Template talk:TTC lines and stations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Toronto / Communities (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Toronto.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.
WikiProject Trains / Streetcars / Rapid transit (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Is it appropriate to include proposed future stations in the template? (specifically on the Sheppard line) It seems misleading/confusing to me. TheHYPO 11:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I'm not really sure why proposed stations are a) shown at all, or b) shown just on the Sheppard line and not on the others. I'd say remove them. –Dvandersluis 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the colour is what screws it up. The stations DO seem to be italicized if they are not open, but a) that isn't explained anywhere, and the fact that there are so many colours messes things up because noone made articles for the Sheppard stations so they are red, but the University line stations have articles, so they are blue. Then all the transfer stops are the colour of the line they swap with, but other stations are left the default colour (blue). It's confusing. Maybe not for me, someone who uses the TTC and knows the system, but I'm less likely to be looking this stuff up than someone who doesn't know the system. TheHYPO 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even realize that there were other proposed stations, or that they were listed in italics (and I am an often TTC passenger, for what it's worth). The fact that the ones on the Sheppard Line don't have articles highlights those links, of course. I don't know about anyone else, but to me the template is very busy (colour-wise), which the extra red links doesn't help. Perhaps the template needs a legend type thing? –Dvandersluis 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone's gone as far as including the now-scrapped Eglinton line, which may some day be resurrected, but is not anywhere on the radar right now. As the section is just redlinks, I'm taking it out. Radagast 18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This template is way out of control. Some of the stations are just in fantasyland. The Sheppard extension is a one-day maybe. The Scarborough RT extension is just an idea. The BD extension to Scarborough isn't even in anyone's plans. This template should be limited to existing, and perhaps Spadina extension stations, where there is some serious planning underway. Also, I don't know why the Yonge/Spadina subway is broken into 3 different sections - waste of space and confusing. Anyone objecting to me fixing all this? Nfitz 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the Yonge split, since it's a U-shape and is therefore hard to organize in a way that is self-evident. I don't have a problem killing extensions. If you want to be inclusive, you could have a 'proposed stations' section for existing articles on proposed stations such as the sheppard line. TheHYPO 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just fine with getting rid of the extensions that aren't planned to be built in the near future (re: everything but the Spadina extension). Suigi 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I killed the Bloor fantasy stations. This template should be limited to existing stations or stations that are actually being planned / built. --Vgedris 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That would get rid of a lot of others too. I figure everything should be gone, except existing, and the Spadina extension stations that the government appears to be serious about (though I wouldn't be surprised if they never get built ....) Nfitz 19:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Love the template, made a few minor changes, but wanted to check - personally I'd like to see the coloured boxes aligned to the left of the station's name indicating their transfer points. essentially (pink box)Sheppard-Yonge(washroom)(handicap). Thoughts? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the text for the Sheppard line is magenta, though many would consider it pink. In fact, the subway line is represented with a plum colour. Johnny Au (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone want to change the text for the Sheppard line to be plum-coloured rather than magenta? Johnny Au (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

HR lines[edit]

Definitely necessary in the template, please stop removing them - it makes the lists run together and makes it difficult for readers to distinguish which station is on which line. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Streetcar connections?[edit]

Someone recently added little boxes next to the stations which have streetcar connections similar to the ones representing interchange stations for the 4 rapid transit lines.

I reverted the edit as in my personal opinion these additional link boxes make the template look cluttered, it also does not really provide anymore useful information as the boxes all link to the Toronto Streetcar System article. (Perhaps if the boxes were linked to the specific streetcar route that serves each station it may be slightly more useful) ... however even that would be rather redundant.

The editor who added the boxes reverted my revert, so i pose the question here as to how we should proceed with the template... Thoughts? Ideas? Objections to reverting it back to what it was before?

eja2k 03:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No big deal. I don't like a cluttered Navbox either, but with all the other icons there, this has minimal impact. It does serve a purpose in that I can now easily pick out stations with streetcar connections. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Except that its not even a complete list - what of King, Queen, Dundas, College, St Andrew, Ossgoode, St. Patrick, Queen's Park they are also serviced by streetcars but do not have the icon. There is really no need to do it like this and if there is then at least link the red box with the actual streetcar route article instead of the main streetcar system article - at least that way it will provide some use.
eja2k 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Streetcars do not enter those stations you have listed. As I said - no big deal. Delete all of the connecting links if you wish, because the information is detailed in each station article, as long as you leave the accessible and washroom icons. When you are viewing an article the station name is bolded for every line it is on, making those little boxes redundant. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Line numbers and names[edit]

TTC is not phasing out names they introduce showing numbers too. Only the one station has a makeover to trial show that thing at Bloor-Yonge. Martin Morin (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why User:Flynn58 wants to change the names to something that has not been implemented beyond one trial station. The Toronto Transit Commission has only started to use both. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not a trial. It's a rollout. They started rolling it out a Bloor-Yonge. The only thing up for change is the signs, not the actual new names. And like I said previously, the numbers are in use when announcements are made over the system. I'm trying to change the names to reflect that they now have new names. --Flynn58 (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Example at Sheppard-Yonge station, where the sign says "Yonge-University-Spadina Subway". These are unchanged!
Nobody knows those numbers yet, and I think that regular subway riders are more familiar with the yellow and green colour coding than the line numbers 1 and 2. Currently the only station where updated signage has been implemented is at Bloor-Yonge, and the next one is going to be St. George. You say above "They started rolling it out", and I agree that eventually everything will probably be changed. But for now, as you say, it's only the start. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Eglinton Line[edit]

