Talk:Line 1 Yonge–University

inclusion of terminal/Vivastations as quasi-separate entities in Vaughan Metropolitan Centre station and other TYSSE stations

@Transportfan70, TheTrolleyPole, and Blaixx: Paging people who have been active on the TYSSE station articles lately (apologies if I've missed people).

Wanted to have this discussion here as it doesn't just apply to Vaughan Metropolitan Centre station but to a few of the TYSSE stations.

So many of the new stations on the TYSSE have what I can only call "sub-entries" for related/co-located bus terminals or other transit-related structures like Vivastations. What's prompted me to poll you all is that Transportfan70 recently removed the owner and operator information in the "Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Vivastation" infobox with the rationale that it is redundant because it's owned and operated by the same entities who own and operate the encompassing/overarching "Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Terminal".

I don't necessarily disagree but the edit raises the larger issue: why do many of the TYSSE stations have these extra infoboxes shoehorned into them? I feel like either the bus terminals/related transit infrastructure should have their own articles (which might not be the right solution given they aren't necessarily notable enough on their own) or these articles should only have the one infobox. But barring that, if we're going to have multiple infoboxes in articles that encompass multiple related entities which are co-located on the same site, I think we need to allow for the possibility of redundant information in these infoboxes. I don't think a casual reader would necessarily look at the VMC station article and understand that the Vivastation is being considered part of the greater VMC Terminal. The obvious question there is if it is being considered enough a part of the Terminal that we are not providing operator and owner information in its infobox, why does it even have a separate infobox?

That would be my take on the specific case of the VMC article: I don't think the Vivastation "rates" as a "separate-enough" entity to have its own infobox. To me, there's a bus terminal that also serves Viva and any particularities of the Vivastation can be outlined in prose. The article makes it sound like it will be integrated, so why the extra infobox? But if the consensus is to continue to have a separate infobox for it, then I think we cannot in good conscience leave out fields like owner and operator simply because they are the same as the larger Terminal because infoboxes are meant to be consumed quickly, without having to necessarily understand subtleties like "Oh the Vivastation is subordinate to the greater Terminal so I guess its owner and operator is the same as the one listed in this totally different infobox... wait how do these things work together again?" If the entities are distinct enough to rate separate infoboxes, then each of those infoboxes needs to contain all relevant information, even if some or much of it is duplicate info.

Thoughts/opinions? —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There is certainly a lack of consistency regarding bus connections with these new subway stations, especially the 3 in York Region which are all different setups.

• Pioneer Village

This station has some TTC connections at the station and a YRT terminal across the street, north of Steeles. I think this is similar to the situation with Finch Bus Terminal being physically separate from Finch station and should therefore have its own article (although Finch terminal is much larger than PV).

• Highway 407

In this case, the GO Bus station and subway station occupy the same building. This makes me think that they should be in the same article with two infoboxes but treat them as if they were on their own page (with duplicate information).

• VMC station

This is the tricky one because there are 3 separate but connected structures and this is not very clear in the article. There's the subway station, the bus terminal (located a fair bit north) and the vivastation (located south of subway station). Perhaps it doesn’t deserve an infobox but it seems weird to lump the vivastation in with the bus terminal when they are a considerable distance away from each other.

There is also the case of Downsview Park subway/GO station which is one building/article which shares an infobox for both which I'm not a huge fan of, but it does work. Is there a Wikipedia guideline that recommends 1 infobox per article? BLAixx 20:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought a Vivastation infobox might be a little excessive too, but since Viva and Zum won't pull into the terminal, I thought it could use it because of that fact.

Why not combine the infoxes?

Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Terminal and Vivastation
General information
Location	[address] Millway Avenue (Terminal), and centre of Highway 7 (Vivastation) Vaughan, Ontario Canada
Owned by	Regional Municipality of York
Operated by	York Region Transit
Platforms	9 in terminal, 2 in Vivastation
Bus operators	, ,
Connections	YRT buses (Terminal) Highway 7 Rapidway— , Queen (Vivastation)
Construction
Accessible	Yes
History
Opening	December 2017 (partial opening)

Transportfan70 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Complete information in all infoboxes, even if it is redundant. Useddenim (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

If we go with one infobox for the article, I feel we should retain the services sub-box showing preceding & following station for line 1, and add a similar entry for the Highway 7 Rapidway. I would simplify the infobox title to just "Vaughan Metropolitan Centre" and use text to explain the 3 nodes in this transit hub. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Terminal and Rapidway Vivastation should be in separate sections. Both are on opposite ends of the subway station and are different in nature: One is an off-street terminal and the other is a through station on a BRT. Each should have a separate list of the bus routes being served. The subway station can be in its own section. I suspect that the subway station may be owned by York Region even though it is operated by the TTC; after all, York Region partly paid for it as a capital cost. VMC is a transit hub with 3 types of service: subway, BRT station, bus terminal. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheTrolleyPole, Transportfan70, and Blaixx: thanks for all your work! I think it looks a lot better now and makes more sense. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! But I had to do a major article rework again after losing it all due to an edit conflict. Oh well...it happens! :) Transportfan70 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Name in main section

@Joeyconnick:

Hello,

Just wanted to get some thoughts on re-adding the Yonge-University-Spadina name into the lead section.

