Talk:Flexity Outlook (Toronto)

Route status info
User:PollardKay has added route status info (current bus substitutions, construction projects, streetcar route suspensions) to the Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar) table. Route status is unrelated to the Flexity rollout. Thus, in my opinion, the rollout table should show only the first date(s) the Flexity was scheduled for service on a route. Route status belongs better in the Toronto streetcar system table and in the individual route articles. I propose that route status be removed from the Rollout table. Please comment on contents of Flexity rollout table. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, Peter Horn User talk 16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've lost count of the hours I've spent fixing unsourced, poorly sourced, and/or terribly formatted edits submitted by that particular user. The rollout table should only show rollout-related info as you've mentioned, . —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that his creativity is overwhelming us. Besides removing the route status info, I also restored the entry for 514 Cherry that he deleted in January. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Move request: Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar) to Bombardier Flexity Outlook (Toronto)
I made the request to be consistent with the other articles pertaining to the Flexity family of LRVs as mentioned in Template:Flexity. Given that the redirect has been created and cut-and-paste moves are inadvisable as edit history isn't transferred, I am asking for consensus first. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can just page-swap it if necessary... it seems like a bit of a mouthful, though. I would think the common name is "Flexity Outlook" or "Toronto Flexity Outlook", so adding "Bombardier" to it seems like it might be overkill? Really all the existing articles should not have "Bombardier" as per WP:CONCISE—I'm assuming here there's no other use of "Flexity" (apparently there's a MV Flexity but that's different enough). So unless there's evidence that the common name includes the "Bombardier" tag... —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have continued this discussion at Talk:Bombardier Flexity to form a better consensus. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

shortening most Bombardier vehicle article names
(of relevance to ): I've excised the "Bombardier" tag on most of the articles in, per WP:CRITERIA, since the names without the cumbersome repetition of "Bombardier" are recognizable, natural, precise, and – especially – more concise. There's also a WP:PROMO aspect that is addressed by only including "Bombardier" when it's necessary to distinguish from ambiguous names (like T2000 or the general family, Flexity Outlook, from a variant model, like Toronto's Flexity Outlooks). —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Operational history versus Rollout versus Delivery
Hi all -

Chronologically speaking, the article is a bit of a mix. The protracted delivery delays (potential TMI, dunno) are a really long section of the article, with bits of service information (opening of Leslie Barns, introduction of first streetcars, withdrawal of CLRVs and ALRVs) mixed in. I started to combine the rollout section into the operational history section, but curious to your thoughts about this, because I kinda started and then decided it was too much work / too much of a big change all at once.

Frustratingly, the protracted delivery delays mean that a simple structure of Background, contract award, construction, entry into service - doesn't really work here. Is it better to have a specific delivery delays section below a history section? Or combined? What do you think?

As an aside, it is worth pointing out that when the cold weather froze out the CLRVs and ALRVs in January 2019, the Flexity fleet was not as badly affected? Didn't see it in the article anywhere. Turini2 (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)