Talk:Rapid transit in Canada

Line 5 of the Toronto Subway is considered rapid transit

The Line 5 of the Toronto subway has been removed recently, however according to the official website of the subway line, it is considered "rapid transit". In fact, it's the first sentence of the description found here: [1]. Mattximus (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The site you listed clearly says Crosstown LRT. It is a light rail transit line with central underground section between Mount Dennis and Laird but between Laird and Kennedy the LRT runs on the surface in a reserved central lane stopping at intersections like a tram in Europe. As demonstrated in all these links:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

If you are technical the following link are the plates that clearly show an alignment in the center of the road with at grade crossings.

• [6]

Terramorphous (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems like original research on your part to say that just because it is light rail it is not rapid transit. If what you say is true, then the new Montreal expansion would need to be removed as well, since it is very much a "light rail" [7] according to the official website. And so would line 3 of the Toronto subway, which is also a light rail. But I've never seen a source that breaks up the distances of the Toronto subway into "Rapid transit" and "not rapid transit". Mattximus (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The SRT is intermediate rail and the REM clearly uses subway trains as the rolling stock is the Alstom Metropolis which is a metro train that is not certified to run in the street like an LRT.[8] Secondly, REM will be fully automated which can't make it an LRT as an LRT would need human drivers to negotiate the road running sections which the REM does not have. Original Research? I have produced numerous sources supporting my claims you have just produced one and took a very shallow, surface level look and said if there is a word that supports my claim I'll use it. I have read what has been said in this talk page and this is simply just a rehashing of what has been said 4 years ago. Second opinions? @Johnny Au: @Geo Swan: @Ground Zero: @IJBall: @Natural RX: @Radagast: @TheTrolleyPole: @Transportfan70: @Informed analysis: @Nfitz: @Blaixx: @Joeyconnick: @Mtlfiredude: @Reaperexpress: Terramorphous (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a local, but everything I've ever heard about it says that it's "light rail" line – an underground tunnel portion doesn't change that (see: Muni Metro). Heck, it's right there in the name! Further, Terramorphous produced sources, so I don't see how that can possibly be called "original research". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is the point of original research. Both the Line 5 of the Toronto Subway and the New Montreal lines are all considered "light rail" on their official websites. This is not in dispute. However, the argument presented here is that some light rail IS rapid transit and some light rail IS NOT rapid transit seems to go against references and is arbitrary. What is bizarre, is that Line 5 is actually called "rapid transit" on their official website but has repeatedly been deleted from this list, but the Montreal light rail which is not considered rapid transit on the official website (as far as I can find) is on this list. Is that not original research? Mattximus (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure there's a need for this page really, and I've never touched it. The discussion seems to centre on a very narrow definitions of what rapid transit is, which entirely misses the point of the project. I can't fathom why a completely grade-separated system like the Ottawa light rail isn't listed here, when the new Montreal light rail is listed here, and lower capacity systems like the Canada Line and Toronto "Scarborough Rapid Transit" line area included. Rapid Transit as it's commonly used (not some highly technical defintion) also includes Bus Rapid Transit ... which means if one wants to preclude that, one should rename the article "Rail Rapid transit" in Canada. And of course there's Calgary and Edmonton too. If one wants to not include Toronto Line 5 (or Line 6 which is now under construction) the article should be called "Grade separated rail rapid transit in Canada". And then how about RER? Why are the existing Ottawa and Toronto-Pearson lines missing? Also look to other articles. If you follow Rapid transit in France then the Toronto streetcar system should also be included. Perhaps that's the solution ... add sub-headings for different forms of rapid transit, and even a "See Also" for BRT. Nfitz (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify one very strange point... Terramorphous says that the Montreal system "can't be an LRT", even though that is exactly what it is called on the official website [9] and Line 5 of the subway can't be rapid transit even though that is exactly what is is called on the official website:[10]. Since when is someone's shoe-horning in definitions from random websites more important than the official names and terms of a system provided by the official websites? Mattximus (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Since never. Perhaps Terramorphous can speak to what he thinks of all the streetcar (tram) lines on the Rapid transit in France page. Nfitz (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

