Jump to content

Talk:Ion rapid transit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allen Street

[edit]

There is great opposition to the rails going through some middle class residential neighborhoods, such as on Allen Street. The much wider John Street nearby has larger houses and richer people. This article should mention that part of the issue.

210.0.205.235 (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted, or someone should take the time (likely a day or two) to write a proper article on it. However, I think the section about the rapid transit proposal on the "Grand River Transit" wiki page more than covers to topic with links to the Region of Waterloo's EA website.

The "Rapid Transit in Waterloo Region" page is very poorly written, with very little info and extremely poor grammar. It serves no useful purpose, as all the relavant info is already elsewhere on wikipedia, and should be removed.

70.49.41.11 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've taken a few moments to properly categorize it and clean up some of the grammar. It's still hard to justify an article for this as it stands, but well before this would merit serious consideration, we could have much more to tell as the proposal approaches adoption. If the proposal fails, I would unhesitatingly support this become a side note on the GRT or RoW articles; but if it is accepted, the service would easily merit its own article, grown from this. Radagast 03:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schematic map

[edit]

Every line article worth its salt has one of these now, so I've started a prototype in my userspace (see User:Radagast/Template:WRRT). Comments welcome. Radagast (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ion

[edit]

This is most likely the new name, given the staff recommmendation in today's regional report. I've already created Ion (transit system) and redirected it here; we can do a formal move when it's fully official. Radagast (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fully official. But it's ION, not Ion. [1] --  timc  talk   00:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I guess not fully fully official. "The name will go for final approval at regional council on April 30." --  timc  talk   00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And with council approval today, move completed. Thanks for the capitalization note, Timc! Radagast (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:TRADEMARK:

"Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one: avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS; instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss"

So it should be: "Ion (corporately styled ION) is a proposed rapid trasit system...." Also, the article is about the system, not about the name. Ground Zero | t 18:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just let the dust settle for a day until we get official pronouncements and branding information. The title of this article is also a little awkward and we should not just keep moving it from one bad name to another. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I was hasty in moving it, but only because we should let the dust settle, as you say. But we should be clear that an encyclopedia article title does not reflect corporate or "official" branding. Hence Presto card, not PRESTO (card). Companies, and even public agencies, like to capitalize everything or use other non-standard orthography to draw attention to their names. Wikipedia does not participate in corporate promotion. Ground Zero | t 18:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you chose that example. The parenthesis is what concerns me. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I don't see a need for the parenthesis either. Ground Zero | t 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram is live

[edit]

Source at Template:Ion LRT route diagram. Feedback welcome! Radagast (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting this in! My first piece of feedback would be for the connection with VIA/GO. There should be symbols for VIA/GO that can be placed in lieu of spelling it out. Also, these will be meeting at a new King & Victoria Transit Hub, not the Kitchener railway station. I think we need to wikilink to reflect that, and start a new article for it. Nonetheless, great job! --Natural RX 13:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into the symbol approach, thanks for the tip. As for the second point, Kitchener railway station is currently referring to the building at Weber and Victoria, but once the hub opens it will presumably be rewritten or redirected. Radagast (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Icons successfully added - whomever created Template:Rail-interchange has done amazing service. Radagast (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty. Are you going to add the aBRT portion of the system? I know these are 'rail templates' but its still a dedicated rapid transit line. --Natural RX 02:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably my next step to tackle, yes. Radagast (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could hide the future BRT section using {{BS3-startCollapsible}}. See Template:512 St. Clair for an example. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the BRT section will be part of the system on opening day. The LRT conversion of that section that would happen in the future could be put in the diagram in parallel (faded blue). --Natural RX 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But I agree that it should be included as part of "Ion rapid transit" system. Thanks for info. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update|inaccurate

[edit]

This tag has been on the article nearly a year; do any concerns remain given how much work has been done in that time? If nobody objects I'll be taking it off soon. Radagast (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing now. Radagast (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operator

[edit]

The info box shows that "Grand River Transit" is the operator, but that's not entirely correct, is it? Should it be listed as GrandLinq? --  timc  talk   18:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right but, if it is going to be part of transit system, should GRT be shown as the owners? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the owner is properly the Region of Waterloo. I'm looking for other examples. York Region Transit is one, but it has several different operators. I think that Tramlink is also similar, although in that case, the owner is Transport for London, not London itself. Oddly enough, the Grand River Transit article says GRT is operated by the Region of Waterloo. --  timc  talk   19:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ion rapid transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Station naming convention

