Talk:Trillium Line/Archive 1

11 October 2005
I tried to balance out the article a bit with some criticism and mention of the pollution under the current track. Sorry, I like the O-train, but it read a bit too much like a City of Ottawa fluff piece. -Dan Carkner 04:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Expansion controversies section
The expansion controversies section is really getting long. I'm wondering if a separate article should be required for just that, because, there will be more developments in the upcoming weeks.--JForget 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This section needs some cleaning up. I don't have time now, but will have a look later. Cas510 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could wait after all the recent drama ends - and it adds pretty much every day since O'Brien is in office (I've added yet more drama today and maybe more by the end of the week).. If I have a chance, although not now, I could either do some copyedit or just simply put the info in a separate article--Booyah! 22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Grammar
Using the past conditional (e.g., "would have") implies the expansion project has been canceled (or at least is in doubt). If such is not the case, then the simple tenses of the verbs in the section should be used instead. 207.69.138.13 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

please explain more fully...
The article currently states: So, what is a "plug-type doorway"?

Cheers! Geo Swan 23:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Plug doors are doors which plug the entire doorway; in order to open, they first move slightly outwards, and then slide along the outside of the carriage, rather than simply sliding into the walls as conventional doors do. They’ve become increasingly common on main-line stock since the early 1980s, because they fully seal the carriage, making for better heating and air conditioning. The second sentence refers to the fact that each door only opens when you push the ‘open door’ button, rather than having all sets of doors open automatically as Toronto, Vancouver, and (I believe) Montréal do. David Arthur 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Light vs. Heavy Rail
It's my understanding the O-Train, in its current form, is not "light" but actually "heavy" rail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjottawa (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Afraid not... to be "heavy" it would have to meet the Canadian version of the US FTA crash worthiness requirements (i.e. they're essentially the same). The vehicles fill a role in Europe that is referred to as a "regional train" or a "suburban train", but such intermediate forms do not exist as concepts in North America, hence anything that isn't heavy is light. D P J (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Propose moving to "O-Train"

 * 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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa O-Train → O-Train — O-Train is unique, requiring no disambiguation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - As the nominator. There is no need to include "Ottawa" as a disambiguation - it is unique. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment since there's a hatnote on this article, I would say that statement is wrong. Though I do agree, it's probably primary usage. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The disambiguation is dealt with perfectly well by the hatnote.  This is clearly the primary topic.  Skinsmoke (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear primary usage; the official name does not have "Ottawa" in it.  --RFBailey (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. The only use of "Ottawa" is to disambiguate, which is covered by the hatnote. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:28, 21 April 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.

Proposed public transportation in Canada
I added the category "Proposed public transportation in Canada" to the article. The edit was reverted with the explanation "it exists". Well of course it exists. But it exists in pilot project form. The future of the O-train is still a series of proposals and with the upcoming municipal elections the future is yet to be seen. Therefor the category "Proposed public transportation in Canada" is justifiable. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur; the new phase is also only discussed at any length here, so readers coming from the category should be able to find it that way. Radagast (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This can be done with a redirect to the relevant section of this article, that could be given the Category:Proposed public transportation in Canada. This would probably require you to organize the article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not needed. The entire article deals with the proposals. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bombardier Talent its not a light rail, and that system is not light rail system. 78.50.236.224 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussed 4 years ago, above. Radagast (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Official confirmation of Confederation, Trillium lines, and expansion of O-Train to the system.
Based on a CBC report, Ottawa's city council have approved renaming the two-line system the "O-Train", with "Confederation Line" being the line 1, and the original north-south O-Train becoming the "Trillium Line" (line 2).

Consequently, this specific article needs to be changed to "Trillium Line", and a new O-Train page started to incorporate both this and the Confederation Line.

