This is an archive of past discussions about Line 1 Yonge–University. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
We should not be adding little articles for each of Toronto's subway stations. First of all, you could describe most of the stations in one sentence (since they are not notable, in themselves), so we'll just be creating a bunch of useless stubs. Hence, the revert. Darkcore 01:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree and have placed my comments on the parent article talk page,
Talk:Toronto_Subway_and_RT. (2005-01-22, 03:50 UTC)
Hi! One query/suggestion: should the description, table, and order of stations for the Yonge-University-Spadina section proceed in that order and not the other way around (i.e., Downsview to Finch)? I merely suggest this to maintain a parallel structure with the YUS term and do not advocate any extraneous changes to content. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony08:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no preference either way; it was in that order from the beginning (first listed here:[1] on the now-defunct List of subway and RT stations in Toronto). I don't know if the effort is exactly necessary- the name is a historical artifact of the order the line was built in - but if you're up for it, there's no objection from my corner. Radagast17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Is the date for the addition of the voice automation system correct? I was recently in Toronto before the new year (December 28, 2006) and the system was already running on more than one occasion on the Yonge-University-Spadina line. Could it be that the TTC was testing the system at the time on only select trains? (24.57.42.305:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC))
Based on the news from Toronto council last night, it looks like a 6-station plan up to Richmond Hill is pretty solid at the moment. How do we feel about articles for these prospective stations, a la those for the Spadina extension? Any other thoughts besides? Radagast (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, the articles for the non-existent Spadina line stations already seem a bit excessive to me. They all say essentially the same thing, and I suspect what information they do contain would be better conveyed for the moment by the line’s own article – they don’t have any real existence independent of the extension proposal until construction has at least started. David Arthur (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so let's treat the Spadina extension as an anomaly and keep the Yonge extension to the section it has here (at least until shovels are in the ground). Sounds fair. Radagast (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Map of Spadina Extension
The current map of the Spadina Extension does not put the line into context i found a second map that may be better suited... comments? eja2k19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
CURRENT MAP
ALTERNATE MAP
The alternate map is much more informative than the current map, as the alternate map shows the relationship between the station location and the nearby streets. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)21:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've made the switch - while it still lists the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre station as the Vaughan Corporate Centre (Vaughan is also misspelled on this map :-S), I think it will do for now, either that or we can ask the map's creator to update it with the new name(s) (once the Downsview/Sheppard West situation is resolved) eja2k06:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I would be glad if you reverted the map back to my version. You couldn't possibly find a more ugly map than this one? What should I change in My map to make it "legit" in your eyes? --Shandristhe azylean13:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As the extension has not been built yet, it's good to have a map that shows the actual planned routing of the line so as to inform those who may not know what the plan is. Once the extension is complete, a traditional (non-geographic) rendering would do nicely. Its the added context this map gives over the other that provides more depth to the article (Just one man's opinion) eja2k05:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
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: not moved, and WP:MINNOW the nominator for making a straw man nomination. If you disapprove of other changes, use some sort of consensus-building process (such as WP:RFC) to adddress that question, rather than abusing the requested moves process. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
– The Toronto Transit Commission is rolling out signage using the numbers which were previously only used internally. The Official TTC Subway/RT page calls the lines 1 Yonge-University-Spadina Subway, 2 Bloor-Danforth Subway, 3 Scarborough RT and 4 Sheppard Subway. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. This is unnecessary. According to the TTC, "Subway lines are not being renamed". The Toronto Star clarifies: "The lines aren’t being renamed officially, just given a standard number to clear up the confusion that occurs with routes typically referred to in several ways — for example Yonge, YUS and Spadina." it is very unlikely non-TTC personnel will ever use the numbers and the names together. Can you imagine an ordinary person saying "I take the 1 Yonge-University-Spadina subway to work"? Or, "I live close to the 4 Sheppard Subway". People will use the name, or they will use the number, not both. I think the WP:NAME principle we should follow here is "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English." Ground Zero | t20:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Evidently, TTC lines have names, numbers and colours, and this should be addressed in the lead paragraph. The question we should be asking is what the encyclopedia article should be called? Ground Zero | t22:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The names of the lines will remain even once the wayfinding changes reach the entire system; It's easy to clearly note, create redirects, and otherwise illustrate the colour/number system here in Wikipedia without having it in the article titles. Radagast (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Changed to Support. I have changed my decision, realizing that the numbers are part of their official names, though it should be 1 Yonge–University–Spadina etc. instead. