Talk:Toronto subway/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Daily ridership

The figure on this page was recently changed to 942,400, contradicting the numbers on the individual line pages: Yonge-Uni-Spadina @ 672,390; Bloor-Danforth @ 484,000...already over 1 million without including the other two lines. Alexcaban, are you sure the old ~1,200,000 number included buses and streetcars? Sprocket (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the TTC subway was used more often in the past so I'm guessing that the numbers for the Youge and Bloor line are a little out of date. According to the new source the Subway is used by only ~950,000 in the 1st Q of 2010 making the Montreal Metro the busiest in Canada. (Alexcaban) (talk) 18:26 EST July 8, 2010

Mmm! Have you been thinking about this for five months? The statistics are from different years and different sources, which also measure ridership in different ways. Secondarywaltz (talk)19:00 EST 8 July 2010

Check page 33 of the June 2010 APTA report, Heavy Rail (HR) average trips are 910,300, while the Light Rail (LR) 285,600 for a combined total of 1,195,900. I have no idea where the 950,000 comes from, as it is not supported by the report.--Abebenjoe (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sure, but last time I checked the Streetcars are not part of your subway system so they have nothing to do with the numbers related to the subway and RT. So like I said before the ridership for the Subway and RT is ~950,000 (Alexcaban) (talk) 12:04 EST July 11, 2010

That is where you are wrong! The Spadina LRT runs underground, and is considered part of the subway, connecting at Union Station, with a second underground station on Lakeshore BLVD. Finally, it goes underground at Spadina Station.--Abebenjoe (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, did I mention we opened a new LRT or RT in the past six months, that the APTA accounts as LT, that is of course the St. Clair RT. This would mean that the TTC has a higher ridership than the Montreal Metro.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact the HR and LT segmentation is a false argument, since the TTC uses a variety of rail transport that are part of its "Subway RT" as the title of the article suggests. No one would seriously suggest that Montreal has a larger subway rt than Toronto.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Abebenjoe how exactly are you substantiating your claims that the Spadina and St. Clair Streetcars are somehow considered to be part of the subway? They are, and always have been run by Roncy/Russel STREETCAR divisional CIS, They have nothing to do with subway operations which run out of Wilson SUBWAY and Danforth Division and are controlled out of the Hilcrest Complex directly. The only thing i can think of that makes you suggest such misinformed allegations is that than that those two routes happen to have underground streetcar platforms to offload passengers into the subway system. Just because the streetcar runs underground or on a dedicated right of way does not make it a subway... please check your facts. eja2k 07:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is entitled "subway and RT", and the streetcars are termed RT by the TTC. Sprocket (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sprocket, please refer to the OFFICIAL TTC SERVICE SUMMARY and check your facts. The only routes referred to as "Rapid Transit" are routes 1 thru 4 (being the Y-U-S subway, B-D subway, Sheppard subway, and the SRT). Streetcar service is not considered to be "Rapid Transit" please also note my comment above about the operational differences between the Surface (bus/streetcar) routes and the Heavy Rail Rapid transit routes.

eja2k 07:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010) I think this page should be moved to an appropriate title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Kotniski (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Toronto subway and RT → Toronto Subway and RT — Since it is the official name of the system, each first letter should be capitalized in its name, just like all other city systems (such as, Montreal Metro, New York City Subway, etc.). EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

However, it is not the name of an organization. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed correct, but shouldn't the same be considered for other subway/metro systems around the world? "Toronto Subway and RT" I think is a proper noun given to the system by TTC, just like "Montreal Metro" and "New York City Subway". I believe TTC maps and publications given them capital initial names. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose "Toronto Subway" is not a formal name, subway is to be left in lowercase.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Include transitcity and "lrt" streetcar lines 509, 510, 512.

Even though it isn't /isn't going to be "rapid", it is still classified by the ttc as rapid transit in official documents. The scarborough RT isn't techinaclly a subway, but it's included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.89.103 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is the grade separation. The streetcar routes, as well as much of Transit City, are and will not be grade-separate. The Scarborough RT, however, is grade separated. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Queens Quay-Ferry Docks station and the part of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT that is underground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.90.221 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They may be grade-separated, but the line that serves Queens Quay station is mostly not grade-separated and the outer sections of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT are generally not grade-separated. Thus, the Toronto subway and RT article only covers rapid transit lines that are completely grade-separated. Another thing, please sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end, as it is standard practice to do so, instead of SineBot having to do your work. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Names of TTC subway station articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto#Naming conventions says

• All TTC stations: as [[Spadina TTC station]]

So why are they all named such as Spadina (TTC)? And without even a redirect from Spadina TTC station or Spadina station or Spadina Station? Set theorist (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that most members of WikiProject Toronto forgot to do that! Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is probably because it takes too much work, given that there are approximately 75 articles in that format. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I sort of disagree with this naming convention. I don't think its appropriate to use abbreviations in article titles. Rather name them similar to London's stations (i.e. Union subway station) or that of NYC stations (i.e. Union (Toronto subway and RT). EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Once a naming/renaming convention or a list of possible redirects has been established I'd be happy to take on some of the workload of renaming, or redirecting alternate names. Just let me know when we have reached a consensus on how we wish to proceed. eja2k 21:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We should discuss that in the WikiProject. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What WikiProject? The naming convention was the standard when the articles were created, the thought being that this gives universal disambiguation and identification with the system. Look at articles suffixed with (C-Train), (ETS), (Los Angeles Metro station), (Montreal Metro), (Minsk Metro), (Rome Metro), (Rotterdam Metro), (Washington Metro), (Viva), and many more. There is no need to mess with these names, and redirects can be from anything else that could possibly be entered for a search. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject in question is WikiProject Toronto. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Official station webpage template

I've created a template that can be used to link official station pages to articles here. I've used it on Kennedy (TTC) as a start, hope someone can change it up for other stations too. Feel free to edit the template itself if anything's wrong or doesn't seem right. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the majority of the articles with this new template, however station names with multiple words (i.e. Royal York, or St. Clair West) do not work properly with the template. If written in plain text the template does not recognize any words after a space, and if one uses underscores between_the_words there does not appear to be anyway to eliminate them from the actual displayed text.eja2k 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, I haven't thought about that. I'll work on that soon if possible. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've made a possibly temporary fix for it in the meantime. Underscores will have to be used when typing in the station name in the space. But I've made it display the page title on the actual link. So after a template is put up for say Royal York Station, on the template it would display up as "Royal York (TTC) Station". Hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable in this could get that fixed in a way that would take out the "(TTC)" part. Otherwise, in reference to the talk section above, we should rename all TTC station pages accordingly. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC) I played with it a bit and came to perhaps another temporary solution. The template now has two input spaces, the first one should have underscores in multiple-word stations and the second one can have the station name in normal text without any underscores. That way, one space is for linking, the other is for the displaying. Unfortunately this would require changing up the station pages that already have the previous template, though. Sorry about that! EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All articles now updated with the new template! eja2k 02:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that this template is part of the GO Transit template category. Is there not a TTC template category? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be "Category:TTC templates" - done. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Digital renderings in infoboxes, four years later

OK, four years later, I'm thinking it's high time to get rid of the few renderings that are left in the TTC station infoboxes. Would anyone mind if I go ahead and snap some photos for replacement? Suigi (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That can be done. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What's keeping you? Please load all you photos to Commons so that they can be used on other language Wikipedias. The only stations I can think of that are left are College and Wellesley. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

About two years of inactivity. Stations still to be updated include Bathurst, Coxwell, Donlands, Dufferin, Jane, Pape, Runnymede, Woodbine, and York Mills; most of those do have actual photographs on-page, feel free to use those to replace the digital renderings. Spadina needs a station shot for its info-box too, along with Bloor/Yonge. Suigi (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I have some photos that I thought were uploaded. Now I have to find them - buried on my computer. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Grabbed pics of College and York Mills, and relocated other photos into the infobox on Coxwell, Dufferin, and Runnymede. Might be able to snap ones of the other ones in the next few days. Thanks for the help, Secondarywaltz! Suigi (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Done! All the digital renderings have been speedy-deleted, too. Suigi (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

TTC priorities have changed (March 2011)

It seems construction prioities have somewhat changed as of March 2011, which would require changing this article quite a bit. According to this, the Sheppard line extension and Eglinton LRT/Scarborough RT extension/revitalization projects look like they will fall next to the Spadina line extension as the TTC's priorities for expansion. Just thought I'd mention someone should update this here and at related articles. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We should. We should also update Eglinton Crosstown LRT as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've given a start at Scarborough RT page, but could probably use some expanding. EelamStyleZ (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Transit City may be history, but Eglinton Crosstown LRT is the only surviving line in that proposal and that should be noted in both the Transit City and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT articles. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Hope someone could get that in those articles. If not, I'll have it in there sometime later next week. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We even need more people to work on these articles as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, should we move the Eglinton Crosstown LRT page to a new name, such as "Eglinton LRT" or "Eglinton line"? Or would that be too early at the moment? EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say that the Eglinton LRT and Scarborough RT articles should be merged, as they will eventually form one continuous route.