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) for details. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Station articles

[edit]

I felt it was about time for individual station articles to start coming together. I'm working on a representative one in the draftspace - please look over Draft:Kitchener Market station and provide any edits or comments you feel necessary. Radagast (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am semi-retired from Wikipedia but, for you, I will share my experience. I have done a lot of this before - but I am making no long term commitment. Good luck! Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm looking at the setup of Template:S-line and this will be a bit tricky, particularly around the one-way sections in downtown Kitchener and uptown Waterloo. We'll need a station template, and presumably a system template, specific to our needs. I'll look into existing ones and see what I can adapt, but any tips would be useful. Radagast (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:GRT lines, Template:GRT stations and Template:GRT color done, including iExpress lines. S-line templates to come soon. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
S-line done for one way operation. See your draft article. You need to fix the station names. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that should be a big help! Cheers. Radagast (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Radagast: I have tentatively named the stations in the list (with red links) avoiding conflicts or disambiguation. They can be amended as required, but you've got to start somewhere. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon checking Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations), it looks like 'X LRT station' is the proposed naming convention. I'll try to go through and set to that. Radagast (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that, but it seems to be disputed. Simple use of "station" should avoid any fuss, and they may be right. See Eglinton Crosstown where all the station names were changed. I don't have the time or energy to waste on this petty fight. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and Category:OC Transpo station names. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the clarity. The Ottawa example looks best here. Radagast (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away too long to remember or care about the naming conventions. Just be consistent. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Woops! I may have got the naming convention wrong. I think the bracketed form of disambiguation is favoured. Refer to the more recent Category:Eglinton Crosstown line stations where the station is named after a cross street we use the town for disambiuation and Category:Via Rail stations in Ontario, which was recently restructured, where the station is named after the town we use the province, and finally Category:O-Train stations which uses an older style, being phased out, which uses the system rather than a geographic name. I would like to redo some of these Ion station to use (Waterloo) or (Kitchener) instead of a comma. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least you caught it now! I've hit a good stride on the articles today, hope to have them all up in the next couple days if I can. Radagast (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Radagast: If you are going to create an article for every intermediate station along the line, surely the major terminal stations at Conestoga and Fairway should have stand alone articles. They do not need two infoboxes as the new version can accomodated bus and train platforms. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been thinking on that, particularly for Fairway as the new facility will be off mall property. The tricky part is the timing, as the existing setup is still in place. I'll sort something out. Radagast (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that everything will eventually be integrated around the LRT station sites. Redirects already exist for Conestoga Mall Transit Terminal and Fairview Park Mall Transit Terminal. We don't know what GRT is going to call them in the future, but we can rename and move them later. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Terminal names and details are here http://www.grt.ca/en/travelwithus/terminalsstops.asp on the GRT wesite. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with GrandLinq

