Talk:510 Spadina

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance).

Trains: Streetcars Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:510 Spadina.

Untitled

Should this not be titled 'Harbourfront/Spadina Streetcar (TTC)'? The 'LRT' name has mostly been dropped in Toronto, because the 'RT' caused people to confuse the streetcar right-of-way projects with more intrusive systems like the Scarborough RT. David Arthur 13:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

question...

The article cites a document that shows the streetcars are two minutes slower than the old Spadina bus? That is interesting. But there is another very strong advantage of the streetcars. I used to ride that bus several times a week in the years prior to the streetcar construction.

The buses were often trapped in traffic for ten minutes or more going the 500 metres from Dundas to College.
The windows of the buses used to tattle deafeningly when the buses were able to travel at a reasonable speed. Why? I don't know for sure. But I suspect the road conditions were so poor, with so many potholes, that they only ran old, worn out buses there. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

explanation

I changed the length of the tunnel portion of the line. Previously the article asserted it was "2 km". I was sure it was shorter -- maybe 400 metres. But according to mapblast Front and Queen's Quay are .6 km apart. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right, definitely not 2 km. Canterbury Tail talk 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

The article currently asserts:

"Despite its political image as a ‘modern, rapid transit’ streetcar line, the 604 Harbourfront route was originally operated using rebuilt PCC streetcars, which were referred to as "Red Rockets" in a branding effort. These were soon replaced by Toronto's CLRV streetcars, which form the majority of the city's current fleet."

"Red Rocket" is a decades old name for TTC vehicles, taken out of retirement.
IIUC, the UTDC vehicles don't form the majority of the city's current fleet. For at least a decade they have formed the entirety of it. The TTC's retains 1 old Peter Dewitt car, and two PCC cars -- but only for ceremonial purposes, or for charter. (One can charter a vehicle for a party, and these vehicles don't have to follow scheduled routes.)
My recollection is that the PCC cars had all been retired before the Spadina line was opened.
Personally, I have a great fondness for the TTC's PCC's original livery of maroon and yellow.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The maroon and yellow PCCs are occasionally used as standard streetcars when they need vehicles. I often see them, and have travelled on them many times, on the regular scheduled 510 route. Canterbury Tail talk 02:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will have to keep my eyes peeled for one. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof-of-payment

Details on this should be in the TTC fares article, rather than here. An encyclopaedia article is not meant to be a user guide for riding the streeetcar. I have been bold and deleted a bunch of details. Discussion? Ground Zero | t 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The POP information inserted to this article was extremely detailed. The section about TTC POP in Toronto Transit Commission fares should be expanded, since this applies to more than one route. If the reader requires those details, a link is given. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 510 Spadina. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Géographie du Canada: influences et liaisons

Hello Canterbury Tail, I've read your Edit summary and have a remark and a question.

no sources reliably call the Spadina streetcar route a "semi-metro". I think this claim can only be made by someone who has read all books, in all libraries, in all countries.
A book on the general geography of Canada is not a reliable source for the classification of rail and transportation systems. This should be a question... I've read the page with the "semi-metro" term and it's not about geography in general but about the importance of public transport being able to bring crowds into dense city centres. The map showing the 510 alignment as a semi-metro is titled: "Toronto's central business district has many forms of land use." Geography studies "Earth and its human and natural complexities", so why can't it ever study rail and transportation systems?

KatVanHuis (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that book literally say that the 510 Spadina streetcar is a semi-metro? Does it literally say that? Canterbury Tail talk 00:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Canterbury Tail, to both of your questions: yes. Basically user Joeyconnick asked the same: why is it so hard to believe?

I don't make lazy edits, I take care of judging a source and also read the destination article before adding information. The current article text states: The modern 510 Spadina route began as the 604 Harbourfront LRT route along Queens Quay in 1990, using CLRV and ALRV streetcars.

And: The term "light-rail transit" (LRT), which had been adopted to project an image of modernity, was dropped when it led to residents and newspaper reporters imagining elevated guideways like those of the Scarborough RT running through their streets.