Also - what are the thoughts on including the Eglinton line on the map in a lighter colour like the Spadina extension, with Opening 2018 listed? Is this too soon? I would be against doing this for the Sheppard extensions as funding has not been secured, but the Eglinton line seems to be the real deal now. Thoughts? Snickerdo (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep the Eglinton and Scarborough lines separate until much of the Eglinton line is complete and actually linked with the Scarborough line. This will prevent undue confusion. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 19:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Move (2013) Change of article title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article's title was changed from "TTC subway and RT" to "TTC Subway/RT" today without any prior consultation. I don't think this was a good move, and I think it should be moved back. What do other editors think? Ground Zero | t 00:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be changed back, as it is a copy-paste move without any consensus. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can't just move without a discussion and by cut and paste. I have reverted it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2013 July 8 Toronto flooding

This should be updated to cover the torrential flooding and how it flooded out the trains and lines -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

New Icons for rail transit Lines

Okay, we currently have png files for Lines 1-7. Example: . I've created svg files out of the pngs for lines 1-4, and I was wondering how we should go about swapping them in. Flynn58 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

See Media related to Toronto Transit Commission signs at Wikimedia Commons for the existing SVG files, which are already being used. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of article name

Should the "S" in the title be capitalized? It is not currently in the article title, but it is in the actual page and info box. It should be consistent between the two. It would seam the official TTC use is Subway/RT (link, among other places), but I'm not sure if that's ideal either. Opinions? - Epson291 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No. It is a not a proper name. Martin Morin (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment New York City Subway is capitalized. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Because it is not the title of the system, but a description, the lower case should be retained. Not a big deal. But why do you need to change everything about the TTC? Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to lower case to be consistent. - Epson291 (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Standard scheme for all stations (and schedule?)

As I've noticed from many years back, we've tried to make a unified scheme for the subsections, see here. I think we should try to reinforce it again in this order:

• History (this is already first for most stations)
• Station description

entrances and exits (may be separate section - if there are many)

level description

tenants

• Architecture and art
• Schedule (not sure if good idea)
• Subway infrastructure in the vicinity (or just infrastructure)
• Nearby landmarks
• Surface connections
• Gallery
• References
• External links

I have reordered the sections in Sheppard-Yonge (TTC) to match this description.
Alexhead8835 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is good to have some consistency in the sections of these related article, and this was previously done by users who appear to have retired. Prose is better than lists and tables, so it is better to integrate details of things like entrances, levels, facilities and other infrastructure into the text of the station description or architecture. Images should be placed beside what is being described and not just some randomly. The Commons gallery adequately covers other images. More to come. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I must agree. The station articles haven't got love for the past few years, since the regulars have retired somewhat. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey! There's you and me Johnny! Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I like consistent section but not so strict to fill in every one. As Secondarywaltz say sometime things should be together. Schedule is better viewed at TTC and Wikipedia:NOTTIMETABLE and these removed from other system before. Martin Morin (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I have changed Sheppard-Yonge (TTC) again to match what you have suggested. Alexhead8835 (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

First impression is that S-Y is nicely composed and reasonably well written. There are some places that a little editing would improve. I also appreciate the way that you have been adding references to stations where they are sparse. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

ps The station description is not very clear, and in some places just wrong. The lines cannot be on the same level and the levels description is overly complex and detailed. I don't have time to help with these problems, since I will be gone again tomorrow. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have simplified and fixed the problems in the station description. Alexhead8835 (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks better now. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Referring to Toronto subway lines

I have started a discussion on whether to use line names or line numbers in article text at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Toronto#Referring_to_Toronto_subway_lines. Ground Zero | t 19:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

System and line name changes

The legend in the summer 2014 Ride Guide from the TTC names the Scarborough RT as the "Scarborough Line" while calling the entire system simply as "subway system". The apparent departure from the use of the term "RT" seems obvious here. Also, each line is referred to by its number while keeping their official names within brackets. Perhaps these changes should reflect on the respective Wikipedia pages as well. EelamStyleZ // TALK 22:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

With the introduction of new LRT lines and wayfaring signage using numbers, it is probably time to consider the way the TTC rapid transit lines are treated in Wikipedia. Toronto rapid transit, TTC rapid transit system, or something like that, might be a better inclusive name for this subject. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Toronto rapid transit has precedent in Ottawa Rapid Transit (even if I originally came up with that name ten years ago...) Radagast (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How about Toronto rapid transit system? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd support Toronto rapid transit. "System" doesn't really add anything besides length. Ground Zero | t 12:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The current title doesn't have 'system'; the precedent of Toronto Streetcar System is only because in that case it is necessary to distinguish the network from being more than the vehicles. Radagast (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Who should move the article then? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Tick. Ground Zero | t 10:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: In looking at the TTC's home page, they don't really use the term "rapid transit", but in several places the website refers to the system as "Subway". Based on that, I really wonder if this article should be moved to Toronto subway over Toronto rapid transit. --IJBall (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough point, but I think with the Eglinton, Finch West and Sheppard East lines coming on-stream soon and being in the same wayfinding system (coloured lines, matching cirles with line numbers) it's becoming much more than a subway. THus I feel the article name change fits. Radagast (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not quite true. Although the phrase doe not occur in the main menu, the TTC does refer to "rapid transit" if you look beyond that. For example, under General Information they say: "The TTC operates a north-south, east-west grid of routes conforming, to the greatest extent possible, with the grid of major arterial roads in the City. All these routes feed a grid of rapid transit routes." There is more if you look. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Then somebody probably needs to cite this in the article (though see below...), because the current cite doesn't verify this (in fact, it points in the other direction). --IJBall (talk)

If TTC ends up categorizing these systems differently (e.g. as "Light rail" instead of "Subway"), as some other cities do (e.g. Baltimore – here), then this issue will be need to be revisited. As it is, none of these LRT lines are coming online within the next several years, so I'm not sure they should be used as the basis for naming this article in the meantime. Really, what this boils down to is: what do Toronto residents refer to this system as (e.g. on COMMONNAME grounds)? If most Toronto RT users, or most people for that matter, call it "the [Toronto] rapid transit" over "the [Toronto] subway", then there's no issue. But I think there needs to be some proof of this shown... --IJBall (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

COMMONNAME fails us here as three of the lines in question are called 'the subway', but not the fourth (and forthcoming fifth, sixth, seventh...), though due to how the TTC classifies it, they're all in the same article. So we have to find a reasonably workable name; 'Subway and RT' no longer works as the RT name is being phased out per discussion above. I can't think of anything as better shorthand than the name we've chosen, personally. Radagast (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Done the same for related articles I have also renamed various related articles as well, such as List of Toronto rapid transit stations, Toronto rapid transit rolling stock, Toronto rapid transit signals, etc. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (2014)

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: not to move the page, per the discussions above and below. The discussion earlier on the page appears to show a rough consensus for the new title, so I have not reverted the article to its older title. Subsequently, the discussion in this section did not show a consensus for moving the page to Toronto subway. Dekimasuよ! 21:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Toronto rapid transit → Toronto subway – Per above; this paged was moved from its original title, "Toronto subway and RT", to the current title based on speculation that the system would need to be named as such since its expansion plan includes light rail transit. However, the Toronto Transit Commission has never referred to the system as "Toronto rapid transit" and has no plans to change its name. This constitutes to WP:CRYSTAL and is a violation of WP:COMMON. The city's subway system has always been referred to the system as the "Toronto subway and RT", but as seen in its latest publications and based on what the system is commonly referred to, "Toronto subway" is the correct title for this page. EelamStyleZ // TALK 05:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a Wikipedia article, not a TTC article, so we should use an article title that makes sense for Wikipedia. The TTC's preferred style -- which is not consistent and may change again -- is not an issue here. "Toronto rapid transit" is not capitalizaed as a proper noun, so there is no implication that this the name that the TTC uses. It is a useful general term that includes the existing subway, the existing RT (which is not anyone's definition of subway in the North American sense of the word) and the LRT that is under construction now. Ground Zero | t 12:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarification: the TTC's new wayfinding does include the RT in the list of subway lines, but here, it describes "3 Scarborough" as "an “L-shaped” rapid transit route". It does not use the S-word in describing the RT. The TTC is not being consistent (and hasn't been in the past), so we shouldn't assume that the language it is using at this moment in time will endure, and more importantly, this is not a mirror site for the TTC. Let's use common sense and common language, rather than TTC preferred style. I don't hear anyone describing the RT as a subway. If they did, the Fordists would not have been able to sell Scarboroughites on the idea that they are being treated as second class citizens because they don't have their own subway. Ground Zero | t 12:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • But, elsewhere, they refer to the system as containing "four subway lines" (i.e. including the 3 Scarborough line in this). So the predominant way TTC refers to the system is as the "subway" (or "Subway"). Basically, the supporters of the current name have to prove that "Toronto rapid transit" is used more than "Toronto subway" (or "Toronto Subway") to refer to the system as a whole, so that it qualifies as the COMMONNAME – and, so far, I haven't seen that evidence forthcoming... --IJBall (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
      • You're basing your argument entirely on what the TTC calls it, and not on what people call it. Wikipedia is not here to be a platform for the TTC. It has its own website for that. "Rapid transit" is used commonly by the media, election candidates, and Steve Munro to cover transit that is not just subways. I suspect that the anti-LRT rhetoric has pushed the TTC to start describing non-subway transit as subways to avoid the political heat. Not our circus and not our monkeys though. Ground Zero | t 13:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not "basing my argument" on anything – I've repeatedly asked for verification that the COMMONNAME might be "rapid transit". I haven't been to Toronto in 25 years, so I have no idea what the locals call it. Do people walking down the street generally say, "I'm going to catch the rapid transit?" Or do they say "I'm going to catch the subway?" Because that really gets to the heart of naming issue for this article. All people who support the current naming scheme have to show is that "rapid transit" is used more often to describe this system. But going off the TTC website, who as the system's operators would be fairly authoritative on the subject, seem to point in the opposite direction. --IJBall (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
      • In the TTC's Service Information FAQs and Paying Fares pages, the TTC refers to its systems as "subway/RT" (lower case 's', and reference to RT). So the TTC is not consistent - they are using different terminology in different places. Ground Zero | t 15:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support on COMMONNAME grounds, though based on the TTC website it should perhaps be "Toronto Subway" (i.e. capitalized as a proper noun, like New York City Subway). --IJBall (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We would not need to have this discusion if "Toronto Subway", with an upper case S, was a proper name. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, based on the TTC website, they seem to be occasionally be referring to it with the capital "S". Hence my confusion on whether it should be upper- or lower-case "s" for "subway"... --IJBall (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - It all depends on the subject matter. If this article includes extensive details about the LRT lines it should stay at "rapid transit", but if it only includes information about the original subway and RT it seems that "subway" would be a suitable title. I am not sure. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ground Zero. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, as a subway can mean different things. However, rapid transit is very clear. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Which would be fine, if "rapid transit" is the COMMMONNAME of the system over "subway". But, if not... --IJBall (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TTC uses both, that's the problem. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose- The "rapid transit" is better for TTC. Now not just subway. Martin Morin (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this change, because I think that TTC subway lines are part of Toronto's rapid transit system, but not all of it. The TTC published this Rapid Transit Expansion Study in 2001. Major discussions in Toronto, by politicians and the general public, have been about "rapid transit". The municipal election in Toronto takes place this month and it is still the main talking point. The mode of travel on the TTC is by subway or RT or streetcar or bus. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment – This is the other issue: by definition, LRT, streetcar and bus are not rapid transit. The "subway" portion of the system is the only truly "rapid transit" part, so the discussion of the future LRT lines doesn't seem to be germane to this discussion. --IJBall (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the Rapid Transit Expansion Study? Subway is one mode of rapid transit. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

