Talk:East Bayfront LRT

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the East Bayfront LRT article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Trains: By country series Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the By country series task force.

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Intro

"There are plans for a Queens Quay East light rail line to complement existing service along Queens Quay west of Bay Street, in Downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada.". An article mustn't usually begin with an open statement as the latter. some background info is needed as well. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intro just revised. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 August 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Note to commenter: LRT stands for light rail transit. The article was moved to "LRT" per the argument given that it is used in sources. —innotata 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Quay East light rail line → East Bayfront LRT – What the line is called in those reference given here. This is a match to other Toronto lines using "name LRT". Martin Morin (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support That seems to be the semi-official name used. The current name is its location. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support This name is being used in a variety of sources. East Bayfront is also the name of part of the location. Alexhead8835 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose abbreviated jargon ("LRT") being used in titles. Spell out "light rail train". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Saulter Street

Saulter Street is listed twice, on the infoboxes list of transit stops. That can't be right. Geo Swan (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must've been an editing error. It's fixed. --Natural R_X 17:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit responsibly

Some contributors think references should list authors' names in their natural order - ie first name(s) followed by their last names. Other contributors prefer authors' names to be in last name, first name form. Our wikidocuments allow either form, but request contributors stick to the form used by the articles initial contributors.

Well, I was the initial contributor, and I used my preferred form, first name, followed by last name. Someone else rewrote those references. Well, that was counter-policy, and disruptive.

In the 19th century, and the first 8 o 9 decades of the 20th century, listing authors names in alphabetic order, by last name, made a kind of sense. It made a kind of sense because all those early documents were stored on dead trees, on paper. For the last three or four decades putting the last name first has absolutely not made sense, because almost all modern documents are available electronically, and references can be ranked, sorted, etc, by computer.

Why is this kind of editing worth complaining about?

The wikipedia is not being kept up to date. It is not being properly maintained. I've started a lot of google news alertes, when I have started new articles, or made significant expansions to existing articles. Weeks, months, years or decades later, google will advise me that there is a new development on those topics. When I go to the article, to consider expanding it, the first thing I do is a diff between the last version I edited and the current version. What I would like to see is a diff that shows a minimum number of edits to the article's metadata, but mainly shows edits to the article's actual content.

What I usually find is a diff lit up like a christmas tree, that is so busy it is impossible to tell if the article's actual content has been update.

What I often end up having to do is to step through every individual edit, one at a time. What I often find, after going to all that effort, is that all the edits since my last edit were to the article's metadata, and that barring things like corrections to spelling, capitalization or punctuation, all those edits were to the article's metadata. Often no one in those dozen of edits made one lick of effort to keep the article up to date.

Please edit responsibly. Please keep your edits to metadata sensible. In particular, don't rewrite references for purely aesthetic reasons. Don't put references that were initially one field per line into all fields on a single line. And don't do the reverse, split references into one field per line. Don't rewrite the order existing references authors' names. Don't remove newlines because you like each paragraph to be one logical line.

Please edit responsibly. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your changes... not because because I disagree with your points (although I do), but because you introduced several reference problems with them (with same-named references being defined in multiple different ways). Feel free to redo your changes as long as they don't break the existing references. If you are breaking references, then your formatting preferences are irrelevant.

Also, slight side note: <ref name="name of ref" /> is actually the more correct way to write out ref tags (i.e. with the quotation marks around the name and the "/>" end bit (if it's a subsequent use). True, the quotations are not needed but that's only because browsers are super-forgiving. "Restoring" those to forms without quotation marks is not an improvement. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Bayfront LRT (RouteMap)

Correction: Notes on the February 2021 template changes are in Template talk:East Bayfront LRT#2021-02 revisions