Talk:Line 1 Yonge–University

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)