CBC News (17 Sept 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.134.231 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Trillium Line
Should the information about the current line be split into a "Trillium Line" article and the system information retained? According to recent updates to the artice, that is what it is now going to be called. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bit soon to make that move, seeing as the official name hasn't yet changed. I think the move should happen eventually, but I'd do it when they officially refer to "Trillium Line" and "Confederation Line" as separate entities on maps, etc. My 2¢. ~Sp K 01:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I raised the subject for discussion before someone boldly makes the move. I agree that it may be too soon to do the rebranding. We should, however, give some consideration to streamlining the article in anticipation of the time that the split does happen and OC Transpo starts using the name. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is too soon to make this official. a good time to make the move would be when Octranspo.com starts making the distinction. if someone visited ottawa today they would have a very hard time finding the trillium line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.34.100 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's what I think: A much simpler solution is simply to 'move' this article to Trillium Line (while keeping O-Train as a redirect to Trillium Line in the near-term, at least) and update the article text for the new name, while keeping any explanations about the former "O-Train" name. Then, in the future, the former "O-Train" page can be converted from a 'redirect' into a separate article on the entire system. So, that's not exactly an article "split", though I suppose it achieves the same aims... --IJBall (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle, but I believe it's still too early for that. Once we get closer to the opening of the Confederation line and the two lines become discussed by their individual names by major outside sources (official website, media, etc) then we should proceed. Radagast (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, agreed – I don't think I'd even contemplate doing any of that until either: 1) the O-Train is "officially" renamed the "Trillium Line" (e.g. on station signage, and such), or 2) the Confederation Line actually opens for service. As I don't expect #1 to happen before #2, we are a ways off from doing anything on this front... --IJBall (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As of March 2nd 2015 OCTranspo has officially begun referring to "expanded o-train trillium line service" with branding for the Trillium Line that is distinct from the O-Train's branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.34.100 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the fact that signage for the o-train has changed and all bus announcements now refer to it as "o-train, Trillium Line" for intersecting stops, it may be time to revisit the possibility of creating an o-train page that includes the Confederation Line as an under construction line and the Trillium Line as the operational line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btprep (talk • contribs) 11:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the best solution. Official documents call the system "O-train" with 2 lines called Trillium and Confederation as shown. here ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs) 15:47, June 18, 2015‎ (UTC)

Split to O-Train
I moved the page to Trillium Line, so now we need to create a new article at O-Train describing the light rail system as a whole. Links must be updated before that, of course. Conifer (talk ) 06:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What links need to be updated creating the article? Would the new article not replace one of the redirect pages? It seems that roughly half of the sections in today's Trillium Line article should be moved to the new O-Train article as these sections would pertain to the network as a whole (e.g. sections on the political flip-flops on LRT expansion). Perhaps we should copy all of the Trillium Line text over to the O-Train page and then delete unwanted duplication? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine there will be three articles: one at O-Train describing the history and system as a whole, one at Trillium Line describing the DMU service, and one at Confederation Line describing the light rail service. The important matter is preserving page histories for attribution. Depending on whether there's more material on the current page that should go at the first or second article, we should move this page to that location and then split out the remaining content. Conifer (talk ) 02:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles mentioning O-Train
The following articles have links to the Trillium Line article: Special:WhatLinksHere/Trillium_Line&hideredirs=1 TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

There may be more articles that should be changed but they will be very tedious to find as the search tools give many false hits. I am not searching any further. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you tried using Special:WhatLinksHere/Trillium Line? It will show you all the pages that link to Trillium Line, including redirects like O-Train. Conifer (talk ) 22:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The WhatLinkdHere utility generates many false hits; about 95% are false many completely unrelated to the article being searched. I have been using Special:WhatLinksHere/O-Train in order to find references to the O-Train article; it produces over 500 entries almost all of them are false. Many, but not all, of the "false" hits do not reference "O-Train" directly but via an embedded template. I'll ask the Wikipedia help service if there is a way to exclude these. I would like to keep the list of converted articles above as it excludes the many false hits that Special:WhatLinksHere/Trillium Line produces. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could temporarily remove the link from the template just to find the remaining articles, then change it back once you were done. Doubtful that anyone would mind. Conifer (talk ) 17:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I found that adding "hideredirs=1" to your suggested link (thus: [Special:WhatLinksHere/Trillium_Line&hideredirs=1]) eliminates virtually all false hits from the Trillium Line search. So I erased my manual list above. However, Special:WhatLinksHere/O-Train&limit=500&hideredirs=1 still produces hundreds of false hits, so I will keep in mind your other suggestion about temporarily modifying the templates. There is more than one involved. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have converted over 100 articles referencing O-Train and I believe that I have changed all that should be changed. Also, in many articles I removed all but 3 section header links, many of them broken, from various articles about politicians. The remaining 3 section header links are identified by comments on the section title line within the Trillium Line article. So, are we ready to split? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be good to go. Thanks for doing this work. Conifer (talk ) 21:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are 4 section titles in the Trillium Line article that are linked from other articles. They are:
 * Trillium Line: Yes the section name is identical to the article name. The link from Ottawa Rapid Transit assumes that this section remains in the Trillium Line article.
 * Early extension plans: This link from OC Transpo assumes that this section will be moved to the O-Train article.
 * Expansion of existing line: This link from OC Transpo assumes that this section will be moved to the Trillium Line article. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fleet: This link from OC Transpo assumes that this section remains in the Trillium Line article.
 * TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Tip: Searching for O-Train
A problem with WhatLinksHere to search for references to the article O-Train is that the utility displays hundreds of unwanted hits because over 500 articles use a template that references O-Train. The following link eliminates that problem producing very few unwanted hits. It came from the Wikipedia Help-Me service.