To Mattximus point, my argument is that some rapid transit systems are branded as light rail and and some light rail systems are branded as rapid transit usually due to translation errors. By rapid transit I am referring to the definition generally promoted on this page. I am arguing against the idea that I should remove the Ampang and Sri Petaling lines, Kelana Jaya line and Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 from List of metro systems because everyone calls them light rail; then proceed to add the Porto Metro because it's called a metro. If the REM is too contentious then sure remove it from the list, I am fine with that, see what they end up building by 2022. However, I would like to point out that on the french official REM page the system is classed as Métro léger (Light Metro).[11] The site loves mentioning REM using Alstom Metropolis metro trains, you know all those +5000 "light rail" cars being used in the Sydney Metro, North East MRT line and Chennai Metro.[12] In addition, it will operate in fully driverless (UTO GoA 4) mode just like all those fully automated "light rail" lines in Copenhagen and Dubai.[13] Again complete GoA 4 operation is not possible on actual light rail lines. On Nfitz point, yes one can argue that the Confederation Line is rapid transit as it is completely grade separated and isolated from other rail traffic, even stage 2 looks to be just as isolated. In fact, someone did notice that and tried arguing that point.[14] I would like to put Ottawa's system up for inclusion into list of metro systems but I don't think I have the energy to fight everyone on that issue. If someone wants to do it I will gladly support the motion over there. Terramorphous (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you just discuss this page here? Not sure what you mean by translation errors. This is the English Wikipedia and every system we are discussing here has an English-language website - including the new light rail and existing subway in Montreal. At a minimum this page should link to other rapid transit in Canada that's not listed here - but given how short the page is, it seems quite reasonable to have 2 or 3 sections listing rapid transit doesn't meet a very narrow guideline - multiple pages seem unnecessary. Though I'm personally happy to prod the entire page. Nfitz (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I am discussing the page. I am arguing that if we are going to be calling the page Rapid transit in Canada then it should be filled with systems that conform with the classification of rapid transit. I'm fine with combining all the pages here and listing light rail systems. My point of contention is that calling it rapid transit is incorrect, perhaps Urban rail transit like what has been done with Urban rail transit in China and Urban rail transit in India is better.Terramorphous (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nfitz's assessment and Terramorphous's renaming to "urban rail" seems like a good compromise. Although this would be a moot point, Terramorphous has still have not convinced me that a rapid transit line (exact wording in the source as per the official website) is not rapid transit because it doesn't conform to a definition provided by *a different* source that has nothing to do with Toronto Subway's line 5. That does not make any sense. Mattximus (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Terramorphous is being clear here. "rapid transit" doesn't specify mode, and does, of course, include bus rapid transit. If this article is about rapid transit in Canada it would of course include BRT and light rapid transit. If we had dozens of each type of system, then there could be one page for each subset. But given how few systems of any type we have in this country, one page can easily suffice for BRT, LRT, and various heavier or grade-separated systems like the Montreal subway or UP Express. Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I don't think "Urban Rail" works well at all. It's just not a phrase people use. And what of transit lines that in in suburban rather than urban areas? Given the lack of systems that fit the current list, just expand the list to include other forms of rapid transit - if such a list is needed in the first place. Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Line 5 Eglinton is tricky, as half of is basically subway, but half of it is standard surface LRT. Despite that, Metrolinx thinks the surface section still needs unique station names, although I personally don't think they do. The line definetly needs mention though due to the underground portion. Transportfan70 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Harbourfront streetcar line has two underground, named stations, but it is not "rapid transit" even though the TTC once described it as such. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Steve Munro once gave a simple rule of thumb to distinguish heavy rail versus light rail: If the vehicles can safely cross a street at grade, then it is light rail otherwise it is heavy rail (e.g. third rail, linear induction rail, operated by computer rather than an on-board driver, etc.) "Heavy rail" systems are more expensive to construct than "light rail"; thus, "light" may refer to lighter cost by using tram technology. The words "rapid transit" are a bit ambiguous but in the context of "rapid transit in Canada" mean heavy rail or metro. "Metro systems in Canada" might be a better title for the article, but "rapid transit" is perhaps the more common term. We should not base the decision (light vs. heavy rail) on the terminology used on the official website; afterall Waterloo's Ion "rapid transit" is clearly light rail and even ressembles a streetcar in some areas. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Rapid transit" article has a definition of "rapid transit" that would specifically exclude Line 5 as "rapid transit". TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nfitz that bus rapid transit is a form of rapid transit, so are LRTs and should be both in this article. But to TheTrolleyPole is point, the *official website* calls the Toronto subway line 5 rapid transit. You can't shoe-horn some random definition that fits your idea of what a rapid transit should be when it goes against what it is officially called from the official website. That source trumps a third party definition that was never intended for this situation. Applying a different definition than that provided form the TTC website, then ignoring what the official website calls it, would definitely be WP:OR. 12:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If you use official sites, you will get "some random definition" depending on the viewpoint of the official or politician doing the spin. For example, the Ion light rail line would thus qualify as "rapid transit" because their website says so. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Then it is. We can't change how they are officially categorized or termed, that's the whole purpose of the encyclopedia, is to report on what is. Not speculate on political motivations behind the naming. It's not about searching for alternative definitions then ignoring the official websites because it doesn't fit that other definition. If you don't think the Toronto subway Line 5 is "rapid transit" it shouldn't change how we report it, since that is what is it called in the sources. Applying another definition that is not in the official website is original research. Unless I suppose you find a reputable source that directly references the official website and claims it is incorrect for political or other reasons. Even then that would make it a footnote. Mattximus (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Officially categorized by who? The definition in that article seems complete bull to me - referencing a foreign dictionary (really?), a PDF file of dubious origin, and another quarter-century old foreign glossary. It's in complete conflict with what we see in other articles such as Rapid transit in France which even lists trams - and plain common sense, as no one would ever claim that Bus Rapid Transit is not rapid transit! I don't know the history here, but it smells to me like someone involved with that article, that has been peddling their own beliefs! Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As a local, I can confirm that Line 5 is considered rapid transit both anecdotally and officially ("The Toronto rapid transit projects are part of The Big Move..."). The City of Toronto considers it a rapid transit line and part of its "rapid transit network". Metrolinx, the agency in charge of constructing it, has actually gone to great lengths to differentiate LRTs from the Toronto streetcar system (partly fueled by a former mayor, but anyway...), and highlight their benefits, including the fact that they're almost as fast as subways. It's definitely appropriate to include Line 5 here, as well as the future LRT lines in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (if they get built?), based on the fact that transit experts in the locale have identified it as such. If anything, this article needs a rework to bring LRT under its umbrella, or it needs to be moved to Subways in Canada. --Natural R_X 16:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As another Torontonian who has been following Line 5's development very carefully, I too agree that it is rapid transit. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 12:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The way the page is currently organized, we have things listed by system, not by segments/technology of the system. If the TTC is calling Line 5 Eglinton part of its "Toronto subway" (and all indications are that this is so), then Line 5 and its under-construction stations should be included. The TTC does not consider the streetcar network part of the subway, so that wouldn't be included. But this would be like making a distinction between Vancouver's Canada Line (traditional electric motors) and the Expo and Millennium Lines (linear induction motors): TransLink bundles both those different techs as "SkyTrain". So whether Line 5 is fully grade-separated or not, light, medium, or heavy rail or not is really irrelevant given the way the page is organized. The "Toronto subway" rightfully belongs on this page, and the TTC says "the Toronto subway includes Line 5 Eglinton", so it should be included given the current logic.

