Template talk:TTC lines and stations/Archive 1

Untitled
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
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?
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
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)


 * 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

 * At some point we should consider adding Eglinton Crosstown line 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 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)


 * Good addition. Martin Morin (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)