St. Clair stations, as well as Tim Hortons in Pape station and Cinnabon in Eglinton and Sheppard-Yonge stations. Johnny Au (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ok, so I've done the 'basic' setup, and now we can add Logo's etc for McD's, Cinnabon etc. I debated in my mind, wether to put an "Washroom" icon at Scarborough Centre. Technically, the mall DOES have a washroom, but the Station Proper (paid area) dose not. Opinions?AllanVS (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Amenities in the article must be in the fare paid zone. Therefore, Scarborough Centre station has no washrooms. Johnny Au (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So we should include the Gateways, Payphones and Lotto Booths at Kennedy for instance, and the ATM's ... just checking what SHOULD be and what SHOULDN'T be included. AllanVS (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that almost all Gateway Newstands have a lottery booth and not every station has a Gateway Newstands (Finch station actually has two almost beside each other, as well as two locations in St. George station but in each of the two exits (St. George and Bedford exits)). An example of a subway station without Gateway Newstands include Glencairn station. Therefore, Gateway Newstands can be included (note if there are two in a subway station as well). Johnny Au (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I've made a start. And this week sometime, I'll stop at Warden, Vic Park, Main St, Woodbine and see what they have. I know Warden has a bakery, deli, clothes store, dry cleaner/alterations, and I think something else by the busses. Eglington - I can't remember the name of the bookstore, pizza place, or the places out near the busses... any help is appreciated. Note: I put an 'all-call' out for help on a TTC Facebook group, so hopefully ppl will help out with this. AllanVS (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Johnny, payements is what happens when I don't look what I'm doing and I copy/paste to make things 'easier' for me.... thanks for getting my mistake. AllanVS (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. Next time, please preview your edits, since it would reduce copy-editing in the future. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Had to go down to Eglinton Station today, and so have updated Eglinton. I read somewhere, that it was at one point going to be a 'major station'. I guess that's why all the stores are in there. AllanVS (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • In fact, Eglinton station was a major station since its opening in 1954 as part of the original subway system to 1978 when Eglinton West station opened, which transferred some routes there. Additionally, Eglinton station is in a major business area and will have more amenities when the Eglinton Crosstown LRT opens. Johnny Au (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Johnny, I was going to mention the Eglinton CTRT but was not 100% sure it was going to go ahead. I keep hearing "this will happen" and "that'll happen soon." but it never happens. Anyway, why would they need amenities in the STATION when they have a mall right above them? It seems like you and I are the only two working on this list. Damn that sucks. AllanVS (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• It is life. We need to recruit more people into this article. Johnny Au (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Though I certainly agree with including more information in the list, should long lists of amenities like at Eglinton station go into the article for that station? Perhaps include a column for payment options, and a column for Gateway Newsstands here and put the rest somewhere else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1254 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• What do people think about the size of payment logos? In some instances, the Interac symbol is about as large as the station name. Having them so large distracts from the rest of the list and significantly increases the height of some rows. jack1254 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The payment logos had been removed, since they are not free use. However, the names of the payment methods can be used instead. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• The size is needed to be at least 28px or you can NOT read them, I'm ADHD and I don't find them distracting. Johnny and I have spent weeks putting amenities into the list, and though I have no problem with the amenities being placed elsewhere, it's much easier to have them all on one page. I used this just last night, and decided to stop for dinner at Eglington Stn before heading to Roy Thomson hall. If I had had to go to each stations page, I would not have gone for pizza somewhere else. I say leave the amenities column as is, and leave the sized of all icons at least where you can read the name "interac" and on a 17" screen that's minimum 28px. AllanVS (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have Asperger Syndrome and ADHD and I do need the payment methods to be large enough to identify them. If you want large text, then zoom in the text using the View menu. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There were far too many sic templates in the list; I've reduced them to one per chain name at the first appearance of each. Radagast (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started adding in the Metropass Vending Machine locations. While they are USUALLY outside the paid-fare area, they are an amenity and most Collectors will not make you pay to come back into the system. AllanVS ^{talk contribs} 17:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Issue When Sorting Stations by Daily Ridership

I was checking out this page: List of Toronto Subway Stations that lists all of the subway stations as a chart. It was just to satiate my curiosity about the chronological development of Toronto's subway stations. I saw that there was such a wonderful wealth of information and thought it would be interesting to rank the stations by daily ridership.

