Talk:Relief Line (Toronto)

Ontario Line NOT the former DRL...

The article currently describes the Ontario Line as "formerly the Downtown Relief Line", even though it would not share the same route, or rolling stock as the DRL, and the Doug Ford government seems to have explicitly said it is not an adaptation of the DRL. Geo Swan (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The government may position this as they like, but the route is substantially the same (particularly the core Queen to Pape section, and the northern terminus at Science Centre) and would fulfill the same role in the transit network. I believe you'll find the press also considering it the RL's successor. Radagast (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I find reliable sources to be SPLIT on whether the line is a replacement or a revision to the existing plans for the Relief Line. So, how many RS did you look at before you predicted I would find all the RS agreed with your personal opinion? Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ontario Line is now a different article, focussing on Doug Ford's current plan. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• How can we have both an Ontario Line and Relief Line article - Ontario is calling the Ontario line a subway, and all indications are that the alignment is the same for the part that had the approved EA - but with western and north extensions? At the most it's a variant of the same project ... it's not like they would build both! Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nfitz. The Ontario Line is the successor of the Relief Line (I also support the merger of Eglinton West Subway with Line 5 Eglinton). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It was all hashed out in the section below. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That discussion seems to not fully consider having two separate articles for the same line. It seems there's some confusion there, with claims that this was a new line, when it's quite clear from the documents that have been released, that most of the station locations are essentially unchanged, and it's primarily extending the existing project further north and west. There needs to be only one article about this line, not two. The other article should be redirected. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on the city report about the Ontario/Relief Line and the media reports, it's pretty clear it's the same project, even including the planned Relief Line North to Eglinton. Basically the Relief Line, with an extension to the southwest. I see no reason not to merge these two articles. Does anyone any longer have any objection, given it's clearly one project, not two. Nfitz (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Support this is clearly a continuation of the same project.Terramorphous (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you propose a merge and let people comment, given such a merger/replacement was literally undone less than two months ago. As Geo Swan pointed out then, there's a huge potential to lose valuable historical information if the merger is done with an overly WP:RECENTISM focus. The "classic" Relief Line proposal, or something like it, has been called the (Downtown) Relief Line for literally years. The purported "Ontario Line" (which definitely shows no particularly greater chance of being built despite all the flash of its recent announcement) has existed for around two months. If we move to having a single article, it ought to remain at Relief Line (Toronto) with a section called "Ontario Line" to cover the (extremely more) recent developments. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Though I expect the whole thing would get sidetracked about what to call it. With the current naming, I suspect that one day we'll all agree that there'll be a single article (or perhaps an article with sub-articles) at Line 3 Ontario (perhaps with the only remaining link to Ontario being that the proposed Sherbourne/Queen station has a secondary entrance near Ontario Street - LOL!). In the interest of WP:NORUSH I've got no great desire to trigger this discussion quickly. Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Reverted: treating as a technical request to revert a recent undiscussed move. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Ontario Line → ? – Canuck85 moved Relief Line (Toronto) to Ontario Line. I checked their contribution history and could see 0 sign that they discussed this idea with anyone, prior to making it. This is counter-policy. There has already been some attempts to update the article so it reflect the new name. However, the basic premise behind this renaming is highly questionable. This renaming should never have been made, without a prior discussion. For weeks Premier Doug Ford has been saying that, once the Province takes over the TTC's subways, they will use "new technology". So, the Ontario Line will not use the rolling stock that was going to be used for the DRL. Neither is it going the route the TTC's planner spent years mapping out.

