Toronto subway was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
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
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
I made a system map with a black background because I feel it looks better than the white version, but would a black version violate copyright because it's so close to the official TTC version? Transportfan70 (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a black version of your map would be fine copyright wise - however, I feel that a black background version is significantly less readable and useful for readers than a white background map. Therefore I think the status quo is best. Turini2 (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the black version I made with Line 5 open (would be uploaded to article after opening): See if you think it's appropriate when enlarged:
yeah it looks fine copyright wise, but I think a white version is much nicer and more readable than that - given accessibility considerations, we should probably stick with the white. Turini2 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason the majority of maps, websites, books and magazines have light rather than dark backgrounds. Also consider anyone printing the article, or viewing it on a poor quality display. I would not support changing the map to this. Turini2 (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the black background but I cannot see UP clearly on it. Also what does the skinny part of line 5 represent? It's not "above ground" because it is not made skinny elsewhere above ground. Mattximus (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The skinny part is the street-running segment and the thick part is where it has full grade separation from car and pedestrian traffic. BLAIXX15:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding the white text harder to read in a smaller file than the black text in the current public version, but a bigger issue in both maps is the orientation of the text for the west-east routes, which is very inconsistent and busy. On the west side of Line 5, you have the names sloping downward to right both above and below the line; on the east side they slope upward to the right both above and below. On Line 2, which I realize matches the existing map in the article, it's all over the place: on the west end the names slope towards their stop markers both above and below the line, but on the east side the names start at their markers and slope up or down from them. Obviously the layout of the routes themsevles bring challenges but these placements should be done more consistently, and right now you have four different orientations going on for west-east routes (five when count Line 4, whose names get to be horizontal). If you look at the TTC's own version, they found a way to make all the names on Line 2 orient the same direction, with exceptions only those near the intersections with Line 1: Nov 2021 subway mapEchoedmyron (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a (rough talk page version) of the future system in 2030. The station names are on the same side where practical, though i had to stretch it a lot to fit in the names for Line 6 this way compared to the alternating sides in the article version:
What do you mean by that? The names have to slope the way they do on opposite sides because of Line 1 and the Ontario Line. I'll shift the Lawrence East name. (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going with sloped text, it shoudl all start at the bottom left and go to the top right, ala the forward slash ( / ). That's more natural to read in a left-to-right language and it 100% needs to be consistent throughout the map. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least there is a version of the map without Line 3 Scarborough, though it has a white background rather than a black background. I do like to see a version with a black background. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, a black background map is not a good idea - given the colour, contrast and readability issues outlined above. The white one is nice! Turini2 (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000 Hey, I reverted your post on Line 1 Yonge-University - this is the discussion regarding issues with the black maps - namely colour, construct and readability issues, as well as potential copyright issues of the identical map style used by the TTC.Turini2 (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeyconnick and Johnny Au: In the code for Toronto subway#Internet and mobile phone access, I found the comment: "Don't mention Rogers Communications purchasing Freedom Mobile's parent company, Shaw Communications, until the tunnels and stations officially have Rogers cellular service." Does this mean we cannot mention that Rogers acquired BAI, that Rogers customers can access BAI services, that all carriers can use the BAI system for 911 calls, that the federal government has decreed full cellphone and data services for the entire subway network by the end of 2026? Thus, must this section remain out of date until 2026? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the reason for prohibiting updates to the section until 2026? Is the prohibition just for corporate changes? Or, may we describe currently available wireless services on the subway system without mentioning who owns what? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the note was first added in this edit in June 2021.
I'll admit I don't know why it's there. The only thing I can think of that we need to be careful about is digressing into a discussion of Rogers' purchase of Shaw... maybe we need to mention the purchase, maybe we don't, but the article is clearly not about the various Rogers and Shaw shenanigans. But it would seem weird not to mention who technically controls the cellular infrastructure in the subway and who, as a result, does have and does not have access to which services as a result.