Much to my dismay, I quickly realized that sorting them by daily ridership doesn't work correctly. I assume it's because there is text in the fields for stations that intersect two subway lines. Currently it sorts as if it were alphabetical, because they are numbers, its by the lowest, leftmost digit, regardless of how long the number is. I was thinking of editing this to make it work, but I realized that I can currently think of multiple solutions. So I wanted to check in with active editors of this page for your opinions, and thoughts about what would be the best way to go about this, or if you think it's best to be left as is.

Basically I see three options, but realize there may be others that I'm missing (I have them ranked in a way that I believe is best to worst):

1. Have three stations for each of these double-stations, ie. St. George B-D, St George YUS, and St. George Combined, and then repeat for Bloor-Yonge, Bloor Sheppard, Kennedy and Spadina.

2. Have the two stations for each double-station, and then add a footnote to the bottom of the chart that shows the combined daily ridership.

3. Have each double station-appear only once with the combined daily ridership. (I think this option might be worse than the status quo) Well, please let me know what you think,

--Nargnohurt (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Narg

Is the new version that Secondarywaltz made acceptable? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It completely resolves the issue, it's sorting correctly now. --Nargnohurt (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sherbourne Station

I just edited Sherbourne station as the info isn't correct. It says there's a token vending machine but there isn't as I just went there today based on this article to buy tokens from the machine but all you can buy is Metropass. The station worker confirmed you can only buy tokens from them and only Metropass from the machine and that there's no token vending machine. 206.188.64.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 00:12 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Move to List of Toronto rapid transit stations

Since Toronto subway and RT moved to Toronto rapid transit, for consistency's sake, this article should move to List of Toronto rapid transit stations. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 19:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Be bold. Go for it! Just do it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Changed navbox templates that contained the old title. Bots will take care of double redirects. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Overloaded

This is overloaded with lots of trivial information that serves no real purpose and much of it is detail which should be in each station article. If it is something that cannot be properly sorted, I suggest the category should be removed. With the addition of Coordinates the display width is becoming unwieldy.

I suggest removing the following categories

• Ameneties - trivial unsortable text information, mostly original research, which belongs in linked station page.
• Major Interchanges - only a few entries which are covered in the linked station page.
• TTC Streetcar Transfer and TTC Bus Route Transfer - replace with something like "Offsteet Terminal" with Yes/No type data making it sortable. Routes are redundant to linked station page notes.
• TTC Downtown Express Bus - doubtful subway station connection with only a few entries. People use those buses instead of the subway.
• Platform - Is this really a major feature? Could be.

Please give me your comments. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that amenities should be moved to the appropriate articles, as well as major interchanges. The transfer column should be consolidated to Off-Street Terminals. The platform column should shrink to using only letters, such as S for side, C for centre, SS for Spanish solution, and such. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I believe I've taken all of these suggestions into account and helped bring this very overloaded table under control. I've made many changes, but I tried to include most of what is in the table along with deleting only what was suggested above. There is still much to do, but I believe this format is much, much, much nicer. Please let me know what you think and what suggestions you have. I could always use help double checking that the information is correct and proper sources in anticipation of a featured list nomination. Thanks. Mattximus (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have re-added Template:TTCstations. By the way, it looks less cluttered now. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried to make it more clear but still maintain the functionality of the old list, please let me know if you want any changes made. Mattximus (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned Sheppard-Yonge station as having a roughed-in Spanish solution as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

New name change

Might I suggest renaming this list "List of Toronto Transit Commission subway stations"? I looked for the official name, provided by the official website (see here [1]), and it is indeed officially called the subway. There is no reference to Toronto "rapid transit" at all, and I'm not sure where this name came from. Is there a source for it? If not, I think the official name should be used. Mattximus (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It might have been, until you added stations on LRT lines that are either being constructed or proposed. But this has been discussed extensively before. Why not the unambiguous and inclusive "List of Toronto Transit Commission stations" which redirects here anyway?