I strongly urge contributors to stop trying to update this article, to reflect the new name, until we discuss, and sort out, whether we should have two articles, or one article. Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Ontario Line name. I have no issues with the move, and expected to see it happen. The rolling stock and other technologies are planned to be different, but this is very clearly the same project which has undergone a (major, granted) revision. Should plans change once again, that can be reflected in the article, but this is where things stand. Radagast (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Radagast, you wrote above that "the route is substantially the same"...
  • The Toronto Star reports DoFo's government says the Ontario Line will be largely elevated, using shorter train-sets (and a different rolling-stock) than Toronto's existing lines.
  • This means all the existing environmental assessments would be worthless. Brand new environmental assessments would have to be done.
  • Parts of the DRL were going to run down the middle of arterial roads, but other portions were going to take a diagonal path that crossed under existing blocks of buildings. Using the DRL route for a new elevated line would either leveling whole blocks. I don't know where you go the idea that the Ontario Line would use "substantially the same route". Sorry, I just don't find your confidence in this to be credible.
  • The Ontario Line might be shot down, and the DRL might be built after all. Or the brand new Ontario Line might be built, instead of the DRL. In either case there should be two articles. In the 1980s considerable funds were allocated to choose a route, choose station locations, and perform environmental assessments, for the Eglinton West line. Tunnelling had already began, when newly elected Premier Mike Harris pulled the plug. That still-born Eglinton subway share a similar route to the Eglinton Crosstown, but no one is suggesting those two articles should be merged. Merging them makes no more sense than trying to cover the old Relief Line, and the new Ontario Line, in the same article.
  • Attempts to adapt this article to cover both the old possibly stillborn line, and the new possibly vapourware line, into a single article will be a disservice to readers. Some of our readers may only be interested in current plans. Other readers may be students, with a historical interest in planned routes that weren't built. The value of this article for readers with a historical interest has already been eroded. Geo Swan (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This is, for all intents and purposes, the same project that was formerly known as the Relief Line. The new technology/rolling stock does not make it a separate project but a revision, as has been mentioned. This article should and does mention the city's previous relief line plans (along with previous plans dating back to the 1910s which don't require separate articles). The DRL is, in my view, merely a previous version/plan of the Ontario Line project (it for the most part has the same route but extended further downtown). Since Ontario Line is the current name of this project, this should be the article's name. UmpireRay (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy restore title to "Relief Line (Toronto)". It's been less than 12 hours since the provincial announcement and it's still unclear how much of the 2018 design will remain. Maybe once the dust settles "Ontario Line" would be a good title but for now, the controversial, undiscussed page move should be reverted. BLAIXX 22:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as Ontario Line because it is basically an expanded Relief Line. We don't need a new page for every iteration of design and phasing of a transit line. Terramorphous (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

point of order

Radagast, UmpireRay and Terramorphous, had all asserted, without citing any reliable sources, that the Ontario Line is essentially, another name for the Relief Line. Some RS, like CTV, have characterized it as a renaming of the Relief Line. The CBC and the Toronto Star say it is a replacement for the Relief Line. tth

What does the Government say?

"Our government is investing in transportation to bring relief and new opportunities to transit users and commuters," said Ford. "We announced the new Ontario Line to deal with the dangerous congestion on Line 1, the Yonge North Subway Extension that will connect the subway to one of the region's largest employment centres, the three-stop Scarborough Subway Extension to better serve communities, and the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension — a large portion of which will be built underground to keep people and goods moving on our roadways. This is our plan, our priority."

The Premier calls it a NEW line. Multiple RS call it a replacement line, not an expansion of a line already being worked on.

What NPOV, VERIFY and other policies require of us is that we keep our personal opinions to ourselves.

When we work on a topic and our personal opinion is at odds with what RS say, we have to keep our personal opinions to ourselves, and cover what RS say. This can be hard, when have strong personal opinions on a topic. Nevertheless it is what policy requires. Those who can't bring themselves to add content that summarizes RS they strongly disagree with, can sit out covering that topic, and leave covering it to less involved contributors.

When we work on a topic and RS are split on a key issue we don't just pick one side, and exclusively cover that position as if other positions don't exist.

When reliable sources differ we are supposed to find a neutrally worded way of covering both interpretations, all interpretations that are not fringe interpretations.