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)02:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you mean that the numbers are what the TTC is using, not "official". The TTC says that the lines' names have not been changed. Ground Zero | t10:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The lines have been referred to by name for over half a century; it will likely take at least a generation (if ever) before common usage is limited to their numbers. Useddenim (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment - Thank you for the opposition. I have been playing devil's advocate here. An editor began changing Template:Toronto Transit Commission stations to show only numbers for lines and removing names. The lack of response could have been interpreted as implicit support for that. People who are interested in a subject might not have every related template on their watch list, and so I brought the discussion here. Lines have always had the number in the official name and I don't see any overwhelming reason to move the articles now. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Support. The lines are currently being referred to by numbers across the system during live PA announcements regarding service. At the very least, the article should be called "Line 1 - Yonge-University-Spadina line" Flynn58
Support - TTC use all same route system with both number and name. Like 31 Greenwood bus, 501 Queen streetcar and is 2 Bloor-Danforth subway. Wrong for number and not name like Flynn58 do at template. Martin Morin (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Still Oppose. Toronto already has what are probably the longest (multi-syllabic) line names. there’s no need to add the numbers as well (or does the proposer want to add the colours, too?). Useddenim (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a very good point. The TTC is introducing the use of numbers because of those names. Riders are already aware of existing colour coding even though the lines are not actually named by colour. Using a colour reference alone would cause problems for visually impaired people as compared to using numbers with an additional colour key. See my comments above about why I instigated this discussion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Very much support the use of these icons, as it's precisely what the TTC is doing: keeping the line names, but also creating simple visual shorthand for navigating. Radagast (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Good idea! Style templates are used to reflect the current entrance signage which denotes the lines with coloured stripes. I will modify that for Bloor-Yonge to start with, since it is the only one that has currently changed, and see how that looks. I have to tweak a few things to unify existing styles without disrupting too many things and then replicate the new look. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The line icons can be converted to SVG, as many similar icons have been converted to SVG. One advantage of SVG over PNG is that SVG is vector-based and therefore lossless when expanded. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)13:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
Requested Move (May 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.
– This motion was previously brought up in March, and not voted upon as the trial phase the TTC was in had the new numbers and signage only utilized at Bloor-Yonge Station. However, since then, the signage has been rolled out to all the stations on Line 1. I believe that due to this wide roll-out of the new way-finding system, it is now appropriate to change the names of these articles. They are already widely referred to by their numbers on Wikipedia itself, as evidenced by the opening paragraph of the Bloor-Yonge article I just linked. Here is the article from the TTC in which they themselves announced the roll-out, and I would like to point out it is stated the numbers will be rolled out by 2015. While it does state that the names will still be maintained, there is precedence for using numbers only for the page name. The New York City Subway lines services all have their number as the page name, yet include the full name in their opening sentence, as evidenced by Line 1 here. Flynn58 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the name which English speakers are most likely to recognize even if it is not the official name, and for Toronto's subways that is by far the descriptive name that has been in use for half a century. The TTC's internal usage is irrelevant. The TTC's plan to add the line numbers (not replace the names with numbers) suggests that the common name remains the current descriptive name (Yonge-University-Spadina, Bloor-Danforth, etc.) and the articles should reflect this. In addition, WP:NCDAB and WP:NATURAL direct that we should use a common name that doesn't require disambiguation if we can. "Line 1" is ambiguous to the New York subway and probably others while "Yonge-University-Spadina line" or even "1 Yonge-University-Spadina" require no disambiguation. Ivanvector (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose This not used by people who ride TTC. Other name with add of number better. Speedy close this not make sense. Martin Morin (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment Toronto