  • At some point we should consider adding Eglinton Crosstown line TTC - Line 5.svg stations to this template. I noticed today a very reasonable Mount Dennis LRT station article. Construction of this line is now well underway, with construction sites on Eglinton from Keele to past Brentcliffe, and the first pair of TBMs more than half-way through their first run from Black Creek to Eglinton West. Tendering for the contract for construction of most of the stations and stops has been underway since late 2013, and should be awarded later this year. With the re-election of the current provincial government and none of the mayoral candidates (even the ones on crack) opposing the project, it's completion is virtually assured.
  • I was looking back at what we did in the past. Some of the Spadina extension stations have been in this template since 2005. We had a discussion above in 2006, and set the criteria at stations under construction or planned to be built in the near future. Based on that discussion, it would seem appropriate at this time to add at least Mount Dennis to the template, for which an article exists.
  • Where this get's tricky though, is the Eglinton line is a bit of a hybrid. The terminology that TTC and Metrolinx has been using, is to refer to the 15 underground stations (Mount Dennis to Laird, Don Mills, and Kennedy) as "stations", and the 10 surface stops (Leslie and Ferrand to Ionview) where there would merely be some concrete in the middle of the road as "stops". It seems clear that there would be articles for the 15 underground "stations" and that they should be in the template, however I'm less clear what happens for the "stops". This is further complicated by the Finch West line TTC - SE.svg tendering only being about a year behind Eglinton, with the plan to actually open the Finch line as early as 2019; however this line would consist of only surface "stops" with a single underground station at the existing Finch West station.
  • I'd think that given this template is for "stations" and not "stops" that we'd only include the 15 Eglinton line stations, but not the 10 stops, and ignore the Finch line altogether. However this contrasts with the Exhibition Loop inclusion here. It also could create confusion for travellers.
  • Before starting any edits, I thought it would be worth discussing here. Nfitz (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not here. The Eglinton Crosstown line article is the correct place to discuss whether to create articles for the stations on that line. You have it backwards. If they exist they will be added to this template. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting creating any new articles at this moment. I'm suggesting adding (and perhaps more fundamentally how we add) the article for Mount Dennis LRT station that was created last year, but has not yet been added to this template. I don't think that stations for which articles don't exist should be added to the template. Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. You said "we'd only include the 15 Eglinton line stations" and I thought that you meant exactly that. It is quicker to create a section for the Eglinton Crosstown and include the existing subway stations than to have a protracted discussion. Done! Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately it would would presumably be the 15 stations. I thought best to hash out what to do with stations versus stops before we get to that point. Particularly as the non-station Exhibition Loop is included in the template. Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Exhibition was historic streetcar terminus "station" before subways. Could be improved with better history. I have not time to do it. Martin Morin (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Surface stops: different indication?[edit]

I see that the Eglinton surface stops are now listed. I don't have an objection to this per se, but I feel some way of differentiating them from full, grade-separated stations may be in order. An extra symbol? reduced point size? something else? Radagast (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a Navbox, and details are in the articles. It is already getting overstuffed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Washrooms and Accessibility[edit]

Do we really need these symbols? Streetcar and subway connections are acceptable to me, but all the accessibility and washroom symbols really clutter the navbox IMO. --Natural RX 22:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed wheelchair symbols where the entire line is accessible. Let's discuss the others. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've looked around, and I have failed to find other navboxes for rapid transit systems with accessibility/washroom symbols in them. These are small details that can be found in the article infobox or body. WP:NAV also states "Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative", and that "There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles". I'm failing to see a reason that accessibility and washroom symbols have such justification. --Natural RX 22:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh I agree! We have had no other feedback, so be bold and take out the garbage :) Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
So...in light of the insane overloading Secondarywaltz reverted, would we want to consider removing all symbols adjacent to station names. All of these symbols and their links are on the left side anyway. Yeah, it's nice to denote connections but this is a navbox, not a route template. --Natural RX 17:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think showing TTC subway line interchanges is valid and generally shown in subway/metro navboxes. The previous stuffing was out of line, and so that would leave streetcar connections as questionable. Each station article shows which specific streetcar routes connect there, rather than this generic link. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Took a look at subway/metro navboxes in the US, to see how they laid it out, turns out none of them have inline transfer symbols beside stations, or they don't list stations at all. See {{Washington Metro}}, {{New York City Subway}}, {{MTA Maryland}}, {{Bay Area Rapid Transit}}, {{Chicago L}}. In fact, I just realized they are just like {{Toronto Transit Commission}} and these systems don't have a separate navbox for lines and stations. --Natural RX 13:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)