Are there any RS that say anything like: "The Doug Ford government characterizes the Ontario Line as a brand new route, but transit experts, like Joe Blow have questioned this characterization, saying the Ontario Line is just an expansion of the already existing Relief Line..."

I am not aware of anyone who has said this, as of 2019-04-10. Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Ontario Line is essentially the same line, just with different branding and technology (which I agree with Steve Munro). The part about the Relief Line can stay in the history section. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me elaborate further: the Ontario Line is not only named after the province that is funding the line, but because it connects the Ontario Science Centre with Ontario Place, both properties of the Government of Ontario. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Here you go:

The “Ontario Line”, a rebranded and extended version of the Relief Line, will run from Don Mills and Eglinton to Ontario Place.

— Steve Munro [1]

Terramorphous (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Steve Munro is the expert on the TTC. Also, Geo_Swan appears to be bullying people who are voting against them [[2]] This is unacceptable.24.53.119.203 (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've already reported the indefinitely blocked wikistalker who uses 24.53.119.203 twice, for their use of this IP, at WP:SPI, here and here. Counting all the IP addresses they use they have made hundreds of harrassing edits using IP addresses. Prior to their well deserved block they were unable to understand our policies. They did however master leveling accusations that give the surface appearance of regularity, which are only exposed as nonsense when one looks into the details. The nonsense accusation above is a good example of this skill.

    So, they should be discounted in any conclusion drawn here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Restore Relief Line (Toronto) and its historical information as per Blaixx... this has been done way too soon. If absolutely necessary, start a new page for Ontario Line. All kudos to Steve Munro but he's one TTC-knowledgeable person. His opinion is by no means definitive. Also, Geo Swan is being completely appropriate in questioning Canuck85's way too hasty move. This is a developing news story and a name change plus an excision of a large amount of material should be discussed here first, especially once he was reverted (to be transparent, by me) shortly after he made his controversial changes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Restore Relief Line (Toronto) is the long-standing name, as well as the common name that such a proposed route is known by. In accordance with WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:TOOSOON, and finally that such a move should have never been made without a proper move request in the first place, as is precedent with prior efforts such as the renaming I led several years ago on Line 1 Yonge–University. If there is no consensus, the default should be the previous name, not a name that was implemented without consensus in the first place. Flynn58 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Restore -- for the record, for the reasons I outlined above, I explicitly support restoration of the original title. As above, like the Eglinton West Subway and the Eglinton Crosstown, two separate transit lines deserve two separate articles, even though some elements of their routes are shared, since they have or had two distinct environmental assessments, would have used two distinct rolling stocks, and two distinct station locations, for the portion of their routes that were shared, and only shared part of their routes. Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, Here are RSs that mention the line as an extension/expansion of the Relief Line. In addition to the comment by Steve Munro.
  [3]
  [4]
  Terramorphous (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Terramorphous, I think you are missing the point, missing several important points. No one is disputing that multiple RS have characterized the Ontario line as a renaming, or reasonable equivalent, of the Relief Line.

    And other commentators have characterized as a brand new line. Is it your intent to ignore the RS that described the line as a brand new line?

    I repeat what I said above. NPOV and VERIFY require us neutrally cover all positions taken by authoritative reliable commentators, not favour the commentators we happen to agree with.

    Aren't you ALSO choosing to ignore that the Doug Ford government's official position is that it has cancelled the Relief Line, and that the Ontario Line is a brand new line that merely happens to have stations at the same location as the cancelled route?