resident and subway commuter here. I have started using this phrasing, and it is regularly used in station announcements and delay notifications. But to the point regarding WP:COMMONNAME, it wouldn't be accurate to say that it is becoming widely used by others though. --NaturalRX01:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME. As Flynn58 notes "the names will still be maintained". The only argument seems to be that this is how it is done in New York. A pretty weak argument to me. Ground Zero | t01:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment Actually, the New York argument is the strongest one, aside from the numbers now being ubiquitous in usage on signage. It shows precedence for this sort of issue. In fact, when you go to the Line 1 disambiguation page, you will find many, many articles which have the same conditions as 1_(New_York_City_Subway_service)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flynn58 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Johnny: I think you're mistaken. The TTC information makes it clear that they are adding numbers to the names, not phasing out the names. At the end of this video, Chris Uphold of the TTC says this unambiguously. And this news release says: "Subway lines are not being renamed; rather, applying line numbers and colours already in use to existing line names...." Ground Zero | t22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - The TTC still refers to the lines with number and name on their Subway/RT page, as I ponted out before. None of you has shown that using numbers only has been introduced system wide - because it has not. The names I introduced aboved provide natural disambiguation, but at that time very little had been done to change the wayfaring signage. It is premature to change these Wikipedia article names before either the TTC or common usage has done that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Additional Comment - What they do in New York, Tokyo, London, Paris or Montreal has no relevance the actual name of anything elsewhere in the world. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment it isn't that they have numbers in those cities. It's that for the wikipedia articles for those services, there is a precedence for naming the article for the number even if it also has a name juxtaposed to the number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flynn58 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment - It is incorrect to say that New York Subway line articles use numbers -- see List_of_New_York_City_Subway_lines. In fact the subway line articles use names. It is the subway service articles that use numbers -- see List_of_New_York_City_Subway_services. As for precedence in North America, most Wikipedia articles about cities with more than one line use colours, not numbers, including Montreal, Chicago, Washington, Atlanta, Boston and Los Angeles. Vancouver and San Francisco use names. New York uses names for lines and numbers for services. Going internationally, we'll find a mix:
Names: London, Tokyo, Hong Kong
Numbers: Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Istanbul
Letters: Rome
So it seems that the articles for each city line up with the usage in that city -- there is no Wikipedia standard. As names are still the common use for Torontonians, and as the TTC itself uses both names and numbers, there is no justification for dropping the names. Ground Zero | t12:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment in this instance, lines on the TTC are equivalent to services. As well, cities with lines that solely have names or letters are not related to this issue. The NYC services hold precedence as their services have both a name and a number.Flynn58 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
And the NYC articles use the name (for lines) and the number (for services), so there is no precedent for Toronto where line and service are the same thing. (You started this discussion by citing NYC lines as the precedent. Now it seems you have decided to switch to NYC services as the precedent.) Ground Zero | t01:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I was unaware of the difference between services and lines when I stated the above example, and the example I used was a service, same as Lines 1 through 5 are in Toronto. Flynn58 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
And they are also lines. That is why they are called "Yonge–University–Spadina line" or alternatively "Line 1". THe article begins: "The Yonge–University–Spadina Line (Y–U–S) (officially route 1 Yonge–University–Spadina Subway, formerly route 602)[4][5] is the oldest and busiest subway line in Toronto...." I hope you are not going to argue that they are not lines like the name lines in NYC. Ground Zero | t01:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Tokyo uses numbers too. Ginza Line is also named Line 3, but the article is not named "Line 3 Ginza Line". Toronto shouldn't be different; "Yonge–University–Spadina line" shouldn't be named "Line 1 Yonge–University–Spadina line" or whatever. Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I have a sign!" Bloor-Danforth Line " - For most of this discussion we have only had the nominator's assertion that all the signage has been changed to remove any mention of line names. Here is a current sign on the Bloor platform of the YUS line showing that the TTC still refers to lines by both number and name. The use of a logo, symbol or icon does not change the name of what they refer to and they are commonly used in wayfaring signage, to stand out at a distance, where text would not be legible. The long names of TTC subway lines is an example of where an icon can fulfill this purpose. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this Secondarywaltz! But to be fair to the nominator, s/he did not claim that the signage removed mention of the line names. The nomination said: "While it does state that the names will still be maintained, there is precedence for using numbers only for the page name. The New York City Subway lines all have their number as the page name...." We now see that the claim of precedent was incorrect, so I'm not sure what the basis of the nomination is now. It seems to be solely some editors' preference for numbers over names. Ground Zero | t20:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, keep misquoting me! I claimed that the NYC Subway SERVICES had numbers for their page name, which was correct. Flynn58 (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