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for a merge. Klbrain (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not separately notable from the Ion transit project itself. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging GrandLinq into this article. Mindmatrix 20:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support can easily be integrated into the Bids section. --Natural RX 21:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Natural RX writes "can easily be integrated into the Bids section." So what? The Bids section would be a reasonable place to mention GrandLinq, if we hadn't assembled enough references to establish that the topic GrandLinq was a topic that measured up to the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG. But GrandLinq IS a topic that measures up the inclusion of the GNG. It is a topic that has been covered, over time, in detail. It meets GNG. So, Natural RX, how is your comment a justification for merging? Geo Swan (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As per WP:GNG, you are presuming that Grandlinq is suitable for a stand-alone article, but GNG stresses that further discussion (i.e. this discussion here) may determine it does not.
  2. Per your Point 1, you are presuming a Wikipedian is going to botch this merge. I find that to be a presumption of bad faith of another editor. Who's to say an editor can't do a good job?
  3. As per your Point 4 and to elaborate on RA0808's point of Grandlinq not being separately notable, significant coverage and reliable sources (as per WP:GNG) were given to the project at large and not the existence of GrandLinq by itself. Grandlinq was a consortium of a bunch of other firms assembled for the ION project, to carry out the ION project. I do not see anything to suggest it will be an entity outside the ION project (i.e. a consortium that bids on other projects). If that changes then I can see your argument, but until then, I believe that it fails WP:SUSTAINED.
  4. As per your Point 2, the convenience afforded to Wikipedians interested in putting construction firms on their watchlists as opposed to the projects they work on does not trump WP:NOTE. If there are Wikipedians truly interested in GrandLinq, then they can easily watch the ION article and monitor any changes to the appropriate sections.
  5. As per your points 3 and 5, I don't see what having Grandlinq as a redirect to the appropriate section of the ION article doesn't solve. You could still type it in the search bar and it would pop up, and you could construct a wikilink in another article so that it goes to the appropriate section ([[Ion rapid transit#Bids|GrandLinq]]).
--Natural RX 18:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the bid process is now well behind us.Support withdrawn per response. I will abstain from further comment. Radagast (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense Radagast, but isn't your argument an instance of one of those described in the well respected WP:Arguments to avoid, WP:NOTTEMP, which says: "A single event that receives coverage only for a short period of time and never again is usually not notable (though there are exceptions to the rule). If there is significant coverage for a long period of time, and the subject becomes a permanent fixture on at least some notable members of society, the subject is more likely to be notable." As I wrote above, I don't think there is any question that the topic Grandlinq fully measures up to the criteria of the GNG. Did you have another reason to agree to a merge? Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for various reasons.
  1. My experience with merges, here on the wikipedia, is that they are a dog's breakfast. In my experience, if those who supported a merge succeed, they either don't stick around to actually perform the merge, or they do a shockingly inadequate job, often merely cutting and pasting some or all of the one article, into the other, without doing any meaningful adaptation.
  2. Merges of articles on separate topics, that are merely related, are generally a terrible disservice to those who use watchlists. The Ion rapid transit system is not the world's only rapid transit route being constructed. It is perfectly reasonable to take into account readers whose interest is not in the Ion rapid transit route, but rather who are instructed in the rapid transit construction sector. Readers who want to monitor developments across GrandLinq, and all the similar firms, building other routes, without concerning themselves with the mundane details of the Ion system, should be able to choose to place GrandLinq on their watchlist, while leaving Ion rapid transit off. Or vice versa. Readers who are interested in the Ion system, while being uninterested in the firm, should be able to exclude GrandLinq from their watchlist.

    When those who push unnecessary merges succeed the utility of watchlists is strongly and worthlessly eroded. It guarantees that those who are interested in only one of the two merged topics will get a lot of false positives.

  3. Merges of articles on separate topics, that are merely related, are generally a terrible disservice to those who use the "what links here" feature. The "what links here" feature can be extremely useful. A determined reader, who has a question in mind, and looks at the article(s) that seem like they might hold the answer, can find those articles didn't hold the answer, after all. At that point it can be extremely useful to perform a "what links here". It could be that the article that actually has their answer is one they didn't think of, but which links to the article(s) they looked at. But, when articles are senselessly merged, merely because they are related, the value of this technique is strongly eroded.
  4. The Ion system, and the consortium constructing it, are different topics. RA0808's justification for the merge is "Not separately notable from the Ion transit project itself." I have not come across the term "Not separately notable". Maybe there is a wikidocument that uses this term, which I am unfamiliar with, or it has been added to a wikidocument I am familiar with, since I last read it. But I can't help suspecting RA0808 invented this term, so the appearance their merge suggestion is based on policy, is misleading.
  5. There is no really tactful way to say this. Those with an urge to merge, in my experience, simply don't understand the advantages modern hyperlinked documents hold over traditional linear documents. Due to a -- no offence -- limited imagination they can't conceive of readers wanting to read the knowledge the wikipedia holds in a different order that makes sense to the mergists.

    In the days before authors were able to write modern hyperlinked documents, and they got to a point where they wanted to give readers a choice of what to read next, they used less than ideal work-around. They used traditional footnotes, sidebars, captions to illustration, to make their second points. These techniques are all far less usefinul than hyperlinks, like our wikilinks.

    What mergists are ignoring is that using the wikipedia's wikilinks is a far superior way to navigate to a remote block of information than the techniques one uses in a linear document.

    Once that information is foolishly merged, the reader can scroll to it. That is time consuming, and easy to overshoot. It requires cognitive capacity, better served to concentrating on finding one's answers. And, once you got there, how do you return to where you came from?

