Talk:Ontario Line

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ontario Line article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

Ontario Place station was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 May 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ontario Line. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Map

The existing diagram in this article is great - however it's not great for placing the line geographically. I've therefore requested a map at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop/Archive/Dec 2022#Ontario line - feel free to comment on the request, or even take it up! Turini2 (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that even an issue? Its a example of the system maps shown at stations and on trains, which don't stress geographical placing.Transportfan70 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Transportfan70, that a geographic map isn't an issue. I don't think it adds much, as im a city like Toronto with a strong grid system, a geographical version of the map doesn't add much, as it's relatively similar, other than the extended distances out in the suburbs, which only make it more difficult to read.

The map looks great! However the text box for the map says "as it will appear on system maps". This map shows Line 5 as two different thicknesses, based surface vs grade-separated sections. But that's not how it will appear on the system maps. Also it's confusing, as I've only ever seen TTC use a mixture of lines to show existing versus proposed sections of lines (such as on Line 4 extension to Sheppard East on the Future Subway map they released in July 2022).

I find the use of the two thicknesses may confuse people, as I think most people's first reaction to that, would be that one part isn't finished yet - rather than the presence of non-grade separated crossings. Can I suggest editing the map so that Line 5 is all of the same width - your thoughts User:Transportfan70. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could always add "approximately" to as it will appear on system maps to clarify. After all, the system maps are also black (which I was discouraged from using for appearance reasons).Transportfan70 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TTC uses white system maps as well. My main point is the thin line is confusing and misleading. We should use a constant thickness. I've not seen a reliable primary or secondary show line thickness for Line 5 based on design - only on construction status. Wouldn't doing so violate WP:NOR? Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can just refer to the map as a "schematic" and specify what the thin lines represent. After all the map is only meant to be temporary until the line opens (and it took a lot of work to make!).Transportfan70 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I notice somebody already did that!Transportfan70 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map looks great User:Transportfan70, and is a great addition to the page! I'm just suggesting a relatively minor edit. Nfitz (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Line 3 Logo and Colour

It would be great to add a source for the new Line 3 logo and colour, as well as having a short section for the line's branding.

Let me summon Nfitz and Joeyconnick because I would like to know what both of you think. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source information was in the ongoing discussion elsewhere - see Template talk:Rail-interchange#Template-protected edit request on 11 November 2023. I didn't add any text to the page - but if someone adds some text, they should include that as a reference. Nfitz (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That source doesn't feel definitive to me, it could just be a placeholder. The TTC has been using a blue "3" in their planning documents for instance (page 13). I'm strongly in favour of not using a route icon for this line until there is more clarity. BLAIXX 00:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect that the source mentioned in Template talk:Rail-interchange#Template-protected edit request on 11 November 2023 is using it as a placeholder at best. I recommend waiting until Metrolinx unveils it to the non-technical public, such as on X (formerly known as Twitter) and Metrolinx's website (not hidden inside a PDF). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree because it's really hard to find that icon as it hides inside a very large document (althrough shown many times but it's too small compared to the pages' scale). After all, this document is still under discussion so it may be inappropriate to use such controversial document as a source.--—and in that light, Fz20181223 find deliverance.— 23:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree that the source does not look definitive, and it's best to stick with just using "Line 3" until closer to the time / confirmation that the line will be colour x, y or z on a transit map. (Also, it seems unlikely to me that Metrolinx would actually choose a colour very similar to the Sheppard colour... but transit agencies have done silly branding things before, and they'll do it again!) Turini2 (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included as it has been in multiple future TTC network maps as it was in the now deprecated ref 20.

I cannot find the same map in a quick glance, but here it is on another site cited from the TTC (which I believe satisfies @Joeyconnick's requirement that it be known by the public: https://dailyhive.com/toronto/toronto-subway-maps-2023-2031 Millsy0303 (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no... that one is in the original Line 3 blue. The only reference to the 3 roundel in purple is buried deep as a placeholder in technical documents. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that the Ontario Line has been provisionally referred to as Line 3 however it's inappropriate to use any icon at this time. BLAIXX 21:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at what I linked? Millsy0303 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us did. Even then, we should not use the icon. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Station articles

Is it too early to create station articles or can I have a crack at them? TokyoBackstreet (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too early I think. There's not much more you could say that's not already in this article. Opening day is at least 6 years away... ! Turini2 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that all Wikipedians should read: WP:DEADLINE. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that there is no deadline. Articles can be created later if needed, even if it's a few years later. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Line 5 had station articles for a long time at this point. (Of course that project is way over schedule but still.) TokyoBackstreet (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to wait for more details. Now is definitely too early. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Construction concerns or in station paragraphs?

I added the paragraph about the damage to homes in the Construction concerns section. I see there are similar things attached to the station paragraphs - about the trees at Osgoode and Moss Park. I'm not sure, but I think those are better located in Construction concerns section. What do y'all think? Alaney2k (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, I would personally wait for more replies to form a consensus first. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be in one place tbh. Turini2 (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better. However, I would still personally wait for more replies to form a consensus first. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]