Template talk:GO Transit

Removal of Niagara Branch
I have removed the Niagara service as its own sub-group, because it can be thought of as an extension with the James Street North station to be completed, it repeated information included in the line above, and the footnote now points to a separate section in the Lakeshore West article to explain excursion service. I also put York University and Downsview Park together since the former will be abandoned when the latter is completed, if you have a better idea on how to emphasize it, go for it. -- Natural  R X 16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Niagara Region service announcement
Casablanca GO Station, a new station on Casablanca Boulevard in Grimsby. I'm just repeating the confirmation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't state that it'll be named "Casablanca", only that it's located at Casablanca Boulevard in Grimsby. (For comparison, the current carpool lot on Casablanca Boulevard is referred to as Grimsby Carpool Lot.) I think the more generic "Grimsby GO Station" is more appropriate until we have more information about the name that will be used. Mind  matrix  16:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What's really missing is a more definitive source/map to give the stations and the corridor proper names. I would agree with Mindmatrix that Grinsby is more appropriate (as it would match how it is worded in reference to VIA stations), but hopefully a better source can make things more definitive. -- Natural  R X 20:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a site map somewhere. I didn't just make up that name. My computer access is limited, so I need your cooperation in searching back among older references. Perhaps in relation to Confederation GO Station and general expansion of the Niagara service. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick search, and all recent sources I've seen indicate Grimsby Go Station. For example: Bentley welcomes GO announcement (June 2016), Ontario green lights GO train service to Niagara by 2021 (June 2016), Niagara GO Rail Service Expansion Study (April 2015 - sometimes uses "Grimsby (Casablanca) Station"). Moreover, Go Transit/Metrolinx don't usually name stations after streets, and most that seemingly are named after streets are actually named for the community (eg - Langstaff, Bronte; one exception may be Eglinton, which may named after the street or the community). The only source I've found for "Casablance GO Station" is a PDF (portion of document) from the township of West Lincoln. Other sources say "Casablanca station in Grimsby", though it doesn't appear to be using the station name, just stating its location. I'll update the template to Grimsby, though we can always change it back if we find more reliable refs. Mind  matrix  15:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the link that I had to the GO Transit plans for the station has been removed. See http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/weblog/2010/12/12-go_propose.shtml Although Metrolinx has a policy of not giving conflicting names to stations, "Grimsby" gives a better indication as to the destination. 17:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Union Pearson Express
Should Union Pearson Express really be in this template? My understanding is that it's a separate operating division under Metrolinx, much as GO Transit is. Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was originally separate but they found that it was more convenient to integrate the service with GO Transit. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The situation is confusing. Our own articles contradict that (see Metrolinx and Union Pearson Express); the UPE website doesn't mention GO Transit, and the GO Transit system map shows UPE, but in a manner which suggests a separate service (asterisk about fares, separate symbols). It doesn't appear to be in the GO Transit trip planner either. I do think for ease of use this template should show all the heavy rail services in the Toronto area, but it might need to be re-titled. Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * you say "GO Transit system map shows UPE" which verifies that it is part of the GO Transit system. Don't waste your time picking at this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think one can say that with any degree of confidence, but I'll let it drop. Note that the article space contradicts this assertion. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll chime in and say that GO Transit and UPX are both 'operations' of Metrolinx; they were lumped together after the president of UPX (standalone) resigned. As for having separate navboxes, I think I originally made the separate one, and was in support of leaving it. But someone merged them after the internal shakeup, and I pick my hills to die on. -- Natural  R X  13:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Template change
My recent edit avoids direct calls to and. is replacing s-line; the new generic templates I used support both traditional s-line templates and the newer Adjacent stations LUA modules. There should be no change in output, but the template is future-proofed. Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll self revert then. Just out of curiosity, why is s-rail being phased out? Is it just to consolidate templates; so each transport system doesn't require 4 unique templates? Was there a discussion that lead to the creation of this new module that you could link me to? Thanks for your comment. BLAIXX 12:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, consolidating four (plus however many sub-templates of s-line a system might have) into a single LUA module. I think most of the relevant discussion is at Template talk:Adjacent stations. I was skeptical at first, but I've found that it's pretty easy to work with and improves on s-rail in a number of ways. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Closed/cancelled stations
User 50.101.95.191 deleted from the Barrie line template entry after the station closed. However, the cancelled, proposed Lawrence–Kennedy GO Station still appears for the Stouffville line. The questions are: Please comment. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) How should we present closed and cancelled stations in the template? The dagger represents a new station, a double dagger a pilot station; thus, what symbol should we use for a closed or cancelled station?
 * 2) The York University GO Station still references the template. Is there a rule that says one cannot delete a template link to an article that uses that template?
 * Maybe those stations could be added to a new row? Adding a third symbol might get confusing? As for point 2, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states that every article that contains a navbox should generally appear as a link in that navbox. BLAIXX 23:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, we change the meanings of the daggers. A single dagger (death symbol) would mean a former station including a formerly proposed station. Double dagger would still mean a pilot station. Name in italics means a proposed station regardless of whether the proposal is active or cancelled. With this suggestion, stations are still listed in geographical order. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * rejected suggestion: † denotes a former station; ‡ denotes pilot service; name in italics denotes a future station
 * Proposed stations that have been cancelled should not be included... closed stations ought to be separated out. Or better yet, a separate template with cancelled and closed stations, this one with active and future (future possible, not proposed but then cancelled). So basically (or something like that). As Blaixx mentions, too many different designations in one navbox is going to get confusing fast.
 * Also, italics alone is not enough to designate a separate status, because that's a style-only alteration and fails WP:ACCESS, so we couldn't use italics on its own to denote future stations.
 * As for WP:BIDI, I'm seeing a lot of pushback to the "include every navbox that links to an article", at least in the film & TV space... which is to say, people are leaning more on the "generally" because of navbox overproliferation. So if we did go with a second template, and we did link all the GO Transit lines within it, I would propose we didn't include that navbox in each line's article (each closed or cancelled station's article, sure, but the Barrie line doesn't need both navboxes if some of its stations have closed or some proposed stations never materialized, for instance). —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added an extra row and labelled it "Former station sites" with and  as entries. I hope that this is compatible with user:Blaixx's suggestion and user:Joeyconnick comments. I feel hesitant to create a separate template containing only two links. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh there's only two? Okay, yeah, a separate row seems fine to me in that case. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)