They can call it whatever they like. But as I said – by definition, only the metro/subway portions are actually "rapid transit". Those other "modes" are other transit modes, but they aren't "rapid transit" ("mass transit", maybe; but not "rapid transit"). --IJBall (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Restore to "Toronto subway and RT". I know nothing about Toronto so I've just spent 20 minutes looking at visitor guides and transportation guides to the city, and there are only three terms in common use:
  1. "TTC" which refers to the whole system (buses, subway, streetcars, etc.) and so is broader than the scope of this article (see Toronto Transit Commission).
  2. "Subway" which refers only to lines 1, 2 and 4, and so is narrower than the scope of this article. Its use as a proper or common noun is inconsistent and may just be an individual author's stylistic choice.
  3. "RT" which refers only to line 3, and so again is narrower than this article.

  So unless this article's scope is adjusted (I have no opinion on this) then the common names should be used - i.e. "Toronto subway and RT" (or "Toronto Subway and RT").

  Sources: Tourism Toronto, City of Toronto, Lonely Planet, WikiVoyage, Toronto Visitor Guide 2014 (page 35), Trip Advisor, Time Out Toronto, U.S. News, How Stuff Works. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • TTC subway and RT? – Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be adverse to this, as I think it's better than the current (new) name, though honestly I haven't seen this name used for the system on anywhere aside from Wikipedia. So, I still prefer "Toronto (s/S)ubway" as the COMMONNAME (TTC really seems to bundle in Scarborough with the rest as "the subway" more than not...), but restoration to the previous name is probably the second-best outcome here. And, thank you for going to the trouble of doing the research – I appreciate that. --IJBall (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was in Toronto this summer and Rob Ford and subways and rapid transit were in the news. Why was it moved? Lastcent (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2014 (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.

Needs to be changed back to Toronto Subway and RT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.198.145 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

User:IJBall has objected to using the phrase "Toronto rapid transit" in the opening sentence because "it's not the official "name" of the system'". I would agree with IJBall's concern if the words were capitalized "Toronot Rapid Transit", indicating a proper noun. This would be incorrect. But they aren't - the article uses "Toronto rapid transit" as a common noun, not a proper one, so there is no suggestion that this an official name. Changing it to "rapid tranist in Toronto" doesn't make any difference here. "University of York" (it's in England) is as much of a proper noun as "York University" (in Canada) because of the capitalization, not because of the word order. Ground Zero | t 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. 142.46.224.77 (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2015

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: no consensus. I'm closing my own request due to WP:Snowball. Consensus is either oppose or to give it some time to see what transpires. - Epson291 (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Toronto rapid transit → Toronto subway – Should we move this back to Toronto subway now that *link to TTC site) they are calling everything a subway? Epson291 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• A Question Would this be moved back, after the TTC opens the Eglinton LRT line currently under construction? According to the examples for the recently implemented wayfinding graphics the light rail lines on Eglinton, Finch West and Sheppard East would be numbered within the same system. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - we argued this through in October. Let's not waste more time arguing this again. This is not an official TTC page; it is an encyclopedia article. If the TTC wants to call the Scarborough RT a subway, an eggplant, or an Hutterite, it is free to do so. But that does not make the SRT any of those things, and Wikipedia should not say that it is. I counter propose this: when the SRT is closed down, then rename the article "Toronto subway", and have a separate article called " Toronto LRT" for the Eglinton line, and anything else that we decide qualifies. Ground Zero | t 22:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to counter your counter proposal: the Crosstown will be given a line colour and matching number-roundel and appear on the rapid transit map. It should be in this category like the SRT is now. Radagast (talk)
    • Does having a line colour and a roundel make Eglinton Crosstown a subway? While at least much of it is below groung, unlike the SRT, I don't think changing the article name to "Toronto subway" makeses sense if it will include SRT and EC. Ground Zero | t 17:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• I support Ground Zero's future proposal – that is exactly what should happen. As I pointed out last time, TTC can call the Eglinton line anything it wants, but it absolutely won't be "rapid transit" (by definition), but will instead be "light rail". At that point, Toronto's system will be more akin to Los Angeles' or Philadelphia's or San Fran's: a mix of "rapid transit" and "light rail" lines... But, for now, the last RM made clear that there will not be consensus support for this move, even if I myself agree with its rationale. --IJBall (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as Toronto is in the midst of building a connected series of Rapid Transit lines that do not easily fit the 'subway' category. The SRT already makes and exception, and as the Crosstown and Finch West and Sheppard East (and whatever SmartTrack becomes if it's a TTC service at all) come on stream that will broaden it further. Radagast (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that the article would be better named Toronto rapid transit, as it describes both the subway and the future LRT lines well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment – Again, the LRT will not be "rapid transit". I don't know why people keep bringing this up – see: Rapid transit, Light rail, and Passenger rail terminology articles. --IJBall (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, IMO the TTC's heavy rail routes, its streetcar routes, its future light rail routes, and any BRTs built in future, have too little in common for it make sense for them to be shoehorned into a big omnibus article. Without regard to how it was covered in the past the SRT was just a slightly unusual light rail route, and should not have been shoehorned in with the genuine heavy rail lines. Geo Swan (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • But right now the article includes SRT and Crosstown. So maybe the solution is to stripy out the RT and LRT parts into a new article, then it would just be about subways subways subways and I would support renaming. But would it be weird to have an article covering only 3 of the 4 lines on the map? Ground Zero | t 13:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would be weird. The TTC article could have an overview of the entire rail system, and then the specific articles (e.g. this one, and the Eglinton line, etc.) could cover the heavy rail and light rail portions of Toronto's rail system, respectively. This is essentially how the Boston MBTA and Philadelphia SEPTA articles tend to cover similar territory. --IJBall (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Compromise - If we want to be inclusive, how about Toronto subway and light rail? That would include the entire system of numbered rail lines, but exclude streetcars routes. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, possibly the answer, when the Eglinton line opens. The good news is that gives us time to think it over... --IJBall (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Eglinton line is already included in the article. As you have pointed out, the detail is in each individual article, and this is should only be about the system. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

But Eglinton is in now as basically a "future development". It may need to be handled different once it opens. But, for now, I personally think it's OK to keep it here, even though it's not strictly "rapid transit". IOW, I don't think we need to rename this article right now – we have some time here, IMO. --IJBall (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This suggestion was to support your insistence on differentiating between subway/metro and light rail, and Eglinton is well under construction. It can be a fine line in terminology, but I'm with you on that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, your suggestion is definitely better than the article's current name, yes. --IJBall (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Compromise - After reading all the comments and the fact that "rapid transit" doesn't include light rail I think SecondaryWaltz' suggestion is a good one, since the article already includes the SRT (light rail), and the Eglinton line (light rail). - Epson291 (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite literally no one has used the term "Toronto subway and light rail" outside of Wikipedia. When (if) the Crosstown opens, the TTC will likely revise its terminology to fit—let's wait until then. Conifer (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