    One can use your browser's built in "find" feature, to search for that other block of information. But modern browsers are primitive, and only allow users to search for one term at a time. Experienced users are probably already searching for something else, and will have to throw that away. Plus, once they got there, how do they return to where they came from?

    When the urge to merge is resisted, returning from accessing a remote piece of information is trivially easy. The reader navigates to the remote information by following a wikilink, and, when they are finished, they return to where they left by clicking on the back button.

    I've mentioned the brilliant Ted Nelson in other discussions. He was the brilliant guy who first coined the term "hyperlink", and who first popularized it in his 1974 book Computer Lib. He pointed out that there are all kind of perfectly reasonable ways for readers to navigate the written sum of human knowledge. It is really terribly unfair to our readers to force them to follow the path to knowledge mergists think makes sense.

The wikipedia will work best, for our readers, when every topic that is notable, has its own single topic article, and we resist the urge to merge to cram multiple topics into larger omnibus multiple topic articles. A wikipedia with a relatively larger number of smaller article on single topic notable topics is preferable to a smaller number of larger articles that tackle multipe topics, because it provides the reader more paths to navigate the written sum of human knowledge. Geo Swan (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support GrandLinq will no longer be notable once the construction is finished William Spaetzel (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For most of the reasons given by Geo Swan above. I also think much of the logic is backwards, because we should be dividing articles to make them easier to read on the smaller screens that most people are using rather than combining them. Small bites of information are easier to consume than large banquets. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I read the above comments, but I'm not convinced that a couple of paragraphs warrants it's own page. I find the encyclopedia most useful and usable when there are more high quality/thorough pages than many tiny stubs, and this article is a stub. Mattximus (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Geo Swan. Most merger discussions are a waste of time anyways. 344917661X (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You found it worth your time to add your opinion over a year after the proposal was first posted. --Natural RX 17:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because most merger discussions are a waste of time doesn't mean I won't vote on them, since I want to have a say in discussions. Also, what's wrong with adding my own opinion? Technically, everyone voting stated their own opinion. I suggest closing this proposal since it's been a year like you said and nothing has happened. 344917661X (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change title to ION ... Waterloo Region shows it as ION, not Ion

[edit]

The stylized logo is ion but in printed material, it's ION. https://rapidtransit.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/FINAL_Stage-2-ION-PCC-No.-2-Display-Boards_reduced2.pdf

and http://www.grt.ca/en/travelwithus/FAQ-ION-Bus-Rapid-Transit.asp for confirmation.

IMHO, the title should also show ION, not Ion.

Peter K Burian (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows standard English capitalization, not corporate vanity capitalization, even for a municipal entity. Ion is not an acronym. It is a word, so it is only being shown all-in-caps for marketing purposes. We don't have to follow that, and we don't. See WP:TRADEMARK. Ground Zero | t 18:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about corporate vanity Ground Zero. Waterloo Region does not use ion or Ion. It uses ION. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not concerned with Waterloo Region's preferences. In standard English capitalization, which is what Wikipedia uses, the first letter of a proper noun is capitalized. The rest of the word is not capitalized, so "Ion", not "ION" or "ion". Waterloo Region is free to use whatever capitalization it wants, but Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style. Ground Zero | t 19:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Radagast: You have done major edits on this article. What are your thoughts on this? Ion or ION? Peter K Burian (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 'Ion'. It is how the media and general public refer to it, and per Wikipedia policy, that is how it should be referred to here. Radagast (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your views. But to be a devil's advocate, what about EOS vs. Eos as another example?
Yes, Wikipedia depicts EOS as Eos in many cases: Eos (disambiguation) But in some cases, it does use all caps:
 EOS (operating system), a supercomputer operating system in the 1980s
 EOS (medical imaging), a medical projection radiography system
 EOS memory, ECC on SIMMs]], used in server-class computers
 Canon EOS, a series of film and digital single-lens reflex cameras
 Nokia EOS, a codename for the Nokia Lumia 1020
Not sure I understand why it's Eos in some cases and EOS in others. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC) ,[reply]
I don't know either. Maybe that also violates policy. If you have any Wikipedia policies to point to in support of your argument, that would be helpful. I've cited WP:TRADEMARK, and I argue that it applies since Ion will be built and operated by Grandlinq, a consortium of corporations, and because the general policy that Wikipedia uses standard English capitalization seems to be reasonable. And we take the same approach to Presto card, Metrolinx calls PRESTO in order to draw attention to it. Ground Zero | t 22:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I googled "ion rapid transit" to see how media are handling this. The Star uses "ION". CBC, CTV, The K-W Record, and the Cambridge Times use "Ion". I think Wikipedia's style guide is just fine though. Ground Zero | t 22:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The EOS instances are nearly all abbreviations (not sure about EOS (medical imaging)). Batternut (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ground Zero and Radagast. It should be Ion, not ION, in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style. As to why "EOS" exists on Wikipedia: As Batternut implied, in those cases, the three letters in the name are pronounced separately (or at least are by some people), which is an exception explictly mentioned at MOS:TMRULES, allowing EOS instead of Eos in the applicable cases. That does not apply here, since ion is an actual word, and since the transit system's name is undoubtedly pronounced as a word, not as I-O-N. – SJ Morg (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stick with Ion, per MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS, MOS:ABBR. This is not an acronym, so it doesn't get all-caps. Thus Sony not "SONY". It is not WP's job to help marketers promote their trademarks by SCREAMING THEM AT READERS. PS: Hilariously, the actual logo reads "ion", so the entire question was silly to begin with. (And, no, we don't do "vanity lower-case" to ape trademark stylization either, nor vanity color choices, vanity superscripting, vanity font choices, or any other decorative hoo-hah). See also MOS:ICONS; everything in there about avoiding decoration for its own sake applies equally to using textual "dingbat" tricks, not just graphical icon images.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ion rapid transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more coverage of the future Cambridge plan

