Talk:Path (Toronto)

message: This list, formerly titled "Stores, Restaurants and Links", was a bit of a mess.  I have cleaned it up, but I think we should try and come up with some guidelines as to what ought to be included in the list.  My own suggestions are as follows:
*The list should stick to major buildings and facilities (like Scotia Plaza and the Hockey Hall of Fame).  If we include every store and food court restaurant in the PATH (like, say Burger King, and other fast food joints formerly on the list), the list would conceivably grow to include hundreds of businesses (if not more), would be unmanageable, and would not be very helpful to the reader as it would be dominated by links to businesses that one could find anywhere and are not specific to the PATH.  
*The list should be limited to facilities that are actually linked to the PATH.  For example, the CN Tower should not be included, even though the PATH leads to an outdoor pathway that ultimately leads to the tower.  If we start including buildings that are not connected, but are located in the vicinity of, the PATH, again the list becomes unamanageable as arguably it should include just about every building and structure in downtown Toronto.
*Linked items on the list should link to articles on the actual facilities/buildings themselves.  For example, a link to the general article on the Sheraton hotel chain doesn't really pertain to the PATH and isn't particularly relevant in this context, but a link to the actual Toronto Sheraton Centre is relevant.
I'm not entirely sure that this list is necessary to the article, but if there is to be a list, then I hope this is a helpful start.  --Skeezix1000 15:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To determine whether buildings are connected (whether an indoor connection or outdoor connection), one should reference the official PATH map, which includes the CN Tower, Rogers Centre, and Ryerson School of Buisness, and I have used that as the basis for the PATH system buildings list Epson291 06:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the Ryerson School of Business is connected to the path, as it is a tenant of the Eaton Centre, just like Sears and Canadian Tire, and the centre is connected.  As for uses connected by outdoor walkways, the official PATH site speaks of the system as "PATH is downtown Toronto's underground walkway linking 27 kilometres of shopping, services and entertainment."  We should not be confusing outdoor walkways, shown on a map to orient visitors and other users to the City's main attractions, with an actual connection to the PATH.  Skeezix1000 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The SkyDome and the CN Tower are connected and part of the PATH, that is the outdoor PATH, (PATH is just not an underground system), it is not there on the map to "orient visitors," but rather they are a part and a member of the PATH's coordinating agency, and the SkyWalk indeed, was constructed for their connection. As for the Ryerson School of Business it mostly is a separate building,  and a significant building at that, since it is not a store. Epson291 02:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to source your allegation that the Rogers Centre and the CN Tower are part of the coordinating agency.  The Ryerson School of Business building is part of the Toronto Eaton Centre -- the building itself has no separate name, it has large "Toronto Eaton Centre" signage on the Dundas facade, and the majority of the building is taken up with retail space and the replacement of the mall's Dundas parkade.  In any event, whether the school of business is a store or not is irrelevant, as the Toronto Eaton Centre has both retail and office components.  Skeezix1000 14:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major facilities connected to PATH

message: Contrary to popular belief, the PATH is NOT colour coded, thus the confusion Treleth 04:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the PATH site, the system is colour-coded: "The arrow is one of the PATH compass colours: blue (north), red (south), yellow (east) or orange (west). [...] These ceiling-mounted compasses have colour-coded arrows pointing N-S-E-W."--Skeezix1000 13:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not colour coded 

message: Information pertaining to future expansions should really be sourced.  In the past, PATH connections to newly-constructed buildings have sometimes been notoriously slow in getting built -- the complex negotiations between building owners and the city can take years.  Similarly, some proposed PATH connections never get built.  Without verifiable sources, proposed expansions are arguably speculative, even if a developer claims that a new building will be PATH-connected in its promotional materials.  Skeezix1000 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansions of the PATH

message: Several buildings and complexes are listed which are not, currently, connected to PATH, though they retain the signage. I am thinking of the CBC Broadcast Centre and Simcoe Place, both of whose connection was severed in recent months as construction proceeds on the Ritz Carlton Hotel. Since we don't list future buildings scheduled to connect (like the Four Seasons Performing Centre), shouldn't we somehow note - or omit - those buildings not actually connected? Canada Jack 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  But the PATH links to those two buildings are only temporarily closed due to construction.  I think that's a different situation than a building that has never been part of the PATH, and likely does not even have a physical connection.  So I would keep them on ths list.  My vote would also be to not make any mention of temporary disconnections, as they aren't permanent.  This is an encyclopedia, not a guide for tourists or commuters.  But others may feel differently.  Skeezix1000 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not mention proposed connections until they are in place, or there is a press release or other verifiable/reliable  announcement that they will be connected by a certain date.  The Four Seasons Centre is a perfect example -- the PATH connection is proposed, and would link the PATH to the Osgoode subway station, but there is no money for the connection.  It's pure speculation as to when, or if, that connection will ever be built.  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  If we mention future connections, it should be because we are almost certain that they will be built and opened.As for construction closures, it strikes me that such information is the sort of trivial minutia that we should be avoiding in an encyclopedia.  However, that's just my opinion, and I would not be too bothered if you feel differently and want to add a notation mentioning construction closures.  I would suggest that any notations be sourced from a reliable source, as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Skeezix1000 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note buildings not actually connected to PATH?

message: If so, what does it stand for? If not, why the ALL CAPS? Loganberry (Talk) 22:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marketing idiocy.--207.245.10.222 (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is PATH an acronym? 