By that measure, no one uses "Toronto rapid transit" either. Calling it Toronto subway and light rail would be mearly descriptive, not a title/proper noun. And unlike the the term "rapid transit"......"subway" and "light rail/LRT" are in fact used. That said, I wonder how/if the the TTC will brand it once Eglinton opens, but that's not relevant for now. Epson291 (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The current page works. Let's be patient and see how the system is referred to after Line 5 Eglinton opens. Nfitz (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - not a great idea given that neither Line 3 Scarborough or Line 5 Eglinton are subway! Nfitz (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• They aren't "rapid transit" either – Scarborough is called "Intermediate rail" by APTA, and Eglinton (as has been pointed out repeatedly) will be light rail. So, not only is the article's current name not the system's COMMONNAME, it's also not an accurate name either. IOW, the current title is the worst of both worlds! --IJBall (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Line 3 is rapid transit! Line 4 has higher average speed than Line 1 or Line 2. The line is called the SRT; RT stands for Rapid Transit and the page Line 3 Scarborough clearly states it is rapid transit, so in Toronto, all 4 lines are unequivocally rapid transit. We've got about 7 years to worry about Line 5, at which point who knows how it will be branded. Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Either you, or TTC, saying that, doesn't make it so. Various sources, such as APTA and LRTA, consider Scarborough to be "Intermediate rail" or, basically, a "light metro" line. IOW, Line 3 is borderline. Remember: The definition of "rapid transit" isn't just about train speed – it's also about passenger capacity (i.e. train length, and headways). --IJBall (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• The article is about Toronto Rapid Transit. In Toronto the Scarborough Rapid Transit line is both in Scarborough, and Rapid Transit. I don't think what foreign organizations call what has any relevance. No one would ever claim that the Scarborough Rapid Transit line isn't rapid transit! LOL! Nfitz (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Uncertain - I am still not sure what I think of this. Technical definitions aside, if the common name is "Toronto subway" (which it is), this is a valid rename. But if the ariticle is to include LRT lines that are under construction, planned and proposed, then perhaps that name would be inaccurate. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Only the TTC calls the Scarborough RT a "subway". But this is not a TTC website, this is an encyclopedia, so the TTC's "branding" is only one consideration. Surely common sense should prevail and we not call the RT a subway when it isn't. I don't think you would find many - if any - Torontonians who would call the SRT a subway (certainly not our former mayor, and I doubt our current mayor would either). The Airport Rocket is also on the "TTC Subway" map, and it's not any more a subway than the SRT is. Ground Zero | t 15:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe waiting for Line 5 to open would be best then. I'm not sure splitting it to just talk about the 3 subway lines would be better either, since Line 3 (and probably Line 5 in the future) are really treated as part of the "subway" system. The only thing is though it is currently this weird convoluted name when no one calls it that, its "commonname" for most of the system is "subway" (and RT). - Epson291 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Move to close with 'no consensus' result. It's clear that this isn't going anywhere this time around. Let's all agree to suspend any more formal 'Move requests' (or actual 'moves'!!) for six months or so, and in the meantime we can further discuss if a move is warranted, and if so what the best target "title" might be. --IJBall (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Most people would rather wait to see how things develop. No point in repeatedly moving it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I picked up a "Ride Guide Lite", published by the TTC this year. Inside, it lists the four lines under the heading "Rapid Transit", and on the back cover, it has a "Subway Map" that shows the four lines plus the Airport Rocket. So even if this were a TTC site reflecting official TTC nomenclature, it would be hard to know what terms to use. But this isn't that site, and we have no need to follow the TTC's preferences, whatever they happen to be today. We should use common sense instead. If a claim is going to be made that "subway" is the common name, then links to reliable (non-TTC) sources should be provided. Ground Zero | t 11:44, 6 April 2015 (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.

While I am late on this, I would have preferred the move to 'Toronto Subway' (since that is now how they refer to the system; compare with the New York City Subway etc.) or the longstanding title -- 'Toronto subway and RT' -- over the current title, since that succinctly/factually describes the system (i.e., the 3 subway lines and RT) ... at least for now. The current title might be more appropriate when the Eglinton Crosstown is operational 5+ years hence, but not necessarily now. ;) 70.55.48.123 (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Here, for those who believe that Wikipedia should parrot what the TTC says regardless of whether it makes sense or not, is another example of the TTC using "rapid transit" to refer to Lines 1 through 4: TTC Service Summary March 29, 2015 to May 9, 2015. Ground Zero | t 15:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Late to the discussion but I like several members above, I agree that it should be renamed "Toronto subway". I looked for the official name, provided by the official website (see here [1]), and it is indeed officially called the "subway". Subway is the most common name used by the TTC itself, and users of the system. There is no reference to Toronto "rapid transit" at all except for some obscure pdfs made mostly for internal use. I don't see any argument above as to why we should not use the official term "subway". And yes, even the pseudo-light rail that runs entirely above ground on line 3 is called "subway" by the TTC itself. Calling them rapid transit instead is original research. I wonder if a new move discussion is in order, since no consensus was reached before? Mattximus (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the train left the station, pardon the pun. If you want to use the name "Toronto subway," please feel free to request the move. However, I still prefer "Toronto raid transit" as stated earlier. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And the "Ride Guide Light" is not an obscure PDF, but some thing that the TTC prints and distributes widely. Further, you have provided no reason why we should you what you claim is the "official" name. This is an encyclopedia, not a mirror site for the TTC. You are free to open yet another vote on this, but you should not expect an easy ride. Ground Zero | t 12:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Name

Could anyone provide the rationale behind moving the page name to "Toronto rapid transit"? I previously brought up the point that the system seems to be ditching the term "RT" in its nomenclature - but this page move does not reflect that. Importantly, the TTC has never referred to the system as "Toronto rapid transit". Everything - from the TTC website, ride guides, advertisements, signage, media, and common name is "Toronto subway and RT" or "Toronto subway". This page needs to be moved back to one of the two names. EelamStyleZ // TALK 23:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Some arguments from above suggest that there is a feel that the system is becoming a rapid transit system, thus the page should be called as so. This is a definite bias and cannot qualify as grounds to move the page. The TTC has never come up with an official name for the system and has always commonly referred to the system as the subway since its initial opening, even during the years of the Scarborough RT's existence. Just because the Eglinton Crosstown line uses light rail does not mean we should call the system a new name. Such name changes need to wait until there is an apparent change in the naming by the TTC and the media. Besides, given all the politics in transit expansion in Toronto it is unclear what the Eglinton Crosstown or future lines will exactly be. For now, the system is (and has always been) known as the subway. EelamStyleZ // TALK 23:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• This happened weeks ago. You should have brought it up at the time. Start a new discussion! Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You appeared to agree that the previous name was no longer appropriate, so don't be so quick to move it back. Whatever the name is going to be, it should be processed correctly. Do you know how to do this? Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Going just by the TTC website, I'd argue (pretty strongly, actually) that the article should be moved to "Toronto Subway". TTC even seems to refer to the Scarborough line as a "subway line" (e.g. on the 'General Information' line, TTC states, "The TTC serves this area with a grid network of: four subway lines...") I actually agree with EelamStyleZ that the rationale behind moving to "Toronto rapid transit" is both weak, and highly speculative (e.g. relying on future planned lines in the system, which seems to fall under CRYSTALBALL type thinking...). I would again argue that the current best COMMONNAME of this system is "Toronto Subway", going off how TTC seems to refer to the system themselves. --IJBall (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As the Eglinton Crosstown is under construction, that move would be setting us up for another move in just a few years. The more general "rapid transit" contemplates subway, RT and LRT, and avoids setting ourselves up for moving again. Ground Zero | t 01:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL, again, as it assumes how the TTC will in the future "categorize" a line that has yet to open. It's possible that TTC may end up calling that line "Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail" and then we're back to where we started. The proper course of action here is probably to name the article after what the system is called now, and worry about future developments when they happen. --IJBall (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would be confused if you call it the "Toronto subway", but on the rollout of the Wayfinding Trial it was clearly indicated that the new LRT lines would be brought into the numbering system. There is nothing wrong with the current "rapid transit" title. If anybody wants this article moved it should be done by nomination to allow for input by the wider community. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think this needs to be taken to requested moves because there is still no logical opposition for this page to be kept to its previous name (it should be speedily reverted back or moved to "Toronto subway") but to be fair it shall be done so. It should be clear that user speculation doesn't justify edits on Wikipedia. The previous title was of concern but I did not mean for a radical change as moving the page to an unrelated title - which should be reverted back, which is why I did. I shall set up a page move request. Secondarywaltz's above argument is not clear - yes the LRT lines are said to be part of the rest of the subway system but when was it ever proposed that the term subway won't be applied to the system? Also, who knows whether the Eglinton Crosstown line will stay in its current configuration or the future council decides to bury it completely underground, or whether the Finch West and Sheppard East lines will ever be built as LRT? Possibilities may vary so no explanation can help justify moving this page. Leave it with the previous title or use the current available sources to devise a more accurate name - which I believe is the "Toronto Subway". The TTC seems to have stopped using the term RT in its most recent publications. EelamStyleZ // TALK 04:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A new Toronto Subway map is now being placed on all trains. The TTC has clearly ditched the "RT" and decided to refer to the system as the "Toronto Subway." An image showing the new map of the subway system can be found here. The TTC obviously now refers the entire current system as the Toronto Subway and I believe the article name should reflect this. 108.168.56.133 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I don't agree with the name used. No one in Toronto uses the term "rapid transit" colloquially, its an invention of the TTC and not widely or consistently used. Currently the article speaks to the three subway and one RT line. The people of Toronto universally call it the subway." If you look at the subway map the TTC provides online it includes the RT. The official map on the subway trains and on the website is the "Subway/RT Route Map." This article specifically refers the development of the system on that map. I agree with WP:CRYSTALBALL that we should only refer to what the system is called now. I suggest revisiting what the TTC has put on the system map in 7 years. There is no clear indication of what the rollout of the Crosstown or any other part of the LRT will be as both the operations and the maintenance of the new lines is still in the air. For all we know, it could be called Toronto Subway and LRT Map, because by then the RT will be long gone. I strongly suggest this article be called the "Toronto Subway/RT." Reval416 (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The page should be changed to "Toronto Subway." Toronto Subway is used universally in the city and even on signage. The NYC Subway is called the subway even though there are many elevated lines. Even tough Toronto Subway has RT/LRT it is still referred to as Toronto Subway. It definitely is not known throughout the city as Toronto rapid transit. Just as NYC Subway is not called rapid transit because there are elevated lines. Everyone in NYC calls it the subway anyway. This is the same in Toronto. Change the title of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.122.196 (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Station naming convention

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) for details. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made a comment on that talk page, some of the naming conventions are original research. We should stick with official station names. Mattximus (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

TTC's Wi-Fi network requires Twitter account

Read here: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ttc-other-items-catch-all.20264/page-191#post-1062037

Apparently, Twitter sponsors the TTC's Wi-Fi network. Commuters are forced to log on to Twitter in order to use the network and Twitter would collect browsing data and personal information.

