Template talk:Metrolinx

Viva in York Region

"These projects are part of Metrolinx's $1.4 billion commitment to improving transit in York Region" http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/transitexpansionprojects/york_viva.aspx

Hwy. 7, Markham/Richmond Hill
Davis Drive, Newmarket
Yonge Street, Richmond Hill
Hwy. 7, Vaughan
Yonge Street, Newmarket

These are Metrolinx related projects. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. They are deliverable components of the vivaNext vision. --Natural R_X 19:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmartTrack

Given the recent edit war, I'd like to ask for opinions on why or why not SmartTrack should be on this template. My view is that it is not appropriate, simply on the basis that it is a City of Toronto undertaking (not Metrolinx). --Natural R_X 22:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stations and tracks are being constructed by Metrolinx and they will probably operate the system too. Toronto is only clinging on to it because of John Tory's election platform. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is very closely tied to GO's Regional Express Rail initiative (and very well may be folded within it when it comes to branding, etc). Lots of Metrolinx fingers in that particular pie. Radagast (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So would it not be more appropriate to link Regional Express Rail on this template, alongside or in lieu of SmartTrack? --Natural R_X 18:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but we still don't know precisely how the services will be branded and implemented once they start up. It's an odd relationship, but in the meantime I say we err on the side of inclusivity and list both until more is decided/announced. Radagast (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Do you sincerely mean that? Let's put it another way: John Tory keeps pushing this SmartTrack brand around, and the province is kinda going along with it but not...it puts us (Wikipedians adhering to WP:V) in a spot where we can't make a definitive call. --Natural R_X 06:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editors removing the material were both socks of a blocked editor. My involvement was simply the reversion of edits by a vandal and self-admitted sock. I have no opinion in whether the material should remain. Meters (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SmartTrack is a valid subject for Wikipedia in that it is a major project and has the support of the mayor and at least the acquiescence of the Province and a majority of City Council. There was a request to delete the article before John Tory was elected because it was essentially an election advertisement. But now, the article covers the pros, cons and compromises, and is now more objective. I think the SmartTrack article is too big to be a section of the GO RER article. There is a precedent of having separate articles for each route, which SmartTrack would be if implemented. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Meters here. I was simply invoking WP:RBI by undoing the blocked editor's edits. –Fredddie ™ 22:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]