I added the note because I felt that mentioning Rogers owning BAI was tangential to the article at the time. Perhaps the note can be removed and we can mention Rogers owning BAI then? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 12:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the result is that we may bring the section up to date provided we omit any mention of corporate intrigue among carriers. We will stick to what services are provided, when they began and who provides the services. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the future reference: adding {{u|Joeyconnick}} as an edit to a comment actually doesn't ping me. I assume you have to include it in the original edit that adds the comment for pinging to happen.
I made some copyedits. My main remaining question is do Fido and other Rogers flanker brands (are there others?) have access to the current 5G service? If yes, we should probably mention that. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Millsy0303, please see the discussion at Talk:Ontario Line#New Line 3 Logo and Colour, where it's clear there's no consensus as yet about using the purple (3) roundel. It's not controversial (that I know of) that they are planning to call the Ontario Line "Line 3" but the recently added icon is still the subject of debate. I reverted your edits because you added it, not because you referred to the Ontario Line as "Line 3". —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joeyconnick that it is fair to call this line Line 3 tentatively, but the purple roundel is buried very deep in the technical document as a placeholder and is not agreed upon in various reliable sources, making it inappropriate for use. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm missing something but since line 4 is purple, won't line 3 be another colour? I swear I saw it as blue in some old technical report. Mattximus (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A purple showed up in an obscure wayfinding planning document and some editors got a little eager with its usage on Wikipedia. Yes, the blue 3 has also been used by the TTC in planning documents. BLAIXX02:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is "light metro" really the best descriptor for the Ontario Line? None of the official government sources seem to use this term for it and only ever refer to it as a subway, and the linked article refers to systems that will uniformly have narrower and shorter trains than the Ontario Line (3m x 100m). The capacity will also be in line with the other heavy rail subway lines. Reecemartin558 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree – the Ontario Line is only "light" compared to the existing Toronto subway lines. News sources consistently refer to it as a "subway" project, with the exception of some international sources which call it a "metro" (but never a light metro). BLAIXX01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with both of you. I've never heard this term before or seen it for any official documents. Replaced with subway in the article, as its the most parsimonious definition. Mattximus (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I also agree with all of you three. By the way, I like your YouTube channel, Reece Martin, and am a subscriber to your channel. I may consider subscribing to Nebula to watch your exclusive videos. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a mod, User:Cyrobyte gave a rather pessimistic opening date of "after 2025" for lines 5 and 6. Also deleted in the mod was the text "Don't change to 2025 until there is either an official source or until 2024 is over". Even Jamaal Myers admits that his estimate is not an official Metrolinx date. The deleted statement is inconsistant to those in Line 5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch West which say "For the central section, the "planned opening" is for the official Metrolinx opening date when it is announced." and "This is for the --planned-- opening not for a speculative date; please don't add Brian Lilley's speculative date unless Metrolinx officially announces a new specified date" respectively. All 3 articles now show a different "planned opening". Are User:Joeyconnick and User:Johnny Au giving up on using TBA instead of 2025? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the text to "2025 or later"; that is what I meant to say at first. I think that saying 2025 or later is the most appropraite thing to do. Myres said that June 1, 2025 is the "earliest possible date" for Line 5. I think that it is extremely unlikely that it will open this year given that statement, but it also may open later. Cyrobyte (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the most appropriate thing to do (at least for Line 5—I haven't looked into Line 6) is TBA because 2025 has not been announced by a reliable source. Not sure how there's any debate on this. "2025 or later" is not a date. If we aren't sure, then we don't guess. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBA is applicable to Line 5 as the current source says "no earlier than X" but that is clearly not an actual opening date, just a statement that it won't open on certain dates. As such, I've changed it back to TBA. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
showed up in an obscure wayfinding planning document and some editors got a little eager with its usage on Wikipedia. Yes, the blue 3 has also been used by the TTC in planning documents. BLAIXX 02:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)