Talk:Flexity Outlook (Toronto)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Photo of the mockup?

I did not attend the mockup event at Hillcrest some weeks back. Does anyone have a photo that we can add to the article? eja2k 05:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Flexity Outlook Cityrunner claim

The article currently states the Toronto design is modified from the "Flexity Outlook Cityrunner" design. I am highly skeptical. Bombardier acquired a number of other manufacturers of light rail and streetcar vehicles. Eurotram was one of those legacy designs. Cityrunner was designed by another firm, and I strongly suspect that, like the Eurotram, if Bombardier ever called the vehicles a it was purely a marketing ploy.

Anyhow, the "Flexity Outlook Cityrunner" claim is unreferenced. And, since I am skeptical, I will remove it, if it remains unreferenced. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

New article for Transit city LRVs?

Now that the option for the second order of (different) LRVs has been placed, it is fairly certain that both types of vehicle will reach the streets of Toronto. The two types of LRV are quite different from each other and will run on two completely different, unconnected, and incompatible networks so there may be justification for a new article for the Transit City LRVs. They are much more different from each other than the CLRV and the ALRV are to each other, and they have two separate articles.Reaperexpress (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The full design specifications have not even been finalized for the first batch, never mind any subsequent vehicles that may be used for Transit City if it TC built to current specification. I think we should hold off on any separate Transit City vehicle article until more information is available. eja2k 05:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on Toronto streetcar system rolling stock would be a good spot for info until there is enough to justify a separate article... and perhaps renaming that article to include the LRT system in the title. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, we have an article on the Flexity Freedom vehicles -- but we still have a section in this article containing quite a lot of details about the other vehicles. In my opinion the Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar)#Flexity Freedom LRT section should be retained, but only enough details should be retained to provide context. Most of the details belong in the Flexity Freedom article.

For what it is worth my reading of Bombardier's comments on the Flexity Freedom is that they intend it to be their primary LRT product aimed at the North American market. They seem to have decided the European market should be targeted with another LRT product. I wonder why they think Europe and North America need different designs?

If I return here, and no one has offered a reason why this section should be more than a paragraph, I will go ahead and scale it back to a single paragraph. Geo Swan (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

505/511 rollout

199.212.68.220 said: "Munro is not any official TTC agent but simply a private blogger. It is the TTC that decides on the official rollout, etc. Munro is being made to look like a TTC official."

173.230.176.176 said: "once again Munro does NOT decide the rollout schedule as Munro does not work for the TTC, Munro simply reports on some of the TTC's plans; there is a deliberate attempt to promote Munro as an authority on transit"

It appears that 199.212.68.220 and 173.230.176.176 are the same person.

I agree that Steve Munro does not "decide" on the rollout schedule, but he can "report" on it as well as provide opinion. I have reworded the 504/511 rollout paragraph to make it extra clear that Munro "reports" rather than "decides" the rollout. The second quarter 505 rollout appears to be Munro's estimate. None of the info in the paragraph comes from a TTC announcement; thus, it would be incorrect to directly attribute it as such. Eventually, the TTC will announce the next rollout in which case that announcement will replace the info reported by Munro.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

We have to remember WP:Twitter-EL as well, especially given that Munro and TTC executive director of communications Brad Ross are prolific Twitter users. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

504 King implementation

A Toronto Star article states that Flexity streetcars were introduced on 504 King on December 4, 2017. However, the TTC's New Streetcars page says implementation is 2018 while the TTC's Accessible streetcar service updates page says "504 King / Effective January 2, 2018 / Some streetcars on this route are low-floor accessible, with accessible service provided at least every 30 minutes. All service is planned to be provided with low-floor accessible streetcars in late 2018." Thus, I am concluding that the official implementation date is January 2, 2018, and that the defacto implementation on weekdays (a sudden change of plans based on increased ridership due to the 504 King#Transit mall) was on December 4, 2017. Thus, I am modifying the Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar)#Rollout table to reflect both the official and defacto dates. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Streetcars to be taken out of service and sent to Quebec to fix welding defect

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/07/03/most-new-ttc-streetcars-to-be-shipped-to-quebec-to-fix-welding-defect-bombardier-says.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.189.82 (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Public Transit Discussion Board

@Joeyconnick, Johnny Au, and Useddenim: Please comment. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Joeyconnick has blacklisted Canadian Public Transit Discussion Board (CPTDB) for use as a REF, and has removed all text and tables from the article that were based on now-deleted CPTDB REFs. WP:USERG was cited as the reason, which says:

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), Ancestry.com, content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source.