    (Some) shared station locations is merely one factor. Aren't you ignoring that because the Ontario Line will use different rolling stock, different station designs, and, if they are to be believed about changing the alignment, like changing the crossing of the Don River from a tunnel to what they describe as a cheaper bridge crossing, the environmental assessment done for the Relief Line is no longer valid? A brand new set of environmental assessments will have to be done. The environmental assessments done for the Relief Line took years. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, let me explain more fully why the position you Terramorphous, Radagast, UmpireRay and Johnny Au seem to want to take violates the WP:Verify policy. Your sole argument seems to be that, without regard to the Doug Ford government's official position that the Ontario Line is a brand new line, replacing the Relief Line, you have decided that it is REALLY just a renaming of the Relief Line. Bzzzt! Go re-read VERIFY. Wikipedia contributors are not reliable sources. Our opinions don't matter. We are not supposed to put intellectual content into articles simply because it is what WE believe to be the truth.

    I have worked on controversial topics, where I disagreed with every single reliable source. I thought my choices were to either keep my personal opinions to myself, and to neutrally cover the positions taken in the RS I disagreed with, or to walk away from those articles. I think I did a pretty good job at staying neutral, and neutrally covering RS I disagreed with.

    This is the requirement on everyone. This is a requirement on the four of you. You simply cannot ignore and suppress the RS you disagree with. Do I have to explain why this is also a violation of NPOV.

    I spent years, tens of thousands of edits, measuring up to these policies. Why shouldn't I feel entitled to expect you to also measure up to these policies here?

    I pointed out that no RS, so far, have said "Although Doug Ford calls the Ontario Line a brand new route, it is really just a renaming of the Relief Line". Even if, or when, some RS explicitly say that, we can't simply ignore the RS that echo Ford's official position that it is a distinct line, not a simple renaming. Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

    • I don't think there is a consensus among RS as to whether this is a new line or a revision. Terramorphous has given examples of RS that refer to it as an extension/expansion. As you know, many RS refer to it as a new line. You mentioned Ford's government in their announcement positioned it as a new line, and I agree with that assessment. However, in their budget released earlier today, the government said "Ultimately, the government plans to expand the current routing of the City’s Relief Line South proposal to: ...", and "The government could achieve this by fundamentally redesigning the Downtown Relief Line project." These statements all would indicate that this is a (big) expansion/redesign of the Relief Line South.

      However, having now read the arguments you have made about historical information being lost with this renaming process, I am not so sure of my position. Incorporating all of that information into the history section of the Ontario Line article would have to leave some important inclusion-worthy stuff out or be way too long and detailed in addition to all the forthcoming info about the Ontario Line, and would justify a WP:SPLIT.

      For these reasons, I think the following compromise might be the best course of action, if everyone is okay with it: This article's name is reverted to "Relief Line (Toronto)". A new article is created with the name "Ontario Line", which goes into depth about and is updated about the province's Ontario Line version of the project. In the history section of the Ontario Line article, which would include what is presently in this article's history, the Relief Line South project is summarized (WP:SS), linking to this as the main article. The Relief Line article would include all of the information about routing and stations and EAs that has been removed from this article, the history will just focus on the history of this version of the project, and all the info about precursors dating back to the 1910s would be on the Ontario Line article. UmpireRay (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Restore — Relief Line (Toronto): The "Ontario Line" was just announced and is far from a done deal. Funding has not been secured from all levels of government, extensive planning is still required for a good portion of the route (particularly west of Osgoode), and the Toronto area has a good track record of cancelling proposed transit projects. As already mentioned, criteria for WP:TOOSOON and WP:COMMONNAME is met. If we know definitively that the "Ontario Line" will get built or close to (i.e. cancelled the day before ground breaking), then maybe "Ontario Line" would be a suitable title for this article.