Should it be added? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source: http://ttc.ca/News/2015/December/1204-wifi_4_stations.jsp It is just for the month of December. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked yesterday and yes, it still required Twitter, and we are in 2016. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Twitter login returned, but this time it's optional. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Toronto rapid transit stations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 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 Toronto subway (lowercase "s") per WP:COMMONNAME. I'll use Amakuru's argument as the closing statement: isn't it WP:OR to declare the whole system to be not a subway because we've decided one line is not, even when all other sources and people in Toronto do call the whole system the subway. No such user (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Toronto rapid transit → Toronto subway – Previous discussion did not reach consensus, but I think it's time to try again. There is a small group of editors that want to shoehorn in a technical definition so they made up "rapid transit system" as a blanket term. While technically correct, 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", even though parts of it are indeed above ground and uses 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! This is the same thing as renaming the London Underground "London Rapid Transit" because it has above ground portions. Do you think that makes sense? Because that is what has happened here.

• It is without question officially called the subway [2][3]. The current name runs afoul of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
• Toronto Subway is the common name used by the general public, and media (I have many sources if this is a point of contention). This should be the primary reason to move the page, it follows WP:COMMONNAME pe—rfectly.
• "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.

I'm trying to be as objective and use policy as much as possible because there is a strong, well meaning group of transit editors that would rather be technically correct even at the cost of sacrificing the utility of the encyclopedia. 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 simply hybrids, and are called "subway" anyway. Mattximus (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

*Agree. For all the reasons given. The rapid transit name is a Wikipedia generic construct that nobody in the Toronto general public is able relate to. If a tourist were to look for directions to the "Toronto rapid transit" they could never find it. It's the subway! But wait! How is the TTC going classify Line 5? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and you can deal with that when it happens, several years from now. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - at different times the TTC has used "rapid transit" to refer to one or more streetcar lines as well, none of which are covered in this article but are covered at Toronto streetcar system. The Scarborough RT is for all intents and purposes part of the subway network (as opposed to the streetcar network, or some other network) despite being above ground and a different technology. This article should be renamed as above per common convention and to differentiate from the streetcar article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Pleased to see this is in the proper place and under the proper process. That said, I will give weak support as I feel 'subway' is precisely the WRONG term for Line 5 and we will need to find some other descriptor once that service opens. But given that is still years away, and Mattximus' arguments are well-founded, I will defer further argument. Radagast (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• It seems that previous objections were WP:CRYSTALBALLish. Moving the page now does not preclude a future move. —  AjaxSmack  01:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly agree — Glad to see the above echoes the exact arguments I put forth in previous page moves I requested in the past regarding this. Of course the system has no official name. Nobody knows what the TTC will call it in the future given their plan's of incorporating light rail lines with the system, but what is clear now is that the system has been/currently commonly referred to by them, the media, and the general public as "the subway." A future move must only be made if and when the TTC officially publishes a new name via maps, internal reports, "Ride Guides", etc. It does not matter whether Line 5 is an LRT or an airplane. The system is commonly called the subway, hence the title of this article should be renamed as so. — EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Let's get one thing clear: Wikipedia is not a mirror site for the TTC. The official name is not the issue here. Wikipedia:Article titles reads in part: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Wikipedia:Official names makes it clear that "In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be." So let's set aside the "official name" business. What matters is what is recognizable, unambiguous and consistent with usage, not what the TTC wants. So tired of people thinking that we have to parrot TTC marketing language. So do Torontonians really think that Line 3 is part of the subway? People who are not familiar with the debate that we have been having for five years or more about "subways, subways, subways" could think so, but anyone who has read a newspaper in Toronto will know that Scarborough residents and most people in Toronto think that the RT is not a subway, and that the media do not call it a subway. If it were, then Mayor Tory's plan to extend the subway to Scarborough Town Centre could be met with a simple, "But it's already there, John. We just saved you $3.2 billion!" As far as the nominator's claim that "There is a small group of editors that want to shoehorn in a technical definition", and "group of transit editors that would rather be technically correct even at the cost of sacrificing the utility of the encyclopedia", I will point out that there has been vigorous discussion twice on this issue. It seems that in those discussions, most people rejected the demand of a even smaller group to use "official" name, or to use the name that is counterfactual and simply not used by Torontonians or the media to describe Line 3. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia since 2004 on a wide range of subjects, and have been chosen as an administrator, so don't try to marginalize me or any other editors. It is rude, and not in keeping with Wikipedia code of conduct direction to "Argue facts, not personalities." The fact that the article also address Line 5 under "Future expansion" demonstrates that it is already incorrect to use "subway" for the title of this article. Is there any evidence that Torontonians or the media are calling Line 5 a subway? "Toronto subway" and other articles can redirect here, so there is no issue with people not being able to find the article. Ground Zero | t 17:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you are going against "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Nobody in Toronto would not recognize "rapid transit". Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Then maybe we need something like "Toronto subway, RT and LRT", since no-one is calling Line 3 and 5 subways. The claims that people are doing so have not been supported with evidence. "Toronto Subway" fails WP:COMMONNAME. "Toronto rapid transit" was chosen as a less cumbersome alternative, and has been used even by the TTC in the past. Ground Zero | t 18:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, if you asked someone on the street "where is the Toronto Rapid Transit" not a single person would know what you are talking about. If you ask someone how they can from downtown to the Scarborough Town Centre, they will indeed say "take the subway". By calling it something that is not commonly used, you are doing a disservice to both locals who want to look up information, and tourists who will be very confused looking for something that does not exist. Maybe the problem is that you are confusing the name of the system with a name of one of the lines? At the very least you must agree that the "rapid transit" name runs afoul of the wiki policy: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers". Calling it "Toronto rapid transit" is completely unrecognizable to users. One more point: why do you think we should dismiss the official name? If the official name matches what people commonly use, isn't that the perfect name for the article? Mattximus (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You do understand that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, don't you? And you do understand that if a tourist looking for information types in "Toronto Subway" they will be redirected to this page, don't you? So the confusion and disservice you're complaining about isn't a real thing. I would love to see you go to Scarborough and tell the residents there that the subway runs to Scarborough Town Centre. It is a good thing that we have public health insurance in Canada, because I think you would be well in need of hospital services if you tried that. "Subways, subways, subways" did not mean Line 3. And no, "Toronto rapid transit" is not completely unrecognizable to our readers. These are ordinary English words, and our readers are not morons. This is plain English. I am open to other suggestions - I am not hung up on the current article title. I just don't agree with calling Lines 3 and 5 "subways" when Torontonians and the media do not call them that. Ground Zero | t 02:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the CBC calling the system "Toronto subway",[4] if you scroll down they say line 3 opened first, then line 1, then line 2. Notice the quotations from politicians calling it the "subway system" even with explicit reference to line 3. Notice that they didn't say "Toronto rapid transit" shut down. Again, yes when referring to that one line, most people would not use the term subway, and may use SRT (Scarborough Rapid Transit) but when referring to the system as a whole (the subject of this page) you are absolutely wrong, both media and people very much call it the "subway system". This article literally has a city councillor calling it the "subway system"... what more evidence do you need? Mattximus (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And here are articles where the media talk about extending the subway to Scarborough Town Centre, which makes it clear that the subway does not run there: Toronto Star ("Mayor John Tory, who has adamantly backed the need for subway connection to the Scarborough Town Centre"), City TV ("TTC chair Josh Colle said the east end has had LRT for a while... “We’ve had light-rail or rapid transit in that corridor for a generation."), Toronto Sun ("Tory campaigned on a promise to build the Scarborough subway and slammed rival Olivia Chow for wanting to derail the project and instead build an LRT to replace the Scarborough RT line."), Gordon Chong writes in the Sun ("That is the real “plot to deny Scarborough residents” who don’t have a subway."), The Globe and Mail ("running a subway from its current eastern terminus at Kennedy station north to the Scarborough Town Centre"), CBC ("For Tory, Scarborough being the lone borough in the city without a civic centre subway connection is just not acceptable")

So it is clear that "subway" is not unambiguous, and is not consistently used to describe Line 3, and nowhere does it seem to be used for Line 5. Fail. Ground Zero | t 06:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ground Zero's argument. First, Toronto subway already redirects to Toronto rapid transit. Second, it would be disingenuous to imply that Lines 3 and 5 are subway lines if the article were called Toronto subway, when they are not; they use different technologies even (and different gauges as well). Mayors Ford and Tory made it extremely clear that Line 3 is not subway. When Mayor Miller proposed the Transit City Plan, he viewed what would later become Line 5 an LRT line that happens to have an extensive underground portion. Oh, and even in Toronto, subway could refer to an underpass, such as the Queen Street "subway" at Dufferin. The TTC at one point even officially referred to the system as Toronto rapid transit. Mass media isn't always well-informed, no matter how reputable they may be, regardless of their biases. The same goes with the public. Toronto rapid transit was chosen as a compromise. I am not even mentioning the Subway restaurants throughout Toronto. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The nomination's arguments are convincing to me. oknazevad (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Only a part of it is underground. Used to live there and ride it, and people do not call the transit system "the subway" (they tend to all it "the TTC", since they rarely have need to refer to the TTC as a legal entity distinct from the service it provides). I don't see that RS refer to the GTA's transit system as the Toronto subway with any regularity either. It's just a poor attempt at WP:DESCRIPTDIS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: The Tokyo subway, New York City Subway, and London Underground are also "partly" underground and partly above ground. But their names still refer to the fact that they are underground rapid transit systems. Like the mentioned systems, Toronto's system is majority underground heavy rail. The concern should not be whether the system meets the criteria of "subway", as light rail is not necessarily considered rapid transit and instead considered just tramway or light metro. It's the common name of the system that must be applied to the article title. Quite frankly, no rider has ever referred to the system as "rapid transit", "underground" or even generically "the train". Everybody in Toronto refers to it as the subway. Even the cities of Mississauga and Vaughan refer to the system as the subway. Exclusives of the system can be mentioned in the article itself. The lead currently states "it is a mixed system of three subway lines and one light metro line". — EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I voiced a support, in 2015. But Ground Zero's followup comment made a valid point. Light Rail is also rapid transit, while not being a subway. An article entitled "Toronto Subway" should only contain information on actual subways.

