Talk:Toronto Transit Commission bus system/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Refuel2.gif

Image:Refuel2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Roster

The TTC no longer rebuilds vehicles at 6 years of age. All vehicles are rebuild when they reach 9 years of age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.123.154 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbering for planned Orion VII NG Diesels

Can someone confirm the numbering for them, as they are listed under buses under order? I know that they are currently listed as 1830-1949, which, from my knowledge, would be out of line with the TTC's vehicle numbering scheme (1xxx for hybrids, where as numbers for the accessible diesels are 7xxx-8xxx). Under this scheme, the Orion VII NG Diesels should be numbered 8100-8219. Can anyone provide some insight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plrockerdude (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bolded loops

Why are some of the loops bolded in the loops section? What is the purpose of the bolding? I am unable to find any explanation of the bolding. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Though I did not format this article it appears that the bold signifies the name of an actual named loop. As opposed to a description of the loops location. The loop located at Lansdowne and St. Clair is NAMED "Earlscourt Loop" even though Earlscourt Ave. is 2 blocks East. Therefore it appears the editor bolded the name of the loop and then unbolded for the descriptions of the locations. No formal name ... no bold preempting the description ...
Thats just my guess on what is going on with it
eja2k 23:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that per WP:BOLDFACE the boldfacing should be removed. Boldfacing shouldn't be used ofr emphasis or as some code to cover additional information or meaning, especially when that code is not revealed to the reader. Ground Zero | t 14:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Either there should be a clear rationale for the boldfacing on the loops stated or the boldfacing should be removed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Made note of the bolding in the article itself. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Necessity of Fleet Roster/Divisional bus assignments ?

I'm still kind of confused about why these sections exist. I think it falls under the "what Wikipedia is not" category in more ways than one. The article has one listed reference, and little value to anyone other than those who might want to know where the bus the rode today "lives" for lack of a better word. (The TTC website has transit planning resources that have bus allocations so duplicating this information in an un-sourced way seems irrelevant to me) Does anyone else share this opinion? should the article be nominated for deletion or does it just require a major cleanup? are there valid arguments to keeping it as it is?

eja2k 03:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: the page currently seems to have the right title according to the arguments Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


Toronto Transit Commission buses → Toronto Buses — Sorry about moving this page so much (as well as the streetcars page) but services should be capitalized on each first letter, such as Toronto Subway and RT, Toronto Streetcars. This can be similar to London Buses and London Tramlink. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done However, it has to be lowercase, since it is not an organization. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Have you finished twitching yet? Does the article you have retitled to "Toronto buses" now include School buses operated for the Toronto School Boards, tour buses and private bus operators? That's what the title might lead you to believe - ALL buses in Toronto. If this is specifically about the TTC, it should say that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
However, the article should be Toronto Transit Commission buses, since it is neither an organization and is about the buses that the TTC operates. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Section blanking by IPs

I noted that in the article's recent history, certain sections of this article had been blanked by IPs. The motive is unknown whether it is related to removing irrelevant facts, since the article is too long, or just petty vandalism, due to a lack of edit summary. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is condensed by the creation of forked articles. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

List of bus routes redesign proposal

Please see the discussion here and share your thoughts. Thanks! EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Toronto Transit Commission bus system. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Toronto Transit Commission buses → TTC buses – I propose to move this page to TTC buses but keep the first line of the article the same. Per WP:Commonname. - Epson291 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • NO ONE ever speaks out "Toronto Transit Commission", it is always presented, including in the media, as the TTC (and the current descriptive name is long). And as an example:
  • Response to 65.94.171.126 , to answer you, yes they are called TTC buses. For example:
  • Oppose That is terrible idea. The main article and all related articles are name "Toronto Transit Commission". Martin Morin (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Response See above, so are other transportation authorities but their respective child articles are called the acronym. - Epson291 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Local people know what TTC stands for but it is meaningless to casual readers throughout the world and for clarity the full name should be used. What names are used in other varied situations is of no concern in this matter. Why do you need to change everything about the TTC? Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:Commonname states that "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." Ask yourself which one is more commonly used, and what someone would be more likely to goggle or search for to get to this article. Someone from somewhere else is not likely to know "Toronto Transit Commission" more than TTC, actually the opposite is more likely. And the full name would be on the first line of the article, per WP conventions, so it would be very clear. And I'm not looking to change everything about TTC, but I feel this name change would allow people to better find the article and be the correct WP policy. - Epson291 (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Commment. Thanks for widening the debate by notifying related projects. To widen the discussion, do you think that all similarly named articles should also be change to TTC rather than the full name? Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As long as the main article is at Toronto Transit Commission, this article should remain where it is. As noted above TTC is not a redirect to Toronto Transit Commission, but a DAB page, and as such I don't think it's appropriate (as per WP:ACRONYMTITLE) that we start using the acronym in article titles in this case where it is not unambiguous and it doesn't even redirect to the main title. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose abbreviating per Skeezix1000 above, but support move to more precise title, like Toronto Transit Commission bus service or Bus operations of the Toronto Transit Commission. Ibadibam (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose but how about moving to Toronto Transit Commission bus network or Toronto Transit Commission bus system? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn - I'm withdrawing my requested move not only (obviously) due to lack of support but also per User:Skeezix1000, reading WP:ACRONYMTITLE, and others. I do like User:Johnny Au's suggestion though to move it to "Toronto Transit Commission bus system" - Epson291 (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I too agree with "Toronto Transit Commission bus system" Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Unanimous for "Toronto Transit Commission bus system"?!! Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it! - Epson291 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Toronto Transit Commission bus system/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Too bus-fan oriented == This page is far too oriented towards a bus-fan who is heavily interested in garages, vehicles, loops, etc. It is not very well designed for a casual user who just wants to figure out how to get from point A to point B by bus in Toronto. Personally, I think that this kind of detail belongs on something like the CPTDB wiki rather than here, and Wikipedia articles should be structured more for general users (for example, see List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver). Andrew_pmk | Talk 14:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Substituted at 22:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is "bus-fan" oriented. Arguably, that is the intent. For info on just using the TTC, see WikiVoyage. Wikipedia does have a List of Toronto Transit Commission bus routes. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Electric buses