So the TTC even purposely built this as a light rail line. I didn't want to put this in the lede as the line is now part of the Toronto streetcar system. Coincidentally (?) the current streetcars and light rail vehicles in Toronto are almost identical. KatVanHuis (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I'm not seeing "semi-metro" in those quotes. Also, "semi-metro" sounds very much like discipline-specific jargon, which we would want to avoid since this is for a general readership. Your attempts to add it here are the very first time I've encountered it and I have edited a lot of transit-related articles over a number of years. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, however "semi-metro" is a subtype of "light rail". So my proposed addition fits the article and doesn't contradict it.

When I read the lede of insects, it is full of discipline-specific jargon: some of it I heard about, some I haven't. I think many articles in the field of mathematics (like theorem) and astronomy (like blazer) are using discipline-specific jargon too. I've read many Wikipedia guidelines and have never found that discipline-specific jargon isn't allowed. KatVanHuis (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming the source does not call it a semi-metro. Calling it a semi-metro is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on your part. Unless reliable sources consistently refer to it as a semi-metro you cannot label it as such. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there's some misunderstanding here.

The book calls de 510 alignment a semi-metro.
The quotes from the article mention the broader term light rail.

So calling it a "semi-metro" is merely a refinement of the statement that it is a "light rail". KatVanHuis (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the book labels it as a light rail system (or semi-metro) in a map legend, however this is the only time in the entire book that the phrase semi-metro is used. It's never defined, it says nothing about it being surface to underground or rights of way, it doesn't support the claim you're trying to make. The book literally states it's light rail, so I'm not sure why you are insistent on using this rarely used term, and this is still not really a reliable source that this type of system is called a semi-metro as the authors are not experts on transportation classification. It seems more like you're trying to push this term on Wikipedia and are using anything to support this little used phrase. Just used the common accepted term of light rail, and not some little used jargon. Do you have any more reliable sources that state that the 510 is of a type called semi-metro? Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I mentioned in my first message: I got it from a map. And it calls it both a light rail system (very broad term) and a semi-metro (specific term) at the same time. And since anyone can see in commons, it does have a surface to underground alignement and dedicated rights-of-way. I made sure to check that first, before adding the source. And also double checked it on Urbanrail.

And whether the three authors are experts on transportation classification, is not for us to decide. This is certainly not a novel, but a published book on facts in Canada, themed around geography.

No, I don't have more sources: in which guideline did you read that it needs more than one source?

Lastly: I still haven't found a guideline that states to do away with jargon. KatVanHuis (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are dealing with verifiability and reliable sources. Just because a book mentions something doesn't mean it's a reliable source for it. If semi-metro is in fact a common classification that is usually used to describe the route, enough to be WP:DUE, then more appropriate and specific sources should and can be found. Canterbury Tail talk 14:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Yes, Wikipedia desperately needs reliable sources.

"When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

* The piece of work itself (the article, book)

* The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

* The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."

Sure, maybe the three writers aren't authoritative, but the might as well be. Judging from their accuracy, they used and interpreted a proper primary source, probably the TTC. Also, why would you doubt the publisher's publication process?

— Yes, Wikipedia needs to give due weight to all terms and aspects.

"Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery."

* Firstly: there is no juxtaposition of statements, because "semi-metro" of is a subclass of "light rail".

* Secondly: I kept the level of detail very low (it's a mere mention) and placed the addition far away from the lede. KatVanHuis (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short: a Canadian light rail line is categorised bij a Canadian secondary source as semi-metro, as is defined bij the Canadian government. TERMIUM Plus® The Government of Canada’s terminology and linguistic data bank. KatVanHuis (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day this is an obscure, barely used, term, that doesn't seem to add anything to the article. Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it adds anything to the article is not for me or you to decide but up to the reader. And again, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. If the term "semi-metro" was really that obscure, it wouldn't be featured on this website. KatVanHuis (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is obscure, you're finding literally dictionary definitions and having to dig into non-mainstream resources to find any references to support this. That just goes to prove it's not a commonly used term. At the end of the day you need to find consensus to include it, and you haven't come up with enough evidence that most references use this and refer to the 510 in this way. They clearly don't. This is quite clearly not a term that is commonly and consistently used to refer to the 510, or any of the other uses you've been pushing over the project. Canterbury Tail talk 16:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]