Search for "O-Train" as text

We should permanently retain this tip in the Talk page for the new O-Train article.

TheTrolleyPole (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I found that using Ottawa O-Train in templates only and O-Train in articles only solves the problem of excessive hits when using WhatLinksHere for "O-Train". Thus, the following command gives the desired results for O-Train with a little over 100 hits:
 * Special:WhatLinksHere/O-Train&hideredirs=1
 * TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Continuing the split

 * Why don't you write an article for O-Train rather than redirecting it to the one line? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Continuing the split - Plan A

 * The Help Desk did not like Plan A (below); therefore, it is canceled. I am now researching a Plan B. Details are in my Talk page. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that about half of the text of the existing Trillium Line article belongs in a new O-Train article especially the section Early extension plans. My suggestion was to duplicate all the Trillium Line text into the O-Train redirect and then delete or edit the duplication. I have researched the links to do such a split. I could do that if you wish. Would User:Secondarywaltz and User:Conifer agree to that? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have liked to help you with that, but I just don't have any time at the moment. The only contibution I can make is to do some checks on your edits. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See for logos. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can do the whole task myself. All I want is "editorial" approval for the split plan I described above. The first steps would be:
 * Copy the Trillium Line text to the O-Train page replacing its redirect.
 * Change the Ottawa O-Train redirect to point to O-Train instead of Trllium Line.
 * Change the introductions for both articles.
 * Then as time permits I will edit or delete the duplication. For this last step, does anyone need to know my intentions in advance?
 * TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S.: It would be helpful if someone could lock both articles for maintenance, at least against unregistered (IP address) contributors. I don't know how to do that or whether I can. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about splitting an article like this. You should ask the Wikipedia:Help desk. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Only administrators can protect pages, but unless there's ongoing vandalism (of which I see no evidence), the article will not be (semi-)protected. The volume of edits is so low that I see no issue of interference by IP edits. Huon (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The instructions at WP:SPLIT are pretty straightforward. The main point is to have proper attribution when you split the page, and it explains how to do that. Conifer (talk ) 02:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Continuing the split - Plan B
On the advice of the Help Desk, I will draft a new O-Train article in my sandbox extracting some sections of text from article Trillium Line. According to the Help Desk, I must give the extracted sections "attribution". After I have completed the draft, the Help Desk would install the draft to replace the current redirect in the O-Train page.

I have cataloged the sections in the Trillium Line article below to show my intentions:
 * 0 (introduction) - Move only the paragraph describing the origin of the O-Train name to O-Train.
 * 1 Pilot project - Stays in Trillium Line but add a brief overview in O-Train.
 * 2 Trillium Line - Stays in Trillium Line but add a brief overview in O-Train.
 * 3 Early extension plans - Move to O-Train and replace by brief overview in Trillium Line. This very long section is almost half of the current Trillium Line article. It describes the cancelled north-south LRT proposal plus the process that resulted in the Confederation Line project. Technical consideration: Other articles, via links, expect this section to be in the O-Train article.
 * 4 Expansion plan - Stays in Trillium Line but with the reference to the Conderation Line deleted; the O-Train article will have an appropriate section containing a brief overview of both lines.
 * 5 Fleet - Stays in Trillium Line
 * 6 Facilities - Stays in Trillium Line
 * 7 See also - applies to both articles with little modification
 * 8 References - No REF commands are coded in this section.
 * 9 External links - Stays in Trillium Line

I will not change the Trillium Line article until the new O-Train article is installed.

If anyone has any concerns, please let me know. It may take several days to complete the draft. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The draft of the new O-Train article is in: User:TheTrolleyPole/O-Train. The revision history with "attribution" as well as the content are ready to become an article unless someone wants further revision. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The draft was installed and redirect Ottawa O-Train now points to the new O-Train article. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Touch-up work was completed on the Trillium Line article to reflect the split.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice job you did there. --Voyager (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)