Because that title is ambiguous, what does station mean? Bus stations? Streetcar Stations? The TTC has those as well you know. Whether you like it or not, the TTC refers to these lines as "subway" (even the pseudo-light rail that runs entirely above ground on line 3). I think you will have to provide a source for why we should not use the official name. Mattximus (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You are being deliberately argumentative! You added LRT stations to this list, which makes it more than just subway. The related article is Toronto rapid transit. Any discussion would have to take place there and would be a rehash of a previous debate. Please look there first, and follow the proper procedures to nominate article moves. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in that direction, it seems the last debate did not reach consensus, so it's probably a good idea to open it up again. Then this page can follow suit. A subway is what the TTC officially calls it, and what users call it. I see no reason to use any other term but the official one. Mattximus (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is called "List of Toronto rapid transit stations." You added in LRT stations, which are definitely not subway stations. Therefore, the current name should be kept and I prefer the current name as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll bring up a request to move later because it runs afoul of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, since the official name is subway (see source above), and nobody at all says "let's take TTC rapid transit". This wiki regulation is actually quite important, because when the public is searching wikipedia they will always search ttc "subway" and never "rapid transit". In the same way nobody will search "William Jefferson Clinton", they will search "Bill Clinton". Plus, even though line 3 is completely above ground, and not heavy rail, the TTC officially calls it subway. You need really to find strong sources if you want to call it something other than what everybody who uses it calls it... Remember, it's an encyclopaedia, semantics aside, it's more useful for readers to call it what it's officially called and what it's commonly called. Mattximus (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Addition of Line 5 Proposals

Could the items from the line 5 proposal be implemented into this page?

http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2016/February_25/Reports/Changes_to_TTC_Bus_Routes_in_Eglinton_Corridor_for_Line_5_Ra.pdf

I'm actually very surprised how it isn't yet included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto501 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What specifically would you like added? Mattximus (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no room to add bus routes in this article. Even the current stations don't list every bus route. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I did add the source, and removed the 3 stations that do not have any bus routes. Mattximus (talk)

What about the approximate locations of the new stations? I find their names confusion to their actual station. Would it be fitting? Toronto501 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The map will be updated shortly, would that be sufficient? There is no room for another column with street names if you had that in mind. Mattximus (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to List of Toronto Transit Commission stations per the apparent consensus. There are also concerns for naming of other related articles, but let us take one step at a time. No such user (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

---

List of Toronto rapid transit stations → List of Toronto subway stations – I would like to propose that List of Toronto rapid transit stations should be moved to List of Toronto subway stations for the following reasons:

• Toronto Subway is the official name[2] used by the TTC. The current name runs afoul of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
• Toronto Subway is the common name used by people on the street, and media (any google search for local media, such as cbc, will yield "subway" and never "rapid transit"). This should be the primary reason to move the page, it follows WP:COMMONNAME perfectly.
• "Toronto rapid transit" is considered WP:original research, as no person in the city, no media, and no official sources use that term to describe the system. There are obscure internal documents that have used this name, but it is not common usage by any measure.
• It follows conventions for all other metro systems see: List of New York City Subway stations in the Bronx, List of Buenos Aires Underground stations, List of Chicago "L" stations, etc...

I'm trying to be as objective and use policy as much as possible because there is a strong, well meaning Wikipedia:Fancruft population around transit issues. After reading many of their discussions, I suspect rail enthusiasts have a strong desire to pigeonhole the system into a category (since it has a section that is not strictly a subway). However, we should not create a new name for the system in order to categorise it neatly into a box. Some systems, such as this one, are hybrids, and are called "subway" anyway.

The final thought is that nobody at all says "let's take TTC rapid transit". This wiki regulation is the most important, because when the public is searching wikipedia they will always search ttc "subway" and never "rapid transit". In the same way nobody will search "William Jefferson Clinton", they will search "Bill Clinton".