For the time being, the current "2019: Provincial takeover" section of this article is sufficient for mentioning plans for the proposed "Ontario Line". Northwest (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Restore and Split - I think it's clear that the Ontario Line is new, although it keeps some of the original Relief Line design. So having two articles is appropriate. The Relief Line (Toronto) almost certainly will not proceed as is. Would another government overturn it in 3 years? Alaney2k (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Restore and Split As I explained above, I don't think there is consensus among RS as to whether this technically is a new line or a massive expansion/redesign of the old. However, due to the info from Relief Line (Toronto) that has been lost, this should be restored to the original with that information, and the Ontario Line details split into a new article. UmpireRay (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I withdraw my previous Keep vote, based on the consensus of the discussion here. Radagast (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• I maintain Keep but if consensus says restore, I'm not going to stop it.Terramorphous (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• I will also maintain my Keep vote despite consensus. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Call for closure

Terramorphous, Radagast and Johnny Au have had a chance to return here to further explain their "keep" non-votes. I suggest that, if they don't return soon, we go ahead and restore the original name. I've been working on a draft of a new article User:Geo Swan/Ontario Line. Comments welcome at User talk:Geo Swan/Ontario Line. Geo Swan (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk pages

Why is the talk page for Ontario Line a redirect here? Is there a technical reason or rule why there is not a separate talk page? Alaney2k (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Bad move! Bad Edit! People don't know what they are doing. I've fixed the redirect. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Alaney2k (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Much better. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ontario Line comparison

Within the comparison table in Relief Line (Toronto)#Ontario Line, I changed the Ontario Line expected completion from "2027" to "2027 (revised to 2030 as of late 2020)". User:Terramorphous reversed that mod saying "NPOV to compare apples to apples its better to show what was proposed in 2019". Well, what was proposed in 2019 still showed. I don't see why showing revisions in addition to the original violates NPOV (presumably meaning "neutral point of view"). Not showing revisions is misleading. May I reinstate my revision? @Terramorphous, Johnny Au, and Joeyconnick: Please comment. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say we just get rid of the "(as of July 2019)" caption—it's unnecessary given every element is sourced with dates—and then list the completion for the Ontario Line as 2030 given that's the most up-to-date info there is (with maybe an {{efn}} note to say "originally 2027" and when it was updated to 2030). If there's a significant revision of the Ontario Line, that would probably be good as an additional column in the table, maybe with the addition of a row to cover "Expected project launch" date so as not to make it seem like the Relief Line was the quickest project of the bunch.

Beyond that, it may be the "as of" is tripping us up. That makes it seems like the table will/should be updated. Perhaps it's better to fix it at that date, so something like "Comparison of Relief Line and Ontario Line features (July 2019)" or "Comparison of Relief Line and Ontario Line features in July 2019". If we did that, we'd stick with the 2027 completion date for the Ontario Line in that particular table.

Or maybe it would be best to remove the "(as of July 2019)" bit and switch to something like "Project timeline" and list that in years, so originally for the Relief Line, it was 10 years, and for the Ontario Line, it was 8. Then (being generous) if Ontario Line construction had started in 2021, its timeline lengthened to 9 years. The issue is that Ontario Line proponents (i.e. Ford and his government) positioned it as a quicker build, and with the revised completion date of 2030, it is not looking significantly quicker. Now of course continuing to list end dates makes the Relief Line seem like a faster project because of course neither its start nor completion date will be revised, so switching to a project length metric adjusts for that. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That would make things less confusing. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Joeyconnick offered 3 suggestions. I did not understand the third suggestion. I am inclined to go with the second suggestion ("Comparison of Relief Line and Ontario Line features in July 2019"). However, borrowing from the first suggestion, I would like to add an efn for "In late 2020, the expected completion for the line was revised from 2027 to 2030." Essentially, this presents subsequent revisions as footnotes rather than squeazing them into table cells beside the original data. Would this be acceptable? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the third and I'm not sure what's difficult to understand: instead of saying "completion date", we say "length of project", "time to complete", etc. so we're comparing apples to apples regardless of when the project was anticipated to start (or end).