The word "generally" suggests that there are exceptions. Thus, I would like to argue for a reprieve of the blacklisting as it appears to be based on how CPTDB has set up their website rather than on evidence of inaccuracies. (It is "a wiki, which is by definition not reliable" according to the ruling.) According to a policy webpage, CPTDB has editors to approve revisions before publishing, unlike Wikipedia where I sometimes see anonymous (IP-address) contributions made without REFs. So, could we please have a reprieve? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Although not always accurate, CPTDB does seem to be getting better, so I would consider it a secondary source that could be used for confirmation. So, keep. Useddenim (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As a compromise, CPTDB could be used as an external link, but not as a ref. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That appears to be today's status quo as CPTDB is now retained only as an external link. I was hoping to retain CPTDB as a REF for delivery dates to count deliveries by period. Sometimes, the Toronto Star gives the year-end deliveries which can be reconciled to the CPTDB data. Sometimes the "reliable sources" don't identify shipment versus delivery date while CPTDB does. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't "blacklist" anything. I don't have that power. I removed content from a page that was sourced solely by a wiki, which is clearly not appropriate to include at Wikipedia. You can split hairs all you want on "generally" (which you should indicate you added the emphasis to) but if you read the entirety of WP:USERG, it's clear the "generally" applies to situations like blogs by known authorities/insiders, like how Steve Munro's blog is used as a source for Toronto-related transit info, given he often writes transit-related coverage for Toronto-based news orgs and publications and is publicly recognized for his decades-long expertise on Toronto transit. That's where "generally" comes into play. Specifically, this type of exception is mentioned: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. (emphasis in original; and even then, it says "may be acceptable"—it doesn't guarantee that it is) Comparisons with anon contribs at Wikipedia are irrelevant because those contributions must be reliably sourced, whatever their authorship (anon or "non-anon" accounts). I don't see anything at CPTDB that indicates it would hold up to that scrutiny... I've never seen any indication of attribution of content (other than usernames on edits, and those usernames do not link back to any kind of indication of expertise, and certainly not authorship by people who are provably credentialed. Or, you know, the fact it's literally called a discussion board might be a hint that it's not an appropriate source.

The fact of the matter is that standards at Wikipedia are generally higher than at other collaborative websites and it's debatable whether the level of detail at a site like CPTDB is appropriate for this project, given WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If people are really curious about specific identifiers on newly released streetcars, by all means point them to CPTDB as an external link, but information here needs to be held to that higher standard. WP:RS does not say it is okay to use sources that are "not always accurate" but "seem to be getting better". If we can't use IMDb as a source for entertainment-related articles (and we can't), and it's an over 20-year-old established resource owned by a major corporation and essentially patrolled by possibly as many people as those paying attention to Wikipedia, then the notion some transit-specialist wiki that is massively obscure by comparison and gives no verifiable indication it is contributed to by established experts is a valid source for transit-related articles here is ludicrous. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems I am forced to concede on this issue even though the CPTDB REF had survived unchallenged from December 2016 until last month. I will also admit that in January 2018 I added a CPTDB REF in the section Canadian Light Rail Vehicle#Retirement using the CPTDB CLRV/ALRV retirement info. Does this mean that the entire section beyond the introductory paragraph needs to be deleted? Or could the tag {{Better source|date=August 2018}} be added? (I doubt we will find a better source though until someone writes a book on the CLRV/ALRV.) TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be great if there were a book about CLRVs and ALRVs. Someone like Steve Munro could write it. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A problem

There appears to be a problem with <ref>[LRV Fact Sheet]</ref>. I can not find the full definition within the article nor all the occurrences that there should be within the article. Peter Horn User talk 16:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 16:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)