Thanks for your consideration. Mattximus (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose (1) The "official name" is not relevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a TTC site. Further, the TTC is not consistent in its usage - sometimes it calls the Scarborough RT a "subway", and sometimes it calls it "rapid transit". In any event, the SRT is not a subway, and its stations are not subway stations regardless of what the TTC calls them for promotional purposes. (2) I do not agree that Torontonians call the SRT "subway". You will need provide evidence that that is more commonly used than "RT". (3) Yes, the TTC does use the term "rapid transit", and media outlets use the term, especially in the context of Line 5, which is also not a subway line, even though part of it will be back underground. Josh Colle, the TTC chair, uses "rapid transit" here to refer to Line 5 and the Line 1 extension. Metrolinx, which is building the Eglinton, Sheppard East and Finch West LRTs, calls them "rapid transit" on this map. Ground Zero | t 16:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• You glossed over the most important part. In common usage, the system is called the subway. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to have easy access to information. To be useful for users. If you took 100 people and asked them to search wikipedia for a list of the TTC stations (yes, including the SRT), you would get 99 using the term "subway" and 1 using the term "rapid transit". My goal here is to be useful for users, and it will be hard to argue against the fact that the average person calls it a subway system, not a "rapid transit system" (for evidence, just do a twitter search for both and tell me what you find). If you don't care about the official name, you should at least care what people commonly call the system (this is the purpose of WP:COMMONNAME). Do you think in the future, people will call it the Toronto subway, SRT and light rail system? You have to be kidding me. It's just called the Toronto subway, and the page should reflect reality. Mattximus (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Just for fun, what is this map called again? [3] Mattximus (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Can you really say that people, when they hear "subway", think it includes Lines 3 and 5? More importantly, can you provide evidence to back that up? I think it is safe to say that people think of the subways as being Lines 1, 2 and 4. The TTC's attempt to rebrand Line 3 as a subway is (a) extremely recent, and (b) contrary to common usage in Toronto and the English language. Ground Zero | t 17:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Can you really say that people call it the "Toronto rapid transit system"? Have you ever heard that? People often refer to the "system" as a subway system even though it is hybrid. People will say all the time to "take the subway to the Scarborough Town Centre", even though the trip involves both the subway and the SRT. Nobody says "take the Toronto rapid transit to the Scarborough Town Centre". Are you from Toronto? Have you ever heard someone say that? Honestly. Mattximus (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Furthermore, I'm aware that I am up against people would would rather categorise and fit precise transit definitions rather than use something useful like common names. I have to ask, what do you think the point of the encyclopedia is, if you think it's better to use a technical term that is never used, over the common name that is always used? Thankfully, I have Wikipedia policy on my side, but we need to engage non-transit people in this discussion to reach an amicable conclusion. I feel that transit Wikipedia:Fancruft will agree with you, but the average wikipedia user would agree with me. I am happy to provide any specific evidence that is attainable if it helps you change you mind. Anything to show that subway is used more than "rapid transit" to describe the system. Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've never heard anyone refer to the RT as a subway. They just don't, and it isn't a subway. This is not a matter of fancruft, but of the ordinary meaning of English words. If people believed it to be a subway, then we wouldn't be spending $3.2 billion to replace it with a subway. I'd live in Toronto, but in Wikipedia we do not try to exclude people from discussions by asserting superior knowledge of a subject. Either of us could be living in Ulaan Baatar and no-one would be the wiser. Ground Zero | t 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• You cleverly evaded my question. Have you ever heard anybody use the term "take the Toronto rapid transit to the Scarborough Town Centre"? And it would be hard for you to know the common usage if you lived in Mongolia, so there is some consideration to geography (or culture). I won't go to a Mongolia page and say "actually they are not technically yurts", they are actually gers. Mattximus (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: this issue was discussed in 2014, when the move proposal was defeated, and in 2015, when there was no consensus at [4]. That would have been a better place to reopen this discussion since the arguments are the same. Ground Zero | t 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• My goal was to reach more people than the small circle that edits Toronto transit pages. Of course they will opt for the obscure technical definition over the common usage. If you have a venue where I can reach more people outside of that circle I would be happy to go there. Also, you did not reply to my questions above, I just want to make sure we are on the same page regarding common usage. Mattximus (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• It is always good to have a discussion amongst a wider group, but I doubt that posting it the list article will draw a larger audience than on the main article. Interestingly, the TTC's list of stations for all lines is headed "Subway / RT Stations - A to Z", so I shouldn't be so hard on the TTC. It