  It was suggested, in 2015, that this article should have all information about non-subways removed from it, and then it could be renamed "Toronto Subway". If we did that, then Toronto rapid transit should be a brief scaffolding article, that briefly provides some context, and links to the newly renamed Toronto Subway, Light rail in Toronto (or whatever), and possibly to Scarboro rapid transit.

  Note: with the exception of the RT, all the light rail lines will be owned by the province, not the city. Geo Swan (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • No – in fact, "light rail" is not "rapid transit", pretty much by definition. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I was invited to comment on this discussion, presumably because I commented in 2014. I have no more knowledge of the city than I did back then, but I encourage others to do what I did then - look at how the topic is referred to in the sources to determine what the common name is - whether that matches what it technically is or not. I'll take a look later if I remember when I have time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  That is exactly what I did as well in determining the common name. Here are some good places to start [5],[6],[7]. The common name does not match what it technically is (nor does the "London Underground"), but the common name is clearly "Toronto subway" and thus unless we change Wikipedia:COMMONNAME policy we should use the common name. Mattximus (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Two of the three you've provided are TTC sites, so you continue to misrepresent WP: COMMONNAME and ignore WP: OFFICIALNAME. I provided examples from the Globe, the Star, the Sun, CityTV, and CBC that show that "subway" is not used consistently, and in fact will create confusion. Ground Zero | t 02:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support – "Toronto subway" is so far and away the WP:COMMONNAME that it's not even funny. Secondary sources do not call this system "Toronto rapid transit", so in fact it doesn't really matter than TTC doesn't either. Opposition to this move never acknowledges this simple fact, and then makes a bunch of non-policy-based arguments to try and keep the article at an inappropriate title. It needs to be moved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

See comment immediately above - "subway" does not meet the test for COMMONNAME either, so we should be looking for an alternative that both sides can accept. Ground Zero | t 02:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced by your examples – most of them, in fact, do use the word "subway", but most of them are only partially relevant as they are all seem to be in reference to the Scarborough Line, and not referring to the system as a whole, which is the focus of this article. The other points made above – that if you ask people on the street in Toronto what they call the (overall) system, and the answer will overwhelmingly be "the subway" – are also equally salient. And I don't expect that to change once they start adding LRT lines to the system (a la Los Angeles Metro Rail...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you have to clarify that you are applying "subway" to the whole system and not to its parts shows that it is ambiguous. What you expect or don't expect is neither here nor there since we don't speculate. The fact is that no-one is using "subway" to refer to Line 5 now, or at least no-one had provided a reliable source to show that, and this article knocked Line 5. Ground Zero | t 12:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity, the page is about the network not the one line. With the addition of line 5 the name may indeed change to something like "Toronto subway and LRT", however predicting that is against WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot make assumptions of the future. Ground Zero has provided evidence that one line isn't a subway, which is true and never the point of this discussion, but the system is absolutely referred to as the subway system. This is without a doubt the common name for the system. This is the purpose of the policy WP:COMMON, just like we call the page Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton even though that is technically correct. Nobody calls the system "rapid transit". I live here and have never heard it called that before. Please stop conflating one line of the system with the name of the network. And making up a name "rapid transit" just for wikipedia is also against WP:OR. Mattximus (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is clear that neither "subway" not "rapid transit" will achieve consensus. I think we should move on from this discussion to one about finding a new name that will be able to achieve consensus. Ground Zero | t 14:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

At present a majority favour using the common name, "subway", so until a third possibility is brought up would it not be logical to use that name instead of "rapid transit" in the mean time? Mattximus (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No, for the sake of article stability, we don't move an article and then move it a week or so later. I'm not proposing a long process. Let's move quickly to generate new ideas, rather than get stuck on ones that don't get consensus. Also, a page move is determined by consensus, not by a simple majority vote. Please review Wikipedia:Requested moves. Ground Zero | t 15:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you propose? The official name, common name, and name used in media to refer to the system is "Subway", most people here agree (only 4 disagree), what would be better than keeping it simple with "Toronto subway"? How about this, what if I print the subway map that is currently on this page, walk outside and ask people "what is this"? I am serious. If they call it the subway, then it's the subway. If they call it the "rapid transit" then so be it. If they call it the "Oh that's the Toronto subway, SRT, and future LRT" then well that's the name. This survey is exactly what is meant by WP:COMMON. I'll just walk to the nearest subway station and ask people. How many would I have to ask before you are satisfied that "subway" is indeed the common name? Yes, I am serious. Mattximus (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that even the system map used on this page calls it the "Toronto Subway"! After this discussion, I think it's clear that we should call it that. Only 4 people opposed with 12 participants, and their reasoning is largely that line 3 is not technically a subway, therefore we shouldn't call the whole system a subway. But this is against wiki policy stating that we use the common name, which is "subway". I don't think anyone here argues that the common name for the system is not the "subway". Nobody at all has argued that the term "Toronto rapid transit" is a common name, so it should be changed soon. As a compromise, we can mention in the first line that "the system contains 3 heavy rail lines and 1 light metro line". Mattximus (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

With seven supporting and four opposing, you have nothing that looks like consensus. Let's work together to find a new name that can get consensus instead of insisting on a change that does not have consensus. You do not have agreement that this is the common name, and you are ignoring the fact that, in addition to Line 3, this article also addresses Line 5, and no-one is calling that a subway now. Consensus is how pages get re-named, not continually insisting that you're right and others are wrong. Ground Zero | t 18:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear on what we are talking about. We are talking about this system only. Not individual lines, but the name of this system:

A map of the Toronto Subway/RT network.

We can't speak about line 5 until it is completed. This was mentioned above, we must avoid WP:CRYSTAL. In fact, by 2021 they might actually call the system "Toronto subway and LRT" which would make us all happy. For now, the common name for that image is Toronto Subway. As above ""Toronto subway" is so far and away the WP:COMMONNAME that it's not even funny". If you don't believe that is the common name (and you admit it certainly isn't "Toronto rapid transit"), what is the common name? What do people on the street call that system? This shouldn't be a discussion really, if it's not obvious already it fails WP:COMMON. Mattximus (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The article includes a reference to Line 5, so if it is re-named, that reference should be removed since there is no evidence that anyone is calling Line 5 a subway. There is also lots of evidence that people -like the mayor, the former mayor, and the residents of Scarborough - do not believe that the subway runs to Scarborough Town Centre, so "Toronto Subway" fails WP: COMMONNAME despite TTC branding. See WP: OFFICIALNAME. Ground Zero | t 22:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