In the original nomination (above), you wrote "The New York City Subway lines all have their number as the page name". I don't see how I am misquoting you. That is exactly what you wrote above. Ground Zero | t13:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I linked to a service as an example. NYC uses services and lines differently than the rest of the world, and the TTC uses the word line to refer to both. I already corrected the error above previously, but an anonymous user undid my edit and the reply I gave to you yesterday. Flynn58 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - the numbers (and colours!) are merely shorthand identification for lines still officially designated by verbal names. We've seen great success in using their iconography already around Wikipedia, but they still all refer back to the lines by their names - the same way the TTC does it, in fact. Radagast (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment - The current vote is 5-2 in favor of opposing the name change. While the conclusion of seven people may not qualify as consensus as detailed by Wikipedia standards and practices, I suggest we table this discussion until the trial period is officially declared over and the numbers are officially adopted outside of trial evaluation. Flynn58 (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Which is why the discussion will be tabled until the trial period for line numbering is over. While numbers are now used on signage and announcements across the system, they have not been officially adopted outside of the trial. Now, my personal opinion is that the trial will be a success and the numbers permanently adopted, but my personal opinion doesn't really matter in this case. Flynn58 (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
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.
I have exported some details out of the lead and placed them in the body. WP:LEAD states "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." Having all this stuff about TRs mostly running the line, but sometimes T1 do it, and where they were shifted, did not serve this purpose. The lead could maybe use some work to give a better overall summary, so give a crack at it if you want. --NaturalRX18:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The following is a closed 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.
– One year ago, a move was requested for this purpose and denied on the basis of the numbers being in a trial period rather than being permanently adopted, and on the basis of the common name. As these numbers have been in usage for over a year, are still in use in the system as evidenced by the picture of these posters taken at York Mills Station today, as can be seen to the right. On the topic of WP:COMMONNAME, as shown by this recent news report from CP24, the numbers are now the common name in usage by Torontonians, and as these proposed names are already those which are being used in the WP:LEAD for each article at the very beginning, they are also the common name here as well. Since the official full name is still the number plus the street, and since according to WP:NCDAB and WP:NATURAL we should use a name which requires little disambiguation necessary, these proposed names are ubiquitous, official and easy to understand. Thus, I proposed the adoption of these new names for each of the four lines. Flynn58 (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Support - I thought the previous request was premature, but everyone who uses the system now knows that this is how the TTC and the media now refers to the lines. The public is getting there, which is why it has been helpful to retain the descriptive name along with the new number. See the TTC subway page for confirmation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Support - Well documented and clear evidence that this is now the appropriate move. The new SRT livery is a further bit of backing to the strong case. Radagast (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Support - I find the arrangement awkward ('Line x Name') but that is exactly how the TTC has formatted it, and I can't argue with the facts. --NaturalRX13:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Line 1 Yonge–University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Is this of any significance? The link is a good ref for the 2009 EA / preliminary design fact, but otherwise it's an average Ontario government announcement that more money has been budgeted to continue (or resume) planning on a project that they began planning 7 years ago. - Floydianτ¢04:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Line 1 Yonge–University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on Line 1 Yonge–University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Line 1 Yonge–University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
CURRENT MAP
ALTERNATE MAP
because Useddenim knows how to use logo icons better than anybody else. I copied these from the TTC. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Tokyo uses numbers too. Ginza Line is also named Line 3, but the article is not named "Line 3 Ginza Line". Toronto shouldn't be different; "Yonge–University–Spadina line" shouldn't be named "Line 1 Yonge–University–Spadina line" or whatever. Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.