Talk:King station (Toronto)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King (TTC). 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/20141204204305/http://www.tconnect.ca/stations.php to http://www.tconnect.ca/stations.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

recent move
I feel the fact that you described King station in Toronto as "arguably" not the primary topic for King station, plus the fact that King station (disambiguation) didn't exist until you made the undiscussed page move is a pretty clear indication you should have opened a WP:RM before making this particular change. When I went to the newly minted disambiguation page, I was sure I would find out about other "King station" articles that I just hadn't known about. I was pretty surprised that, despite the long list of stations you seem to think may be referred to as "King station" informally, there was literally no other station article for any station named "King".

I think next time it would be best to be a little less BOLD and do a little more consultation/consensus building. This seems like a classic example of a solution looking for a (non-existent) problem. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Trial route change
The TTC has made a "trial route change", of undefined length of time, to each of routes 502, 503 and soon 141-145. These routes are listed via a table in the articles King station (Toronto), Queen station, St. Andrew station, Osgoode station as well as King Street Transit Priority Corridor. The trial change may ultimately be made permanent or cancelled. So how should we handle the trial period with respect to the above 5 artcles? Possibilities are (1) ignore the trial and don't modify the articles, (2) do not modify the tables but add a footnote about the trial, (3) modify the tables to reflect the trial and add a footnote, (4) same as 3 but omit the footnote. I prefer 2 for the station losing the connecting service and 3 for the station gaining the connecting service. What should be the policy? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I couldn't check your source as Internet Archive wasn't working earlier. Uhm... I think your approach sounds fine. Weird they haven't even given a ballpark for the length of the trials. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the task exactly as described above. Footnotes were used only in the corridor table; in other articles, trial periods for 502/503 were briefly described in the table. Table entries for 141-145 were commented out in the Queen and Osgoode articles so that they can be easily reinstated if the trial is revoked. Routes 141-145 were added to the St. Andrew article without comment as St. Andrew also served the old routing as well as the new. (Adelaide Street is only one block north of King.) TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)