Jump to content

Talk:Line 2 Bloor–Danforth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joeyconnick (talk | contribs) at 05:34, 26 May 2021 (add auto-archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleLine 2 Bloor–Danforth has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 25, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 25, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

"Cawartha"

Among the future expansion plans, the article lists a station named "Cawartha", both in the article text and in one of the diagrams. As far as I know, there is no such street. I'm guessing this is a misspelling of Cawthra Street, which does exist and does cross the proposed subway line. I'd like to get peer approval before I change it though, since I don't know for sure (I'm not an authority on TTC stuff). Anyone? Tronno 06:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're right. It makes a lot of sense to me given that there is no "Cawartha Street" (with a "c".) Ground Zero | t 14:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI--Cawthra ROAD is a North-South road in Mississauga, a former concession road in the southern section of the former Toronto Township between Eglinton and Lakeshore.....At Dundas, the intersection was bridged in the 1980s, and the CP tracks (and Milton GO line) is nearby.....

BTW, when the 403 turns west south of Eglinton (from 401/410 southwards), it is the Cawthra Road allowance that proceeds south to Lakeshore. Bacl-presby 17:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Road, sorry... :) I'll go ahead and fix it then. Tronno 17:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And... done. Clear your cache to see the new diagram. Tronno

Expansion potential - Milton GO Station?

It's a bit confusing, but the TTC's RTES actually has "Milton GO Line" in block letters by the stop rather than "Milton GO Station", which isn't even in Mississauga (it's the terminus station in Milton). Since Dixie is also on the Milton GO line, I'm not sure why the TTC didn't call the stop Cooksville, but I've changed the name in this article anyhow to clarify which GO station it actually is. --AHrvojic 19:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops our mistake, I'll change my map ASAP. --Yllianos 21:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the Bloor-Danforth western extensions been added to the Stations Template and the Wikipedia in general? It's listed as a low-priority extension, and one that doesn't have that many fans both in the TTC and Mississauga Transit, so why bother? The Spadina extension should be up there because it looks like it might be completed.

Reverse list/image?

The middle of this page has a list of stages in a table right next to a map of the line. The map (from top to bottom) is from East to West, while the table starts from the West to East. It's rather disorienting. Could either the table be reversed or the image be replaced with one that is vertically flipped (with the proper oriented wording of course)

East Mall Extension Proposal

I recent read Spacing Wire which is talking about the East Mall proposal made by the area. Anyways, maybe just a slight mention of it? I would do it, but I wouldn't know what to say. Here's the sritcle: http://spacing.ca/wire/?cat=8 and the source of the article: http://www.insidetoronto.ca/to/etobicoke/story/3683564p-4258296c.html?loc=etobicoke --Yllianos 15:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yonge–University–Spadina line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tedium

Now that the proposal to rename the line aritcles to include bnoth the line numbers and the line names (but not, thankfully, the colours), I wonder if anyone else finds the recent edits to include both the line numerb and the line name at every instance in the article to be tedious. It does not add to the reader's understanding; it only seems to satisfy an anonymous editor's desire to use what he/she thinks is the "official" name, which it really isn't. It just makes the article longer without adding any meaning. Anyone agree/disagree? Ground Zero | t 17:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree! That is Wikianal. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Line 2 Bloor–Danforth. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extension to Scarborough Centre

The article needs to be updated to mention that the extension to Scarborough Centre would remove a station at Lawrence and McCowan (where the Scarborough Hospital is). The article can be cleaned up further as more information is released. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been added. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Munro

@Joeyconnick, Johnny Au, and Useddenim: Comments welcomed. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyconnick said: " not really sure Steve Munro qualifies as a WP:RS... we should be quoting documents and minutes, not a private citizen reporting that information".

WP:RS says "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." Steve Munro has published articles in the main stream press and is also sought out from time to time by main stream reporters for opinion. The referenced article in question cites TTC documents even reproducing portions of some of them. (If it hadn't, I would not have cited the article or made the contribution.) Munro and also Ben Spurr of the Toronto Star seem to have access to documents that are difficult (impossible?) to find online. (I did find the $7 million to plan for the new carhouse on the TTC site but it sure wasn't explained well. I think Steve Munro would be more expert than I in selecting appropriate articles.) I will try to include REFs to TTC documents in future where I can find them. As an aside, I am now very hesitant to cite Munro's opinions as there are some people who don't like him including some IP-address contributors who don't bother with REFs at all.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My 2¢: When he references other sources (as noted above), he’s most certainly a WP:RS. On the other hand, his opinions are just that – so things have to be taken in context. Useddenim (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that. --Natural RX 18:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I appreciate the comprehensive reply and that sounds reasonable... I think, though, that we should make an effort to find the primary source documents from the TTC or Metrolinx if we can. Otherwise, I'm fine with using Munro's blog as a source for factual stuff—that's how I know at least half the stuff I do about Toronto's transit. 😀 —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. If Munro had his own evidence that passes WP:RS to back up his claims, then it's acceptable. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel contract awarded today

Full work to begin in June, $757.1M contract awarded.[1] - Floydian τ ¢ 00:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Line_2_Bloor–Danforth&oldid=1025179876"