Last year, I added an "Electric buses" sub-section to TTC buses#History in order to keep all the entries on eBuses together rather than having the narrative interspersed with unrelated entries such as Presto readers and the pandemic, or conversely to avoid burying other events in eBus detail. I expect more eBus detail will be added later as the TTC wants all buses to be electric by 2040. History then had 3 sub-sections: 19th and 20th centuries (untitled), "21st century" and "Electric buses". Today, "21st century" and "Electric buses" have been merged and renamed as "21st century: Hybrid and electric buses" which contain entries not related to hybrid and electric propulsion. I prefer the original section title of "21st century" containing just major bus system events plus a separate "Electric buses" section for eBus details. I could leave a simple milestone entry for the introduction of eBuses on 35 Jane and 6 Bay in "21st century" but putting other details in "Electric buses". May I proceed with this suggestion? @Johnny Au and Joeyconnick: Please comment re: TTC buses#History. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Right now, it's getting quite messy. There needs to be a major cleanup. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I removed "Trolley and diesel buses" and "Hybrid and electric buses" from the two History subsection titles as the former contains text on stagecoaches and CNG buses and the latter contains text on CNG and diesel buses. Both subsections had entries not related to propulsion. I moved non-history text about electric buses to other sections, which was different from what I originally proposed. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking great. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Bike rack decision

I removed the following largely unsourced text from #Bike racks, and replaced it with new text with different details sourced from a TTC notice. I am preserving the original text here in case someone can find REFs to support its details, which perhaps are probably not that important as to the result:

Bike racks were tested at Wilson garage in 2005 and 2006 by using the Orion V, VI, and later VII bus models. TTC staff concluded that the pilot project was not a success and that it should be discontinued, but the Commission disagreed and voted to continue it and even to direct that bike racks would be installed on all new buses from 2007. The Commission then directed staff to look into the cost of retrofitting the entire bus fleet with bike racks. The original bike rack model was not used on newer buses because it blocked the high beams on the Orion VII buses, and a different model of rack from the same manufacturer was used starting on 2007 deliveries. None of the additional costs for the retrofitting were included in the five-year capital budget.

TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Partially split vehicle section

If anyone has consensus, I propose to split parts of the vehicle section into Toronto Transit Commission bus fleet. The vehicle section is get too complicated.

-184.147.137.223 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fleet table

Hi 184.147.137.223, not sure what policies and guidelines you've been reading but there's no "get out of jail free" card where consensus somehow overrides us having to use reliable sources, as your comments seem to indicate here. No one needs consensus to remove blatantly unsourced material, which sourcing to WP:UGC is. On top of that, this source that isn't UGC is no longer available.

Even if we had reliable sources, these tables of overly detailed fleet information are non-encyclopedic. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. This one is particularly bad since both sources are invalid. So unless you have a better, actually reliable source, I'll be removing the table again. As you attempt to address above, it's overly bulky in any case and does not add to the value of the article, which is meant to be for a generalist audience, not transit enthusiasts. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

As a veteran UrbanToronto member, there is no need for Wikipedia to compete with that website when it comes to information pertaining to anything Toronto-related. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
At some point in the edit dispute, the original Vehicles table added in 2020 was deleted. Was there a reason for doing that, or was it an accident? It was later restored. The added columns for engine and transmission make the table bloated and difficult to update from the TTC service summary, which does not go into such detail. Why does 184.147.137.223 want to split the Vehicles section into a separate article? Please explain. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Are 174.91.132.224 and 184.147.137.223 one and the same contributor? Please set up a user id so that others can better communicate with you, especially since you are making and enforcing controversial changes. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
See here: WP:ACCOUNT. Having an account also allows you to edit semi-protected articles. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Using REFs, I marked the row(s) and columns in the TTC buses#Vehicles tables that came from CPTDB pending a resolution in the dispute as to whether CPTDB is a permitted source. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I probably removed the "Vehicles" table because, again, I question its relevance to a general purpose encyclopedia article. This is not a trainfan site. I may also have thought it was only "sourced" by CPTDB, which also again is 100% not a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference to include anything. There's no dispute over that point: WP:UGC. You cannot use wikis as sources for information included in Wikipedia. There's apparently just one (or maybe two) IP users who refuse to stop violating policy. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Joeyconnick: Thus, after the next TTC service summary is published, I will force the Vehicles table to agree with that summary. U:184.147.137.223 requested a split of the TTC buses#Vehicles with the addition of a {{Split section}} tag. Considering the difficulty in communicating with u:184.147.137.223, should that tag be removed? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I think you need to be attempting to tag them with {{u}}, not [[u:ip_address]]. So 184.147.137.223 and 174.91.132.224. But I agree that the answer here is not creating yet another article (personally I would prefer not including that information all together [reasons above] but I guess baby steps: let's at least get rid of the parts that are not properly sourced). —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted the Vehicles table back to the 2021-02-14 TTC Service Summary and added a comment within the section's code to freeze the table as of a TTC Service Summary date. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toronto_Transit_Commission_bus_system/Archive_1&oldid=1165590906"