But this isn't about what TTC calls the system – it's about what everyone else actually calls the system. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support – Paris Métro has extended overground segments, vastly different technologies depending on the line (iron wheels vs tyres, piloted vs automated, stations spaced 200 m or 2 km) and even a "funiculaire" which is completely disconnected. The whole system is still called the Métro, i.e. a subway. What's so special about Toronto that we should invent a name that doesn't look like it has significant real-world usage? Wikipedia follows usage, mustn't attempt to define it. — JFG ^talk 21:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, so like, Toronto isn't Paris. Let's not try to make all cities the same when they are not. Different circumstances warrant different names. Ground Zero | t 22:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see which particular circumstances would exempt the Toronto metropolitan mostly-underground rail transport network to escape the generic English name "subway" for such contraptions. Some editors above have pointed to Chicago, New York or Tokyo as well, I could add Moscow, Berlin or Montréal; they all have quirks and they all are called subways. Besides, locals have clearly expressed that they indeed call it the Toronto subway, including the surface lines upon which you base your argument. — JFG ^talk 00:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a very good point. If Ground Zero is to argue this, he should also argue that we rename the New York City Subway the New York City Rapid Transit since 39% of stations are above the surface. If you don't want to rename the New York System, why is Toronto different? Or why not go through every Metro system in Europe that uses 2 different technologies? Why should we make an exception for just Toronto? Mattximus (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't surprise anyone than usage may vary between cities, countries and continents. What may be appropriate in New Work and Paris may not be appropriate here. Two of the five lines discussed in this article are not called subways in common parlance - not by our mayors or by the residents of Scarborough, so it doesn't work in Toronto, anymore than calling it the Toronto Metro would, even though "metro" is used by many cities around the world. Consistency should not take precedence over common use. Ground Zero | t 14:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Consistency should not take precedence over common use." THANK YOU. The common used name of the system is not "Toronto Rapid Transit" or "Toronto Metro", the common name for the system is "Toronto subway". Mattximus (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - the last time we discussed this, it wasn't clear how the Eglinton line (LRT) would be presented. However, now we know that this will be called Line 5 Eglinton, and will be shown on subway maps, even though a good stretch of this LRT line runs on the surface, through road intersections. Also Line 3 is not subway either - it's the same technology as most of the Vancouver Skytrain lines. Proposed Lines 6 and 7 are also LRT, and unlike the Eglinton line, will be almost entirely on the surface, in the median of city streets, with no grade separation. This doesn't mean that the current name is the best choice, but the proposed name is even worse! Nfitz (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Just FYI, due to wikipedia's policies we cannot use the Eglinton line argument as a point of discussion since we do not know how the system will be named when it's open in 5 years. That would be crystal balling. We can, and should, use the common name of the system now and not what we guess the system will be named in 2021. It could be called the "Toronto subway and LRT" for all we know, but we can't speculate. Right now, it's unambiguous, the system is called the Toronto subway by everyone who uses it. Yes, one line isn't underground so that line is not a subway, but the system itself is without question, absolutely called the "Toronto subway" by locals. Wikipedia policy is very clear, we are to use the common name even if it's not the correct technical name. Mattximus (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Line 5 is being built now, as the article explains, and no-one is calling it a subway. Not the media, not the mayor. It is crystal-balling to say that it will be. Ground Zero | t 14:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. The policy is that we should not speculate on what the system will be called in 5 years. We don't know if it will be integrated completely like we have today, or if the LRT will be treated as a separate service like how streetcars are treated today. If you want to change wiki policy you must do that before changing this page. Remember this is the page about the system as a whole and the common name for it, not individual lines. As almost everyone here agrees, locals without question call [8] the "subway". Mattximus (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You continue to provide links to official TTC pages and claim that it represents the vox populi. This article covers more than the Subway System™. And the TTC's official branding is not at issue here. "As almost everyone here agrees," -- don't claim that you have consensus. Eight out of thirteen is not "almost everyone". Let's move on to finding a name that can get a consensus, which is Wikipedia policy on naming articles. Ground Zero | t

You agree that nobody calls it the "Toronto rapid transit", so the consensus is at least there. I (and the majority of people here) propose we call it "Toronto subway" since that's what I hear everybody call it and I live in the city. It's the common name used in casual conversation, media, and official sources. But you disagree because it's not technically correct. Ok, but you propose no alternative. If you don't want to call it the subway, what do you want to call it then? Mattximus (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I have written, which is never helpful in a discussion. I disagree because it is not the common name, and I have provided numerous references to the media and our mayors to show that. The next step is that an administrator, I hope, will put this circular debate out of our misery and close it. If he or she decides there is a consensus (because these things are not determined by majority vote) to move the article, it will be moved and I will accept the outcome. If the admin decides there is no consensus, then we can have a discussion about getting a better name since neither "Toronto Subway" nor "Toronto rapid transit" will achieve consensus. I have some ideas, but there is no point getting into them until this discussion is closed. Let's stick to one discussion at a time. Ground Zero | t 17:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I just realised something. You are trying to convince me, someone who lives here and uses the subway regularity, that people don't call it the subway. I promise you, they call it that on the street, on the CBC radio, and official sites. I feel like I'm in a madhouse, but, if you are so knowledgeable and know more than I do, please tell me if they don't call it a subway system then what do people call it? Mattximus (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Now you get it. You are in a madhouse! In Wikipedia, people can cause an imbalance in many discussions with their "logic" rather than facts and common sense. That doesn't make you crazy, but it sure as hell can feel that way. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I am also someone who lives here and takes the subway - Lines 1, 2 and 4 regularly. I also know that people in Scarborough don't call Line 3 the subway, and no one calls Line 5 a subway. They call it an LRT. The Star has an article this afternoon about further delays to Line 5, and calls it LRT. People talk generally about taking the TTC, but that wouldn't be a good name for the article since there is already an article with that name. Ground Zero | t 21:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, the article could end up merging with the main Toronto Transit Commission, just like Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, which is about both the transit agency and the subway/metro/rapid transit system. Yes, it would end up unwieldy. Note that I don't personally endorse this option, but we are here to form a consensus. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. So many words spilled here (not that I'm one to criticize), but WP:COMMONNAME still controls. WP:CONCISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE, too. Red Slash 05:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Basically this ticks all the boxes. Most importantly, WP:COMMONNAME. It ticks that. It also ticks the official name box; not that that's necessarily relevant, but it helps. I've read the opposing arguments, and am not particularly convinced. Line 3 is not subway we're told, because it's light metro. But wouldn't that preclude it from being considered rapid transit either? And more importantly, isn't it WP:OR to declare the whole system to be not a subway because we've decided one line is not, even when all other sources and people in Toronto do call the whole system the subway? All in all, I think this is a fairly open and shut case.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 2 September 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.

• Good grief, really? How far do people have their head's up their imagination. No one calls Line 3 a subway! What a joke. WP:COMMONNAME my ass. How many people who regularly ride the Line 4 "subway" actually had a say here? Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  I think you mean line 3. And this article isn't about line 3, it's about the name of the system. Mattximus (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, line 3 - oops. The name of the Line 1, 2, and 4 system is clearly subway. Line 3 is a different system. If you want an all encompassing name, it isn't subway. Someone has mistaken "corporate name" for "common name". Nfitz (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I must agree with Nfitz here. Not only is Line 3 not subway, the upcoming Line 5 also isn't subway, despite it having a substantial underground section. There's a good reason why Line 5 Eglinton and Eglinton West line are separate articles. If Line 5 were subway, then it would have merged with Eglinton West line a few years ago. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
      • It's surprising to see how far this misunderstanding has gone. The system is called the Toronto subway, not the Toronto rapid transit — its as simple as that. Any discrepancies over categorization of transport modes should be taken out of Wikipedia and perhaps into Toronto City Hall. I think it's best we close this argument once and for all here. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Toronto subway. 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/20080404001546/http://www.subwaynow.ca:80/ to http://www.subwaynow.ca/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505071539/http://www.vivanext.com:80/subways to http://www.vivanext.com/subways
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505080723/http://www.vivanext.com:80/light_rail to http://www.vivanext.com/light_rail

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 12:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight on Lower Bay Station

There are many long paragraphs talking about an abandoned station (only operated for a few months), which I don't think is weighted appropriately for a page about the whole subway system. There is another long multiple paragraph write up at Bay (TTC). I'm thinking of just removing the section from this page and linking with with a simple "There is one abandoned station, Lower Bay, which which was used for only six months in 1966." Would anyone be opposed to this? Any additional content can be migrated to the lower page page. Mattximus (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I must agree. The Toronto subway article shouldn't have too much detail about abandoned subway stations; much of the details belong in the respective articles, with only one or two sentences in the Toronto subway article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Also has my full agreement; those curious about this minor part of the system can go to the article that highlights it. Radagast (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we are in agreement, what do you think of the change? It was interesting in a trivia sort of way, but it was entirely unsourced anyway. Detail can go into the Lower Bay article itself. Mattximus (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I must agree. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

History reorganization

I reorganized the Toronto subway#History section by sub-topic. Previously, the section was dominated by a somewhat detailed Line 1 history. Histories for lines 3 and 4 as well as for minor events were buried in the Line 1 and Line 2 detail. Given the new "Timeline of openings" section, I would suggest that the details for lines 1 & 2 be moved and merged into their main articles. I grouped the 3 pre-existing incidents (2 from History and 1 from Operations and procedures) into the new "Major incidents" section referencing the article Toronto Transit Commission incidents which also covers these points. Perhaps, the "Timeline of openings", "General" and "Major incidents" sections should be merged. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Miscellaneous events

@Joeyconnick: Please see Talk:Toronto subway#History reorganization. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that the Toronto subway#History section needs a place to record miscellaneous events such as Presto and stop announcement implementations, where a contributor records a date and a brief description of the event, with details of the feature related to the event being described elsewhere. Traditionally, contributors record such events in the History section. Two suggestions are (1) create a "General" section for such events, or (2) modify the timeline table to allow all significant events, not just openings. Using the table would encourage brevity. Would you agree with one of these two solutions? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll comment below on the proposed "History" changes but I believe the two things you are referring to fit more properly into "Operations and procedures" (station announcements) and "Stations and features" (presence of Presto). The fact that both of these have some historical context doesn't mean they are primarily focused on the history of the entire system, so they don't belong under "History".

More generally, I think anytime one has the urge to create a "General" or "Miscellaneous" section, that's an indication the article's organization needs improving and that content can either be included under a broader subheading in prose without its own special section (which is where I put the Presto info, as it certainly doesn't warrant its own section but it is obviously related to "Stations and features") or we can give the information a more informative section heading (which was my approach with "Station announcements"). —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Split/merge line history

In Toronto subway#History, the descriptions of each subway line are of inconsistant quality. This proposal is to move usefull into from the Toronto subway article to the various line articles.

Specifically, the proposal is to split out the contents of five Toronto subway#History sections and merge their contents into various other existing articles:

• Merge Toronto subway#Early subway proposals into Line 1 Yonge–University#History. History on early proposals is not found in the Line 1 article. Most early proposals were north-south along or near Yonge Street.
• Merge Toronto subway#Yonge subway into Line 1 Yonge–University#History. History prior to the Yonge subway opening is found in the Toronto subway article but not in the Line 1 article.
• Merge Toronto subway#Bloor-Danforth subway into Line 2 Bloor-Danforth#History. The Line 2 article already has most if not all of the points found in the Toronto subway article.
• Merge Toronto subway#Scarborough RT into Line 3 Scarborough#History. The Line 3 article already has all of the points found in the Toronto subway article.
• Merge Toronto subway#Sheppard subway into Line 4 Sheppard#History. The Line 4 article appears to already have all of the points found in the Toronto subway article.

