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 articles
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 articles
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.
In March, various levels of government held a ground breaking ceremony and "declared" that the line was under construction. While some news agencies mirrored the government's claim, others such as Global News and CTV News (used as the citation for this article) only reported on the event itself. On other Toronto transit projects such as Line 6 Finch West, it was not until major construction began (i.e. not including minor works such as utility relocation) that the infobox was updated to state u/c. Given that the big contracts for the Ontario Line have not even been awarded yet, it could be a while before major construction beings. BLAIXX 15:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the major contracts haven't been awarded, it sounds premature to list it as "under construction" to me. Making a bigger deal about something actually minor sounds pretty much par for the course for the current provincial government. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is "ceremonially" under construction, but not actually under construction. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
iirc, Line 5 Eglinton had "ground breaking" ceremonies in 2011 and 2016! Agreed with others that the line isn't under construction yet. Turini2 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to be the lone dissenter here, it is officially under construction [1] from the official page of the company responsible for its construction. Many of us may have different definitions of what it means to be under construction, but that would be WP:OR. I think we must simply report what the official site says. Mattximus (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Metrolinx a 'company' is an odd description, it's a government agency that answers directly to politicians (who are pushing a narrative that work is under way, for their own ends). As no major work has been tendered to a private firm as yet, I have to side with the previous commenters. Radagast (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your intentions are good but "simply reporting what the official website says" is absolutely NOT what we should do on Wikipedia! It is Wikipedia policy that articles should primarily be based on secondary sources. This is because the primary/official source may be biased. To elaborate on what Radagast said, Metrolinx is an agency of the Government of Ontario which is only two months away from a general election so we need to be cautious of what they claim versus what other reliable sources are reporting. BLAIXX 14:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what Blaixx said, the Eglinton West Subway was "officially" (i.e., ceremonially) under construction in 1994, but was filled in the next year under a new premiership. Therefore, we should use reliable secondary sources. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That too but all I meant was that the people making the claim may be doing so for their own benefit (i.e. the government seeking re-election in June may be embellishing the progress of their major infrastructure project). BLAIXX 15:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IF the purpose of wikipedia is not to use primary sources but secondary, then try these: [2], [3], [4], and many more. Just because you or I think it isn't under construction, if I have at least a half dozen secondary sources (including CBC, CTV, etc...) and they all say it has begun, it's WP:OR is it not? Mattximus (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the tunnelling contract, the stations designs contract, the rolling stock contract, the signalling contract or any other major engineering contract has been awarded. Ergo, it's not yet under construction - remember there's a general election two months away, and Metrolinx is in the business of making the Government look good. Turini2 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC and CTV articles you linked do not say that the line is under construction, they say that the government says that the line is under construction. There is a difference. BLAIXX 21:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read both articles and both said what Blaixx said. There is a difference between what the provincial government says and what the journalists say, especially given what journalistic standards reliable sources abide by. At least the CBC and CTV are being honest in this case, unlike certain clickbait sources (such as BlogTO). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, if anyone was looking out for actual on the ground construction to start for Ontario Line, great news. Work on Adelaide Street (Duncan Street to Victoria Street) begun just a couple of days ago (October 24th, 2022). This work is being done for Ontario Line, as it consists of upgrades to the Streetcar tracks that will enable Streetcar diversions for 501 Queen Line.
This is still not the line itself undergoing construction, so there's no change to that status. Radagast (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's early works underway at various locations in the city under various Metrolinx contracts. At Exhibition station, work began in March 2022. Work at the Corktown station also began this year, with demolition of the existing buildings. Meanwhile the main tunnelling and stations contract has been awarded along with rolling stock and operations/maintenance contract. There's no doubt the line is under construction, given the contracts, and the hoarding around sites on both sides of the city that say that construction is underway for the Ontario Line. Not to mention the reliable primary and secondary sources saying that construction is underway. Nfitz (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As many above say - u/c = major construction rather than minor things like utility relocation or minor preliminary work. I think demolition and clearance of station sites does count as major construction - so if you have a source for that, that would be great! It also helps that the major construction contracts have been awarded. Turini2 (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a source for what can be seen easily, driving down Front Street? Yeah ... probably. If you go to Google Earth (full version), the March 2022 airphoto, you can see the hoarding has been erected around the block between King and Front where Staples was; and on the block to the south between Front and Esplanade/Mill is. By the most recent airphoto (June 2022), it's all been demolished - along with the remaining buildings on Atlantic Avenue, next to the tracks, and the "New Road" along the cancelled Front Street east extension. Last time I was in Exhibition station, in November, they were erecting the hoarding for the construction of the new pedestrian overpass, over the tracks and Ontario Line alignment. Metrolinx reported on the construction status in August 2022. Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - but "putting some hoardings up" isn't major construction. Demolition is! I'll see what I can find in terms of secondary sources. Turini2 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, here's the official groundbreaking date - March 27, 2022. Here's media reports about the groundbreaking ceremony - CBC, International Railway Journal, Railway Gazette. I can see hesitation while the project can still be cancelled - but it's almost impossible to cancel now that 2 major $billion+ PPP contracts were signed last month. Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A ceremony is also not major construction. I think we've established that in this thread. BLAIXX 17:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a valid source, but I drove by the site and the demolition and land flattening is complete at the corktown station site. That to me is stations under construction. There are pictures here [5]. I don't know what else needs to be shown for construction but there are users here for some reason want "major" construction to occur before calling it under construction, despite demolition and land clearing to be "major" in my opinion. Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the photos are from the official Metrolinx website, it is safe to say that the Ontario Line is under construction. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have made edits in this regard, now we have consensus! Turini2 (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is a black version of the system map permitted?[edit]
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]
How is black less readable and "accessible"? I find the station names on the black version are clearer actually. Transportfan70 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A variety of reasons, including contrast, readability, colour blindness and MOS:COLOR & MOS:COLORCODING.
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. BLAIXX 15:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of the UP looked too dark and lightened it. I can lighten it more. Transportfan70 (talk) 17:44, 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]
I obviously read it as I addressed the issue. TBH, I seemed to have opened a can of worms here...Transportfan70 (talk) 04:55, 19 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]
I can try that. And BTW, the official TTC map IS black, which brings me back to the original point.
I replaced the article map with one with the stations realigned as /. And with the official TTC version itself being black... Transportfan70 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By the way, I would like to see the final version (for now) of the map. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:31, 6 June 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]
Thanks. No wonder why the TTC themselves switched to a white background for their ride guides and it's not just to save ink. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though the 3rd paragraph of toronto subway#Door operation is written in a biased way because of the sources it cites. The sources used in [30] and [31] are websites made by the union that represents subway operators, which has an interest in preserving two-person train operations. The data represented in the article is from the union, and I question how valid the data is since it is coming from a biased source. Should the paragraph be removed or altered in some way? GeoFryer (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified that the first survey (2020) was undertaken by the union, and removed the 2021 piece in the absence of a secondary source. Will look for a TTC source with the opposing viewpoints for balance. Turini2 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might need a little moving about, but have added TTC's side - TLDR "it's safe and used around the world, and Line 3 uses it anyway" Turini2 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks! GeoFryer (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2022 (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]
It would be good to clarify that section in the article itself, but the comment made still stands for the time being. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:08, 13 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]
I would like to know what Joeyconnick thinks of this as well, though I would say that we should discuss the currently available wireless services on the subway system without mentioning BAI's ownership first. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:32, 14 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.
Maybe Johnny Au can explain what the purpose of the note was? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Use of the unconfirmed purple 3 roundel icon[edit]
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. BLAIXX 02:47, 19 December 2023 (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)