Now as to what constitutes "rapid transit", well... I would like to go to a "rail-based public transit" definition but that leaves out Montreal, which is an obvious error. Then (significant) grade separation makes a lot of sense (which would include Line 5 Eglinton) but that would also include some bus "rapid transit" systems and I am personally loath to do that as I think "bus rapid transit" is in many respects marketing-speak. So probably the best approach would be a combo of (significant) grade separation and capacity. That would include the big 3 (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) and possibly some LRTs. I suppose we'd want to be sure "grade separation" was understood as "is not subject to intersections" or else things like 510 Spadina and 512 St. Clair, with their own rights-of-way, may qualify. Maybe we should be separating out by line/technology given how things are becoming more mixed? —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I think everything currently in this article, Light rail in Canada (minus Toronto streetcars), and bus rapid transit lines that are dedicated rights-of-way (e.g. Mississauga Transitway, Transitway (Ottawa), Vivanext rapidways) fits the definition of rapid transit and belongs in this article. The rest is academic debate IMO, and perhaps something to expand upon in its own section in this article (e.g. stops and stop spacing, traffic light priority). This could include the Toronto streetcar; the 510 and 512 have the dedicated rights-of-way but not the stop spacing; the TTC calls them LRTs but they're not part of its rapid transit network. That's if someone wants to take the lead on doing that. If we wanted minimal administrative correction, that's why I suggested moving this to Subways in Canada (which will require a CSD G6). --Natural R_X 19:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This sounds good. Has consensus been reached? Should we unite these three pages (stubs essentially) into one page? Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Merging the two rail articles should be done. It has my support. Northwest (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you want to unmerge the articles, you agreed right here they should be merged. Now it's just a question of the naming. Mattximus (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I am for merging the heavy rail (this one) and light rail articles under the name "Urban Rail Transit in Canada".Terramorphous (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Montreal is not "rail" per se. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean they do have conventional "rails", look at the inner gauge of the concrete rollway, a Montreal metro train has flanged wheels that look similar to a regular train behind the rubber tires to help it stay in the guideway and go through points.

