Talk:Line 1 Yonge–University

Route Description needs to be fixed ASAP

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

 Done It has long been resolved. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:15, 23 July 2024 (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 deleted the TYSSE section and kept just the first paragraph, and added a replacement pic. Transportfan70 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It helps reduce repetition. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:02, 4 October 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)

@Echoedmyron: I removed the obvious cruft from the YNSE section. I left the old info in for "capacity constraints" without the ppdhd data since it was mainly brought up when the timing of the extension has not be solidified (vs. now when construction is starting) and was an important argument for delaying the extension's construction back then. I know there is still more fix in that section but the remaining material is solid enough for a split. ~UN6892 ^t_c 16:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should move ahead with splitting out the TYSSE but hold off on YN – at least until major construction begins. Although unlikely, that project could still be deferred/cancelled which would leave us with a rather short article. BLAIXX 15:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that TYSSE should be split, but it would be better to wait for consensus first. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, relatively neutral on splitting in general but I think Blaixx's point about "you can never count on Toronto transit projects until they're under significant construction (and sometimes not even then)" is a good one. If the consensus is to split, starting on TYSSE but waiting on YN seems prudent. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It is best to create articles on line extensions that are either already complete or are substantially complete to the point that it is cheaper to complete the project than to abandon the project. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: @Johnny Au: @Blaixx: I should note that at that point (with the Eglinton West line), it was already notable enough to merit its own page once construction started. I think keeping everything here will still cause the YNSE to have undue weight, hence why I think a split is the best solution. If the project fails, it will certainly get a ton of press coverage (but I think it's notable enough without that). ~UN6892 ^t_c 02:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a split for YSNE is notable - there are plenty of other transit lines in pre-construction stages around the world that are notable articles (Bakerloo line extension, Interborough Express etc). Turini2 (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Other things existing does not mean it's the correct way forward. And in this case, how would someone argue the opposing point—you can't prove a negative, after all. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That would be a better idea. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

To elaborate on my previous comment, I feel like there's just not quite enough content right now to warrant a separate article. Once the major contracts get awarded and construction begins, there will be plenty of material to add and a split would definitely make sense. But, since there's a small chance none of that will happen and the project just slowly fizzles out, I'd like to wait a bit before making the split. BLAIXX 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is too short at this point. I think the prose size is long enough that it'll be far from stub length. ~UN6892 ^t_c 04:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

TYSSE page

I've created a draft of the TYSSE page. I think I will put it in title case when I move it to mainspace since the sources seem to refer to it that way. ~UN6892 ^t_c 13:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No title case... how something is styled (vs. what it is referred to as) is not about what style sources use. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The Toronto–York Spadina Subway Extension article looks good for now. I will slowly make edits to it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I have also linked it to Template:Toronto Transit Commission. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The ridership section should be updated as 2022 ridership numbers are out as linked here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transportfan70 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Cummer station

Is the Cummer (Cummer/Drewry?) station officially cancelled? Transportfan70 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Too early to tell. Wait for an official answer. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Dundas station

@192.252.233.139 To discuss your edits to the text "[Dundas] delayed the British Empire's abolition of slavery in the 1700s" – the key word there is delay, because his amendment to a motion for abolition of the Atlantic slave trade called for gradual abolition. The City of Toronto report sets this out using academic consensus.https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-168523.pdf. I therefore do not support your edits, and would seek the thoughts of others, as I have hit 3RR. Turini2 (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I have made the changes based on your suggestions. If the edit war continue, I will not hesitate to put the article up on WP:RPP. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnny Au I think the wording was prior to the IP edit was best (this version) - it was already clear and well referenced, hence my reverts of the IP. Turini2 (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Not just that, but I put the article up on WP:RPP. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It is now semi-protected. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I posted recent references (2023) that show Dundas did not *delay* the aboliton of slavery. He very clearly was instrumental in ensuring slavery was abolished knowing full well without passing voted in both houses no motion put forward would succeed. Wilberforce et al tried on at least 3 occasions to get a motion on abolition passed, to no avail. It was because of dundas' intervention that the first ever vote to end slavery in the house of commons passed in 1792. He was instrumental in further ensuring the house of lords would support passage too, since Wilberforce et al failed again in 1796. It wasn't until 1807 and the slavey act that i passed both houses. I reccommend returning the clear 2023 references I added from Uni Edinburgh and removing the word delayed especially since there clearly is no academic consensus, regardless of what the city of toronto report states. New information has come to light since then. Is wikipedia not open to new reaearch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.232.178 (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The lead of Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville reads "He was, however, a controversial figure, over his amendment to a motion for abolition of the Atlantic slave trade, which called for gradual abolition". Gradual abolition is a delay!

The Dundas article already has a section on the academic discourse – where the sources you mention are present and (in my opinion) fairly considered. Just because one academic disagrees with others, does not mean there is "clearly is no academic consensus".

The wording of this article (a summary, given this is an article about a subway line) should remain, in light of the consensus in the Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville article. Turini2 (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

As per Turini2 and Johnny Au, this has been settled. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. End discussion. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Article no longer semi-protected. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)