seems that in some places they acknowledge the difference. And to be clear, I do not agree that Torontonians would commonly call the SRT a subway, WP:COMMONNAME would be abused here if we tried to apply it. Your claim that "rapid transit" is technical and not used is just your claim. It isn't supported in fact. The TTC uses it the media use it, Metrolinx uses it. People do not commonly use it to refer to TTC services, but they do use it when talking about transit planning and expansion. It is a useful aggregator for "subway, Scarborough RT, and LRT", which would be a clumsy article title. Ground Zero | t 18:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well I will agree that sometimes Metrolix and TTC use the term rapid transit (all TTC documents meant for public, like the map I linked just call it the subway system), but I will disagree that the media uses the term rapid transit system. I just did a quick search [5]. Subway is more often used when they talk about the system (which yes, includes the SRT). Thank you for agreeing that people do not commonly use the term "rapid transit", that's my entire point. My goal is to convince you that the commonly used term is more useful for encyclopedic purposes. The term rapid transit is a useful aggregator if you want to categorise and pigeonhole the system, I agree... but it is the opposite of useful if you want people to find what they are looking for on wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• The list of "Subway / RT Stations - A to Z" that I linked is on the TTC's website, which is very clearly meant for public use.
• I did not "agree that people do not commonly use the term "rapid transit"". You're misquoting me selectively to misrepresent what I wrote. What I wrote is available for you to review above, so there is no need repeat it in whole or in misrepresentative part.
• "Rapid transit" is a commonly used term in the media, by the TTC, by Metrolinx, and in public discussions on transit issues. There are lots of articles about how the residents of Scarborough feel underserved by the TTC because they only have a subway as far as Kennedy. If you tell them that the subway goes to McCowan, they will laugh at you, the TTC's belated attempt at rebranding notwithstanding. Ground Zero | t 18:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Just read the first line of this random article,[6] that's what people call it, all 4 lines of it. I know the SRT isn't technically a subway, but it's part of the subway system in common usage/media usage/ttc usage etc... Mattximus (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• That article does not provide any indication that the SRT is included here. It quotes only a TTC official talking about suicides on the subway system. Maybe she was also talking about the SRT, or maybe not. It seems unlikely that anyone would use the SRT to commit suicide, but I suppose it's possible. Ground Zero | t 18:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I do believe suicide numbers include SRT actually (TTC treat all 4 lines as "subway" for statistical purposes). How many media references to subway over rapid transit would convince you that it is the common usage? I'll find that many easily. I could be just unclear in my argument. I'm not saying the SRT is a subway line, it isn't. I'm saying the network (lines 1,2,3,4) is called the subway system, even though it includes an SRT line. It's just the common usage. Mattximus (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• It is unclear from this article because the TTC spokesperson just said "subway" - it could be read either way. The problem is that your proposal is not about the "subway network" or "subway system", but about "subway stations". Even the TTC website makes the distinction "Subway / RT Stations". Would someone standing outside of Ellesmere station call it a "subway station", except in error? The Toronto rapid transit article used to be called "Toronto subway and RT", but was moved because (a) that is cumbersome, and (b) it wouldn't encompass the future LRT lines, which are also not subways. Ground Zero | t 19:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• We are now going around in circles. If this[7] and [8] doesn't convince you, nor all the references I gave you above, I don't think anything I write can. And the fact that you admit that nobody in real life actually calls it a "rapid transit" system but still insist the need for pigeonholing overrides the usefulness of common names...I give up. I just wish I could get the opinion that is from someone outside the small group that edits TTC articles... Mattximus (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree we are at an impasse. I've provided the TTC's list of "Subway / RT Stations" to you, even though there is no reason that Wikipedia would mirror TTC official terminology or branding. But you still want to call Ellesmere a subway station even though no-one in real life would actually call it that. It just isn't what people call these stations. I think it is time for some other voices here, or we will fail to reach consensus again. Ground Zero | t 19:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Simply List of Toronto Transit Commission stations would include subway, SRT, LRT or anything else without definition. It is about TTC stations, so why not say it? Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You're my new most favourite person. ;-) I like this idea. It doesn't solve the issue at Toronto rapid transit, but it works here. Ground Zero | t 21:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    • That's definitely better, thanks Secondarywaltz. Ground Zero is still correct in that it doesn't solve the "Toronto rapid transit" vs "Toronto subway" debate above, but it's way closer to common usage than the current name. Mattximus (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment in move discussion of Toronto rapid transit here. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC) (Struck vote, based on comment below. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