View of a track from a sandpile bumper post showing the cross-section of guide bars, concrete rollways and conventional track

An older generation MR-63 train is in the Beaugrand Garage. A turntable to change trucks is in the foreground.

Switches use conventional points on the standard gauge track to guide trains. Rubber tires, rolling on concrete rollways, keep supporting the full weight of the trains as they go through switches. Guideways are provided in order to ensure there are no gaps in the electrical power supply.

Terramorphous (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, guess that works then. Please note any new title should use sentence case, so if we go with it, it should be Urban rail transit in Canada. Maybe Rail public transit in Canada? Do we need "urban" in there explicitly? —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

We should follow precedence and see what other countries' pages have done so that Canada is not an odd one out. I am fine with the current name, but with the inclusion of LRT and trams, since that would match other pages with the same name such as Rapid transit in France. BRT should be included since it is rapid transit however. The problem with urban rail is that we need to then include all commuter rail lines which I do not think really fits in with the subway/rubber tired metro/LRT group with frequent service. Mattximus (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

no we should definitely not include BRT because, as people have tried to point out to you numerous times, just because something is labelled "X" does not mean it actually is X. There's this thing called "marketing"? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Match what pages with the same name? What precedent? Rapid transit in Germany, Rapid transit in the United Kingdom, List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership and the biggest one List of metro systems only list heavy rail systems. France seems to be the odd one out. I would omit BRTs and follow what other pages do, which describes urban rail in a general sense for example List of Latin American rail transit systems by ridership, Urban rail transit in India, List of urban rail systems in Japan and Urban rail transit in China. If we are going to keep the rapid transit in the name of the article, again to stress Joeyconnick's point something "labelled "X" does not mean it actually is X" so calling/implying the Eglinton Crosstown as rapid transit is wrong as demonstrated by the APTA and TRB which states that LRT is not rapid transit.Terramorphous (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the previous suggested Urban rail transit in Canada is an appropriate title for the merger if it's to keep consistent with articles for other countries, and it is "urban" to some extent as I'm assuming intercity services wouldn't be covered in the article. I'm also not opposed to Public rail transit in Canada. The latter is probably the better choice.

The merger will likely have subsections to distinguish the different modes; "rapid transit", "light rail", "commuter rail", "streetcar", etc. I don't see a reason why "rapid transit" has to be kept in the article title. I'm not going to argue the true definition of the Eglinton Crosstown as it is irrelevant as it is grouped into the Toronto subway system. Northwest (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Recent changes to tables

Hello, I noticed a recent change which added an extra table and added the Toronto streetcar system. I think there are issues with both of these moves. The second table is redundant since there is already a column for technology, so you don't also have to divide the tables into technology. If you want two tables, then you should remove the technology column, but I don't see why that makes sense. Also systems in the future will be mixed heavy/light rail so you can't pigeon hole it into one of the tables.

Also the Toronto streetcar system is not rapid transit, and I have never heard it referred to as such, so I'm not sure why that was included as well. I suggest we keep it as is, the single table is also better in that it allows us to sort by various columns and compare. There is no advantage to splitting the table into two that I can see at all. Mattximus (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The extra table is not a recent change but stable since April 12, 2019. I suggest we split the tables and leave it as is. It seems everyone was fine with that as per what was done by @Northwest:. Which I quote (and agree with):

I do not recall a consensus that light rail is a form of rapid transit; either remove all light rail content or have subsections in place until the article is renamed with "rapid transit" excluded from the title

— Northwest

Also, we can open the debate on what to include again if you so choose to put everything together as one table; Therefore implying that Light rail is Rapid transit. I disagree with that statement but as this talk page shows, the jury is still out on that.Terramorphous (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think we have a few issues, we can address (and open up for debate) each one. And then edit the article based on the conclusion, if that works for you?