[edit]

I did a minor update today but I see there is very little recent coverage of the future Cambridge plan. See my new content in the Opposition section; this should also be mentioned earlier in the article now that Cambridge is becoming the primary aspect of the Ion system. Granted, work on that line is not expected to start for another 8 years.

More info at https://www.therecord.com/news-story/7408649-cambridge-council-opposes-proposed-lrt-route-through-preston/ and https://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news-story/7406690-city-council-endorses-lrt-opposes-region-s-preferred-route-into-cambridge/ and http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/cambridge-city-council-planning-development-committee-lrt-proposed-route-1.4191845 Peter K Burian (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ion rapid transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stations or stops

[edit]

The Ion system has more resemblance to a streetcar system than a true light rail system. That being said, the stations seem more like more stops than stations. Especially the downtown stops and one directions stops. They are not enclosed and only partially covered, many are roadside or in the right of way, no fare gates. I'm suggesting a wording change to stops. Saboteurest (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support this move. It would be more consistent with Toronto's similar surface LRT stops under construction such as Ionview stop.
WP:CANSTATION also recommends "where sources consistently use the term "stop" instead of "station", use the form "[NAME] stop" instead". Ion's own official website refers to them as stops: "ION stops will share a set of common elements". An external source is this CBC article titled: Here's what the new ION LRT stops could look like. –BLAIXX 18:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that Saboteurest has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the community-banned UrbanNerd. Perhaps some of the long-term watchers of similar pages recall UrbanNerd. If IPs or newly registered users suddenly appear to make edits to the article or talk page similar to those of Saboteurest, please consider listing the IPs or users at User:UrbanNerd. Hwy43 (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ion rapid transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This article needs a map"

[edit]

@Blaixx: I already created a map a while ago. Is it that what you had in mind? --Nobelium (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That map looks like it could be useful but I'm not sure what you mean? Is this in response to my Routemap edit? –BLAIXX 03:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaixx: Oh, I see your confusion. Sorry, I was referring to the editor before your edit on this talk page, namely this edit. --Nobelium (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Slambo: I already created a map a while ago. Is it that what you had in mind? --Nobelium (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a map that shows the line in its geographic position. The one you linked is excellent for this request. I didn't see it on the article so I added the template param. Slambo (Speak) 14:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move request in progress for Ion LRT: station vs stop

[edit]

@Saboteurest: Hello, there is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Northfield station (Waterloo) about how to name the surface-LRT stops/stations on Ion rapid transit. Should it follow the convention of the surface stops on Line 5 Eglinton? Official sources tend to use neither stop nor station but lean towards station. Thanks, BLAIXX 18:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ion_rapid_transit&oldid=1221241418"