Just to clarify I believe we now have 3 support for moving it to List of Toronto Transit Commission stations and 1 oppose. Mattximus (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Changed vote to Support moving this article to List of Toronto Transit Commission stations. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Make it four, based on the above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Generally support move to List of Toronto Transit Commission stations, but I would like clarification on how things like major streetcar loops and Queens Quay station would get listed. Radagast (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Radagast: See Toronto streetcar system loops for those. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. But it's pointless – the main editors at these articles refuse to acknowledge that "subway" is the common-name for this system. All we can do is hope that this changes when they finally demolish the Scarborough Line... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, if it's any consolation, I agree with you completely. I don't know why it's hard for them to understand that the system is called the "subway system" even though yes, it has an SRT portion. Maybe they don't live here? Maybe they want to categorise and pigeonhole systems into certain technical definitions? I'm at a loss as well. Mattximus (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, support move to List of Toronto Transit Commission stations – it's not "elegant", but it does solve all the issues. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • As long as we all casually agree to ignore Queens Quay station it does solve the issue. Mattximus (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 16 August 2016 (part 2)

• The London Underground is officially called "underground", although it has long sections running above ground. (In Britain, "subway" usually means subway (underpass) and is not used to mean British underground railways).) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: You are talking about London. There is the Glasgow Subway to consider. In Toronto, subway can also refer to an older underpass, where it is literally carved in stone, which confuses many people with tunnel vision. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you talk. And yes I give up. There is a small group of editors that want to shoehorn the technical definition so they made up a term "rapid transit system" as a blanket term. Nobody in this city will understand what you mean when you say that. I live here, and I have never heard it called that. People refer to the system as the "Toronto subway system", even though parts of it are indeed above ground. It has two (soon to be 3) different types of trains, but it is one single integrated unit. This clearly runs afoul of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, because these editors just made up a new name and ignored what people actually call it! I'm at a complete loss. Oh and it's officially called the subway [9][10], but for some reason that doesn't matter??

It's frankly mind boggling that the official name, the name used in the media, the name used by everyone on the street... is not acceptable as the name of the page because it doesn't fit a technical definition... I give up. Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

'Subway' is a term that is used for the MAJORITY of the system, yes, but not all of it. The current line 3, and future line 5, are 'RT' or 'LRT' services, and the article needs to properly address that. Note that there was extensive discussion of this point on Talk:Toronto rapid transit, multiple times in recent years, that has established a consensus for using 'rapid transit' as the general term. As this article is about the same topic, the same terms should be used. Radagast (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong! The TTC now refers to the entire system as "subway". Follow the links above to the official site. Secondarywaltz (talk)

@Mattximus: You may be correct, but this is the wrong place. Stop your complaining here and just nominate Toronto rapid transit for renaming. You have really screwed up the LRT station moves, so try and get it right this time. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Radagast but you are wrong, nobody splits up the subway system into two parts and gives them separate names. The whole system is called "subway" even though it's not all underground and uses multiple types of trains. The TTC calls it that, the media calls it that, people using calls it that. Absolutely nobody calls it "rapid transit". Why use a term that nobody using the system would know? The purpose of the encyclopedia is to be useful, isn't it? Mattximus (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm simply reiterating the reasoning from Talk:Toronto rapid transit where the name was decided on. If you think that should no longer apply, follow Secondarywaltz's suggestion and suggest another rename. But do it there, as the higher-priority article, respect the process, and gather a consensus. (Which I now see you've done, so there we go.) Radagast (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Toronto subway 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/20151229142210/http://www.ttc.ca/Service_Advisories/Construction/Coxwell_bus_road_clo.jsp to http://www.ttc.ca/Service_Advisories/Construction/Coxwell_bus_road_clo.jsp

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) 17:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on the logos instead of words for transfers?