With the proposed split, the above sections in the Toronto subway article would be replaced by a short summary perhaps giving the rational for the line (e.g. streetcar line at capacity), and describing growth, if any. A main article tag would point to the appropriate line article.

Please comment as to whether you agree or disagree with this proposal. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick, Johnny Au, and Ground Zero: Please see Talk:Toronto subway#Split/merge line history. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How about creating the History of the Toronto subway article with more details and the main article having a brief summary? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Johnny Au. This main article is becoming rather full of trivia, for example, do we need to know that the subway stations have fire extinguishers? Or that if there is an emergency, the police are called? Both of those are lines in this article. Mattximus (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Effectively we have the contents of History of the Toronto subway in the History section of each of the line articles. The Toronto subway#History section could simply tie them all together via links.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if one unified "History of..." article is better or if moving the content to the individual line articles is. I definitely support moving most of the content out of this article, though, wherever it ends up. I would keep the table of openings (although without the "Timeline of openings" subheading) and then the suggestion of having one subheading per line with a very brief blurb sounds good. As it stands, the Scharborough RT and Sheppard subsections are pretty flimsy.

As for "Major incidents", I don't know how those 3 listed were chosen over everything at the main article (Toronto Transit Commission incidents). I would suggest a removal of that heading too and a prose introduction of the full page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So, may I proceed with the split/merge as I described above? At least the material would be better organized. And the summaries by subway line that I would write for the Toronto subway article will be brief, essentially summarizing a few key points from the line articles. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Go for it! Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The deed is done. History text for the Yonge subway was merged into Line 1 Yonge–University. The Line 2 Bloor–Danforth got only a minor tweak. There were no changes for the Line 3 & 4 articles. The Toronto subway#History has a new section Toronto subway#History by line with one-paragraph summary histories by line. I did not put any REFs in the summaries, as the info was drawn from the linked articles. Let me know if that's a problem. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Move public art section

Proposal

To split the public art section to another existing article.

I propose that the public art section in the Toronto subway article be moved to the article List of Toronto subway stations, positioning just before its "References" section. The public art section in Toronto subway is getting long and will get longer as new stations are opened and older ones are renovated. In the "List of Toronto subway stations" article, I would like to reorganize the info into a table and include one photo for each work of art from WikiCommons. Back in the main article, there would be a short blurb and a main-article tag to link to the article containing the new public art table.

Comments are welcome. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not a new expanded article? The list is a list, and should only be a list. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi... I picked a more appropriate notice and put it at the affected section. I was thinking the public art section was a little too specific to be in this article and, looking at the list article proposed as the destination, the info from the public art section seems like it would be a poor fit there.

I'm actually not sure there needs to be a list of these art works. That is, can't they just be mentioned in their respective station articles? Are there other similar lists for other transit systems?

But if people favour keeping a list somewhere, I definitely think there should be a separate one and that this content shouldn't be merged into List of Toronto subway stations. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears a new article is preferred. Would the title "Toronto subway station public art" be acceptable? (Presidents are Toronto subway rolling stock and Toronto subway signals.) TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the main article is "Toronto subway", perhaps we should simply make it "Toronto subway public art". Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, and would go with Secondarywaltz's proposed name. Ground Zero | t 00:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree with having a separate article for public art in the Toronto subway system. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Morning Glory" at Spadina (TTC)

In a few days we will have a new article: Toronto subway public art. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@TheTrolleyPole: If you need additional pictures, I can go on a photoshoot. Secondarywaltz (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There's plenty of unused photos of the Toronto subway system in the Commons, but many of them were taken a decade ago or so. A new photoshoot would be great. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 12:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to provide art photos. The existing photos from Spadina (TTC) clip the art; perhaps better photos can be taken. There are 5 panels on the mezzanine level of Bathurst (TTC); according to an email from the TTC, this is a permanent tribute to Honest Ed's; it has an commercial art look. After setting up the table, we may find other photo deficiencies. I created a "Toronto subway public art" category on Wikicommons. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

As per Spadina (TTC), there is a third artwork at the mezzanine level from the 2 Spadina Road entrance. The other 2 artworks are at the 85 Spadina Road entrance.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Commons don't even have photos of the totem poles in Spadina station where the bus bays and the main entrance are. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Secondarywaltz pointed out that category "Toronto subway public art" is a duplicate as "Art in the Toronto subway and RT" already exists. So I will use the latter only.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see any pages with that name... can you provide links? —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: It's located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Art_in_the_Toronto_subway_and_RT in Commons for the pictures. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but we're not talking about a Commons category, we're talking about an appropriate name for an article in Wikipedia, right? So the page will still be called Toronto subway public art, yes? —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

He tried to create a Category in Commons with the new title suggested in this discussion. I advised him that there was an existing category for the subject. You are correct, in that it has nothing to do with this discussion, and the category will be changed in Commons to match once the article is created here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

A draft of the new article is in User:TheTrolleyPole/sandbox for comment as to style. I suggest that no one edit the sandbox as I tend to do radical edits on it. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw that it became its own article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Implementation

The new article (Toronto subway public art) has been implemented. The list is incomplete, but we can add more stations to the table. I created two rows for the Don Mills artwork as both sections seem somewhat different in implementation. The art descriptions are brief leaving details to the station articles. I would have liked the table to be sortable on station, line, title and artist, but I couldn't quickly figure out how to do it. Help would be appreciated. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added the article to the TTC template, as well as the template itself in the article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Toronto subway. 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/20090815055809/http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/ttcxs to http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/ttcxs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017125915/http://www3.ttc.ca/Riding_the_TTC/Safety_and_Security/Security_features.jsp to http://www3.ttc.ca/Riding_the_TTC/Safety_and_Security/Security_features.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217053617/http://www3.ttc.ca/Riding_the_TTC/Safety_and_Security/What_to_do_in_an_emergency.jsp to http://www3.ttc.ca/Riding_the_TTC/Safety_and_Security/What_to_do_in_an_emergency.jsp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/09/03/new-subway-line-still-a-way-s-off-metrolinx-head-says.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724221238/http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects_and_initiatives/Spadina_subway_extension/index.jsp to http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects_and_initiatives/Spadina_subway_extension/index.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.subwaynow.ca/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vivanext.com/subways
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vivanext.com/light_rail

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) 05:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of stations under construction

@Blaixx and Mattximus: just wanted to point out that while 22 new stations (or stops) are going to be created by the Line 5 construction, it's not like Line 5 is going to use the existing station infrastructure at Eglinton West, Eglinton, and Kennedy—there is construction at those 3 stations to accommodate the LRT. So 25 stations really are "under construction", even if only 22 new entities will result. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's make a compromise. How about "25 stations under construction; 22 being entirely new"? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Johnny, where do you propose that be added to? –BLAIXX 02:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Joey, you bring up a good point of all stations/stops requiring construction. Are we in agreement that the lead table which shows the name, number of stations, and length should be 25 stations for Line 5? –BLAIXX 02:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm good with that, now that the title has been clarified. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the clarification is better. I just didn't like how it said 75 stations with 25 under construction. Which would sum to 100, however once it's done there will only be 97. Mattximus (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

platform info in station infoboxes

The vast majority of the Toronto subway station articles list the type of platform at the station: centre or side. A few listed a platform count as well (which was, unsurprisingly, nearly always "1 centre platform" or "2 side platforms"). I recently went through and removed the platform counts from the few articles that had them because they don't add any useful info for readers (since I think except at Sheppard–Yonge it's all "1 centre" or "2 side"), to be consistent with the other station articles, and because the documentation at {{Infobox station}} says "Information on the type of platform(s) at the station". RedProofHill123 has disagreed repeatedly (their latest is here). Said user even went so far as to edit the template documentation to bolster their spurious claim that their edits were supported by the documentation, which I think shows extremely bad faith. But anyway, instead of an edit war, I wanted to bring it up for discussion. I personally feel it's a redundant waste of effort and space to have dozens of articles that specify "1 centre platform" or "2 side platforms" when in nearly all cases that's already implied by "Centre platform" and "Side platforms". Thoughts? —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC) RedProofHill123 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC) But it makes sense because it makes sense. Not having it would make it confusing to people on how much there is in a station.

Is line 6 a bit preemptive?

Some people added that it is under construction, and it is not [9]. It could be cancelled (especially with the recent election), so it seems to run afoul of WIKIPEDIA:BALL. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Line 6 also, no matter how badly some people want to make it happen, is not definitely not a "subway". It's planned to be surface light rail.Echoedmyron (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right, lines 5 and 6 will not be subways but they will be part of the "Toronto Subway" system just like Line 3 Scarborough. BLAIXX 18:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Its termini will be underground, and it will be on the subway map. The TTC considers it part of the subway, thus it falls under this article. Radagast (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that the TTC calls it part of the "Toronto Subway" even though it's not a subway (for the most part), are we sure it's actually going to be built? Mattximus (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If it's not being built, and some have claimed it is, that should definitely be corrected. Given this is Toronto, I would support removing references to it (except as a proposed future line) until shovels hit the ground (and as we know from the Mike Harris era *coughEglinton Westcough*, even shovels in the ground doesn't guarantee transit in Toronto will get built). —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It is still proposed. Being under construction does not mean that it's going to be completed. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Add a section on the Relief Line?

Should the relief line be included here given that it is approved?121.200.57.84 (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It could be cancelled at any minute. I don't think we should include any line that is not under construction. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mattximus (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)