In 2019, RL was estimated to complete by 2029, so a 10-year period. OL was going to complete by 2027, so an 8-year period... which was subsequently revised to a 9-year period (2021 to 2030). Comparing the current OL completion date of 2030 to the RL's estimated completion date of 2029 is unfair, since at the time of the RL estimate, the project end date was based on an estimated start in 2019, whereas the earliest the OL with the 2030 completion date was likely to start would have been early 2021 (since the 2030 estimate is from late 2020). Conversely, leaving the July 2019 dates there is also misleading since the length of the OL estimate has increased since July 2019 (from 8 years to 9 years). —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Joeyconnick: I think what you are saying is instead of showing the estimated completion year as reported in REFs, show #years to complete = completion year - start year. The problem I have with that is that REFs may not give the start year, and it appears to be subjective. Is it the year that construction is estimated to start? Is that when utilities are relocated, the ceremonial first shovel, tunneling started? One REF says RL construction would have begun in 2020; I don't see a corresponding date for the OL. Generally, it's completion date that is reported rather than elapsed time to construct. I also think completion year is a fair comparison as starting late means finishing late. To be fair, the OL has other benefits that may justify a later completion. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is the table is supposed to show the most up to date data (or promises) as of 2019 on the two competing projects and inform the reader that this was the information everyone had to work with at the time of decision. As construction progresses these values will ultimately change as the project progresses and designs are refined. My view is that putting what ended up happening with the selected project (timeline slips, cost overruns, scope changes etc) as part of this table after the fact does not make sense. It leads to a false comparison between the two projects because who is to know if the same changes would have happened to the the relief line project if it moved forward and designs were refined further down the road. (We don't) Terramorphous (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that User:Joeyconnick and perhaps User:Johnny Au prefer that the table be updated to reflect later revisions and to add a construction period row ("Project timeline") as per User:Joeyconnick's third suggestion. User:Terramorphous prefers to freeze the table as of July 2019. I prefer to freeze the table but add footnotes (efn) to document later revisions, so that readers won't think, for example, that the OL would be completed in 2027. As per User:Joeyconnick's second suggestion, I would reword the table title to "Comparison of Relief Line and Ontario Line features in July 2019". So what do we want to do? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. I prefer the table itself updated as soon as reliable sources become available. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead with my compromise solution of showing both the original and revised estimated completion dates but with the latter documented in a footnote. I feel that not reporting the revised date is misinformation by ommission even with a more precise table title. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, I feel that reporting the revised date of the Ontario Line is a poor comparison via a false equivalence. If the Metrolinx studied the Relief Line up to the detail of the Ontario Line is today (biddable design) is a 2029 opening date even possible? Terramorphous (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe that user:Terramorphous is saying that there must be no mention (not even a footnote) in the section Relief Line (Toronto)#Ontario Line that the Ontario Line is projected to open in 2029 instead of 2017 for the reason that user:Terramorphous gave above, and that any mod violating that perspective will be deleted. Do User:Joeyconnick and Johnny Au agree with this point of view? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This is why finding reliable sources are very important. I prefer that the revised completion dates not be hidden in footnotes as there's many casual Wikipedia readers who simply can't find stuff in footnotes and it is bad practice to bite newcomers. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Not only will revised info not be in the footnotes, it will not be in the article at all as, if anyone attempts to insert revised info (even from reliable sources), user:Terramorphous will delete it. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Relief Line is cancelled based on information provided in 2017. That is the comparison being made in that moment of time, you can debate whether the pitch for the Ontario Line was realistic but these are the promises as laid out in the 2017. Any changes to the Ontario Line project afterward (cost overruns and schedule slippage) I have no issues with these things being discussed about in other pages, (Ontario Line etc.) as the OL project progresses. That's how projects work, with scope, cost and time being refined as the project moves along. However, comparing the project duration of a conceptual design alternative that will never see the light of day to an, in 10 years, implemented alternative is disingenuous. Are we going to update the comparison every time the OL project gets delayed or overbudget? If so, who is to say that Relief Line project would go exactly to what was pitched in 2017.Terramorphous (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)