Hi all, just wondering what your thoughts are on recent edits where "TTC bus routes" was replaced by a symbol for a bus? Personally I find it a bit confusing, since it looks just like a streetcar icon, and the logos are more vague than writing. For example, unless you are very familiar with the York Region Transit logo, there is no way to determine that it is indeed York Region Transit from looking at the logo. I think text is more clear. Mattximus (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Things are definitely inconsistent at the moment and need to be rectified; a single common format should be used. I'm fine with icons/logos being used so long as they are clickable to their subject article; the YRT logos, for example, do this, but not all. If we decide against logos or icons, then that should also be consistent.

The main upshot is we need one format for the full list; one station saying 'TTC Buses, TTC Streetcars' and another having just the bus and streetcar icons is terrible formatting. Radagast (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I preferred the way it was before with just text because it was more clear. I also think it is bad style to have inline images that link to the image source. BLAIXX 22:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe there's a guideline that specifies "text is preferred" throughout Wikipedia... MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. There's issues of colour contrast and accessibility in using images-only that don't happen with text. And we certainly shouldn't be adding to any inconsistency, so back to text-only is probably best. —Joeyconnick (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, this has my full support. Radagast (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To those who think the icons are not as clear as writing, writing follows the first occurrence of a connection to clarify the identity of the icon. If clickable icons helps the case for keeping the icon formatting, how do you create linkable icons? Transportfan70Transportfan70 (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a good idea to either have to click to find out what the symbol means, or have to scroll around to find the first instance. Both are far more confusing than to just have the text written out. It looks like everyone here supports the word version and not the symbol version, do you have any reason why the icons are better than the text? Mattximus (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

As a quick clarification, I do want to point out that icons have their place - especially in route diagrams. But in an article like this, with a large amount of space available in the table, text is by far the clearer option. Radagast (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to have both icons and text, similar to what currently is the case for Finch station. This solves the problem of the icons not being immediately clear to some. For those who are familiar with the logos, the distinctive icons are easily recognizable at a glance, rather than just a block of text. They also visually separate each entry in the connections section, making it easier to read through even for those not familiar with the icons. For example, for York University station you would have:

TTC buses
York Region Transit
Viva Purple
GO Transit bus services
Züm

Above all else, I think having one consistent style across the entire article is obviously important, the current state of it is terrible. Blue jays (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure Leslie station connects to Go train?

I think there is a Go train station nearby, but it's pretty far away. If we include this for Leslie, do we include Go train connections for every subway station that is sort of close to a Go train station? I think if they are not physically connected in someway, they should not be included as a "connection". In few included walking a fairly long distance, then everything is connected to everything? Mattximus (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A connection was already listed for Main Street station, which is a similar walk. I don't think any others have nearly the same proximity. Radagast (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Add Line 6 Finch West planned stations

Line 6 Finch West construction is beginning soon. It may be appropriate to add Line 6 Finch West Stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto501 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it confirmed that Finch West will be Line 6? It may be a bit premature as construction has not yet started, and also I'm not sure it will have any stations, maybe the Humber College one? Otherwise we can also list the "stops"? Mattximus (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Lots of information of Line 6 has been available including the line number, stations, and map. --Toronto501 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should wait until construction officially begins, especially because the stop names are still being revised. And yes, it seems like everything besides Humber College will be a "stop". BLAIXX 21:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We should definitely wait until construction begins... this is Toronto, after all, let's be real. It could be cancelled in two seconds flat. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Particularly with provincial and municipal elections in the coming months... Radagast (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't even thought of that! 😂Good point! —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that construction has begun, crews are visible at several points along Finch ave. Sources [11] show minor construction has started (building fences, moving pipes, sewars etc...) and "major" construction is starting Spring 2019. I do not know what exactly constitutes major or minor construction, however I assume we can safely call this project under construction if there are actual construction crews working on the street as we speak? Locals also received newsletters which talk about the construction [12]. Mattximus (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because there's roadwork along the route doesn't mean they're building the system itself. We need a clear source indicating actual LRT construction has commenced. Radagast (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, lets wait for a WP:RS to publish something definitive. BLAIXX 13:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)