1. You haven't mentioned why we should have 2 tables for technology and also a column for technology. Isn't this just duplication? What advantage is gained from splitting the table into two tables AND include the technology? I disagree with the quotation above, so a consensus was not reached. It also just makes it hard to sort and read the page.

2. I'm not sure I understand about light rail not being rapid transit. Are you saying that "Ion rapid transit" is not "rapid transit"? You will have to provide a reference for that to be true, because it is right in the name. Also, the O-train light rail system is also called rapid transit on their official website [15]. If the agency calls it that officially, then we have to report this on wikipedia, otherwise we are doing original research.

Mattximus (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason I left the technology column is that we might want to be more specific of the technology being used, being that Montreal is a rubber tired metro and Vancouver is a LIM light metro. Of course if you find that too redundant then I don't mind removing that column. Yes "Ion rapid transit" is not "rapid transit" in a transport engineering sense as @TheTrolleyPole: pointed out it's just marketing. LRT is a distinct category separate from rapid transit as shown in the APTA, UITP or the dictionary. Should I say the Hamilton Street Railway is a streetcar system?Terramorphous (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

By your dictionary definition, the O-train is rapid transit... unquestionably. Also where would you put mixed systems like the Toronto subway, which has a light rail component to the system? I think you are trying to pigeonhole a continuum of systems into two arbitrary categories. If you use the definition you provide, then the Chicago L train is not a rapid transit, since cars cross it regularly. I think we need others opinions here. Mattximus (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Mixed systems are not an issue. As shown in List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership and List of United States light rail systems by ridership you take the parts of what the APTA defines as rapid transit (see Boston and Philadelphia). Yes the O-Train is technically rapid transit but unless we have a source saying that it's OR. I can't speak for Chicago although only a very small portion of the network runs with crossings. Even those crossings are railway type crossings not street running that you see in an LRT. I think the APTA grandfathered the system in as "heavy rail rapid transit" since those sections are so old. Unlike the Eglinton Crosstown which half of the first phase runs runs down the middle of a street and the proposed east and west extensions are full on LRT alignments with many at grade crossings.Terramorphous (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I provided a source above for O-train being called rapid transit. Splitting systems, like the Toronto subway into parts (heavy rail vs light metro vs light rail) is absolutely WP:OR, since it's considered by all official sources, media, and locals as a single system. Mattximus (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Really? Not according to the APTA. they are split by mode. This is Rapid transit in Canada, not Transit systems in Canada. I am a local, and Line 5 is a light rail line in the TTC network not a rapid transit line. The APTA is an official and technical source. Where is the WP:OR?Terramorphous (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of Ion rapid transit, O-train into this page

Many people would consider the O-Train (including official website), and the Ion rapid transit (including official website) as being rapid transit. I know the American Public Transportation Association does not, but I recommend we go with local sources, instead of American sources. I also suggest we match this page with Rapid transit in France and include a second section for LRT systems, so that readers looking for, say Ion rapid transit, don't wonder why its not on this list. Remember we are writing wikipedia for the general public, and people in general would consider "Ion rapid transit" to be "rapid transit". Mattximus (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I take your point about local sources terming those systems as rapid transit, but I think this needs to be balanced with the use of a consistent standard, because individual local sources are not consistent. Some transit systems have "BRT" systems that are just express buses, but which they nevertheless call rapid transit, and I think including those here would be silly. I think your suggestion of keeping the main list as APTA-standard rapid transit and a separate section that lists Canada's light rail systems while linking to Light rail in Canada, à la Rapid transit in France, and its more detailed descriptions of each system is a good compromise between these two needs, and I'll go ahead and implement that. UmpireRay (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the above discussions, I think consensus was reached to merge all these pages (commuter rail, rapid transit, and light rail) into a single Urban rail transit in Canada page. This seems to be a good compromise to encompass all these systems which have heavy overlap (such as GO Transit's RER project giving it some rapid transit characteristics and the O-Train and Ion like you mentioned) while providing details into all of them. Rather than editing this article further, I will start Draft:Urban rail transit in Canada. Once it is completed, we can publish it and redirect this and the light rail article to it.UmpireRay (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I support the move to merge everything into a single Urban rail transit in Canada. Terramorphous (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That works for me too. I do disagree with splitting the Toronto subway system into two parts as that constitutes WP:OR. It is an integrated system, and even the current light rail component (line 3), is referred to as part of the subway system. This was discussed at length, and the conclusion was that WP:COMMON overrides the technical pigeonholing. And since that table is a list of Rapid transit systems and not Rapid transit lines, we must use the system, not splitting the system into parts, then it's not a system anymore. Also the new line 5 is primarily an underground rapid transit system, with a portion above ground. If that's not rapid transit, then you don't believe the Chicago L is either? Almost all it's long lines do that. Many other examples can be found. It's just best to treat the Toronto subway as a unified system, with several modalities. Mattximus (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Revert of merge