I know we can't add all of the former names into it, but considering the name is still commonly used by the news (See) as well the TTC itself on its online infrastructure (note the URL https://www.ttc.ca/Subway/Yonge_University_Spadina.jsp) and when staff make announcements. I think it's worth keeping in.

Especially with the new Spadina subway extension, it can be confusing, since people may think it is another line.

Thanks,

WildComet (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I was wondering if you were going to note the URL. I don't find a non-updated URL a good argument because renames are often done without touching the underlying web infrastructure, but your other points are convincing—I was probably a bit quick on the draw. I think we need slightly better wording, though. I don't think we need a citation to "prove that", though, as there's already a few too many citations in that lead if we consider WP:CITELEAD. Probably only the claim that it's one of the busiest subway systems in the world is likely to be challenged and so require a cite. Anyway, I'll give it a go. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

YNSE March 2021

See also: Line 1 Yonge–University § Yonge North Subway Extension

@Joeyconnick and Blaixx: Re: Metrolinx changes to YNSE. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Metrolinx appears to have definitively changed its plans for the northern end of the YNSE as per its project page as well a March 2021 article and an April 2021 article. Should we change the schema and delete the external reference to the Metolinx map? Also, User:Blaixx objected the use of the "Bridge Station" name to refer to the Highway 7 station; however, Metrolinx is using that name liberally. Should we lift the ban on that tentative name? The Ontario Line article uses tentative names, so why not the YNSE? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with using the name Bridge Station in the article, I just didn't think it looked right in that specific spot (maybe "referred to as" would be better than "to be called"). I also agree that it's time to update the Routemap. I'll do it soon unless someone beats me to it or if someone objects here. BLAIXX 01:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I updated the template. I stored a copy of the old template on the template's talk page for reference, or in case Metrolinx changes its mind. TheTrolleyPole (talk)

Thanks. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Route Description needs to be fixed ASAP

Look at title SteelersDiclonious (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Split proposal

The sections on the Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension and Yonge North Subway Extension currently make up over 40% of the article's prose size, which feels rather undue especially given the section on the line's construction is less than half the length of either section. Given the amount of content dedicated to both extensions, I think a split is warranted. Both articles will be well beyond stub length so they will not need to be merged. ~UN6892 ^t_c 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea - a paragraph or so summary of the extensions is more than enough for this article. Turini2 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favour too. For reference, 7 Subway Extension and D Line Extension are some other articles about subway line extensions. BLAIXX 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are many articles on transit projects - another is Northern line extension to Battersea Turini2 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Not entirely certain I like the idea of a separate article for every single extension, but I appreciate that the proposed new article titles are properly capitalized! I.e. not in title caps. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think in terms of scale - the TYSSE and YNSE would be fine, but a whole article for the Downsview extension would be OTT. Obviously New York managed to get an article for a one station extension, but that's NYC! Turini2 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I am strongly in favour of the split. It helps that there is precedence, especially with there being separate articles for line extensions of the New York City subway, the LA Metro, and the London Underground. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree this article is way too long, but how about cutting a lot of the cruft first? These sections are bloated with dated material, quotes and every tedious movement of the boring machines. Just cherry-picking here, but does this paragraph really need to be on wikipedia:

"In March 2016, York Region officials said that SmartTrack, electrified GO service, the Spadina subway extension and automatic train control will be implemented within a decade, and that these would be sufficient to support the extra ridership of an extension to Richmond Hill. Thus, the deputy mayor of Richmond Hill wanted to start construction of the extension by 2019. Vaughan politicians and officials are basing their case on a Metrolinx report from June 2015. The report indicates the Yonge line would have a capacity of 36,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) in 2021 with automatic train control. Demand is 31,200 pphpd in 2015 plus 6,600 growth by 2031 plus 2,400 for the extension north of Steeles giving a total demand of 40,200 pphpd. The TYSSE would divert 1,300 pphpd and Regional Express Rail would divert another 4,200 leaving a demand of 34,700 pphpd and 1,300 pphpd in excess capacity. (However, as of April 2016, Metrolinx has no immediate plans to provide electrified GO service on the Richmond Hill line.) Toronto transit advocate Steve Munro says that, given the Metrolinx analysis, the line would be at 96 percent capacity in the peak hour and, because this is the peak hour average, there would be some overcrowding due to variations over the hour."

Like, holy cow, all this repeated use of "pphpd" belongs on transit forums - Steve Munro's excellent blog, for example - but this is way too much minutiae for wikipedia if you ask me. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Echoedmyron: This seems to be a major issue for the YNSE, but much less so for the TYSSE and I think it is fine in its current state (maybe with some trimming of the ridership numbers part). I still think that removal of the cruft would not result in a split not being warranted and I think the paragraphs before the subheaders would be a good length for the section in this page. There is a good amount of usable content in those subheaders though they certainly need to be condensed. ~UN6892 ^t_c 02:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)