@Joeyconnick: You reverted the merge of this and the light rail page into Urban rail transit in Canada citing the lack of an actual discussion. However, this had been discussed on multiple occasions, including in 2015, in 2019, and now in 2020 with clear almost-universal consensus that a merger would be advisable, particularly in that it resolves the issue of which systems go in which article and the competing definitions or designations of rapid transit vs. light rail. Given this ongoing consensus, I thought this is an uncontroversial merger that should have been WP:BOLDly executed. I'm happy to start a formal merger discussion if you or any other editor think it would actually be warranted, but I still don't think that's necessary given the history here (a move discussion should happen at the merged article if that ends up being controversial). UmpireRay (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I just want to echo that I do think this proposed merge is a good idea, I even support separating into sections like the rapid transit in France page. My only desire is that systems not be split, and be place in whatever category they best fit. Splitting a system into two or three parts is original research. Mattximus (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the extent of the reconfiguration and the various discussions you're citing, UmpireRay, it would have been (more than) prudent to at the very least mention some form of all the above in the edit summaries of your major edits. Not all of us follow every talk page discussion on every transit-related page in Canada and as for the most recent discussion, one might argue 3 editors agreeing on something over the course of maybe 24 hours is not carte blanche to execute the extent of the changes that you then did. But given good faith and your subsequent explanation, I'll back out my reversions. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

PS you need to merge the Talk pages too. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I actually really like the table made by UmpireRay, I think it really considered all viewpoints expressed on this page. Thank you! Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

In the recent merge, certain sections from the old Light rail in Canada article were dropped. Was that accidental or deliberate? If deliberate, is there a reason? The deleted material was about the Longueuil proposal and about cancelled projects. @UmpireRay, Mattximus, and Joeyconnick: Sections lost in merge. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Re-added.UmpireRay (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think we need any information on cancelled projects. There would be hundreds if we included all of them. Mattximus (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think cancelled projects are encyclopedic and should be included. There was planning, press and some recognition of the processes so it makes perfect sense to include it. I think you're being a bit hyperbolic by saying that there would be hundreds of them as we don't even have a dozen locations where such a project would be considered and the planning alone would take a few years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There are probably a dozen plans for a subway under just queen street in Toronto...! Nevertheless, if planned systems do have a place in Wikipedia it’s surely in the respective pages for each system, not in the general overview page (which this is). This should just stick to the very basic facts for each system, and the individual pages can contain more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Are they a dozen plans or a dozen proposals or a few approaches for one proposal? Did any proceed to government level? Were any cancelled? Where I live, there have been several proposals for actually extending the SkyTrain to UBC, but none were ever approved or cancelled, and it's that last step—the actual cancellation—that would allow it to be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that those things could belong, but certainly not in the "overview" page, but in the specific Skytrain page in your example. No need to have it in both pages. Mattximus (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That was not an example of a cancelled proposal though. What we had in the other article were actually cancelled. For example, one that should be listed is the Surrey LRT. It was planned, revised, approved, funded, work on the line had started, but public backlash and change in administration resulted in it being cancelled in favour of SkyTrain extension. That fits the criteria of a cancelled project. The numerous discussions around Queen Street subway line do not. In short, yes, we should list cancelled projected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)