message: Why did they build PATH? Is it not partly because it gets so cold in the winter? Smartse (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly much of its custom comes from people who want to get from their station to work without going above ground in bad weather (but Toronto's summers are at least as extreme as its winters). As a result, PATH businesses are much more likely to be closed on the weekend than is normal in Toronto. David Arthur (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: The link to the reference pdf is broken. Maybe someone can fix that. I did not find this document on the net. Weissi8 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to The Ryersonian website, the links are correct. Following the links from their own site leads to a 404. It appears that sometime between April to September 2008, they made a change to their website and all links (including the domain name). I'll inspect further. Mindmatrix 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Future expansion

message: This article is about the PATH system. The Eatons tunnel was not constructed as part of this system. It is VERY misleading to say the PATH system started in the 1900's with the Eatons tunnel in the infobox. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First, do not revert again.  You know better.  Where someone has disagreed, you need consensus to make this change.  If necessary, please read WP:CON and WP:BRD again.Second, your initial edit summary didn't make a lot of sense, since virtually all the tunnels are privately-owned, and many of them were built and were being used long before there was a PATH network by that name.  Your comment above makes more sense, and your issue is now a lot clearer.  But the edit you've made is still inconsistent with your comment above.  The infobox can refer, as it does now, to the construction of the tunnels that today make up the PATH system (the Eaton's tunnel being the first, not sure what's misleading about that), or it can alternatively refer to the establishment of a system (PATH) to coordinate into one network the various tunnels that had been built over the years in the downtown.  You seem to prefer the latter approach, and that's fine.  But then, if the infobox is going to focus on the establishment of the system, versus the establishment of the tunnels that make up the system, then the infobox needs to refer to 1987 as the start date.  You've been editing it inconsistently by removing one pre-PATH date referring to a tunnel, but leaving the other pre-PATH date.  If we take the latter approach, a tunnel built in the 1960s in relation to the TD Centre is no more relevant to the PATH start date than an Eaton's tunnel built 60 years earlier.  Personally, I have no strong preference which approach we use, as long as we are consistent.  If you prefer that the infobox refer to the establishment of an actual PATH system, I'm okay with that, but then the only date should be 1987. The field in question is "opening date", not "establishment date", so I would have thought we'd use dates pertaining to the actual physical entity, as opposed to the network, but I am not that fussed.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good explanation. I favour 1900 more than 1987 as the date for the infobox. But then again, does anything prevent us from having two dates, one for construction and one for official opening of the network? 76.10.147.176 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, absolutely nothing.  That's the approach I would favour as well.  UrbanNerd, however, was determined that he was going to delete the 1900 entry.  Unless there are any objections, I will add the dates as you propose. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  UrbanNerd is the only one who ever had an issue with having more than one date, and he has long since been banned from the project.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eatons tunnel 

message: Does "PATH (Toronto)" adhere to naming policies (e.g. WP:AT) and guidelines (e.g. WP:NCGN)? If not, what name do you suggest? --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What precisely is your concern? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if "(Toronto)" is the right disambiguation name for the topic. If you do not think so, what is your suggestion? (By the way, I added a little more on OP.) --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed you were referring to the disambiguation, but that doesn't tell me much.  I don't have suggestions, nor an opinion on the matter yet, because the concern that gave rise to this RFC is still unclear.  What is it about WP:AT and WP:NCGN (i.e. specific provisions) that has you concerned?  It would be very helpful if you identified what you think is the (potential) problem with the disambiguation, rather than just asking if the disambiguation is a problem.  Thanks.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll rephrase: (without citing policies and guideline) is the current title problematic? There are no other PATHs disambiguated by cities; just "Toronto". Is it "consistent" per WP:CRITERIA? --George Ho (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because the generic term refers to pedestrian walkways, so using a description instead of a city for disambiguation here would be ambiguous.  I'm not convinced there is an issue here.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, there's nothing wrong with "(Toronto)". I wasn't asking whether it's problematic. I was asking your thoughts about the current title itself. --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your exact words were: "is the current title problematic?"  I don't want to discourage you from raising issues, but if you initiate an RFC, it's helpful for everyone involved if you precisely explain your concern.  You might not have answers, and that's okay.  But otherwise its hard for people to know what the issue is.  If the RFC consists solely of "does anyone have thoughts about this?", then I suspect an RFC is probably not required.   Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  All right, my concern is the title's consistency with other disambiguated topics of the same name, PATH. Because "(<city>)" or "(<place>)" is used only by this article, I wonder if we can just change the disambiguation to "(<topic description>)" or something that is not a city or a place. Is that enough? (I was attempting brief, neutral message at the start per WP:RFC, but that came out vague to you.) --George Ho (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Skeezix1000 that an RFC should state an explicit concern, and also that there is (likely) no issue with the article's title. We disambiguate many article titles with names of cities, including schools and places of worship, and this one about infrastructure (of sorts) is also appropriately disambiguated, in my opinion. Mindmatrix 17:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Mindmatrix and Skeezix1000, your thoughts on below message? --George Ho (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Already expressed my thoughts above ("the generic term refers to pedestrian walkways, so using a description instead of a city for disambiguation here would be ambiguous").  A path is a walkway, so "PATH (underground walkway)" would appear to be an article about underground walkways generally, not a specific system of walkways in one part of one city.  As far as disambiguation goes, it's misleading and confusing.  I presume that's why the use of Toronto was chosen in the first place. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  PATH (walkway) then? --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's even worse.  That would appear to be an article about all paths used as walkways (i.e. just about all of them).  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not even PATH (shopping complex) or PATH (shopping mall)? --George Ho (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a shopping mall.  That's not it's primary function.  It's a network of walkways, primarily underground, some of which cross through the retail components of various complexes and office towers.  It passes through various retail concourses and malls, as well as other buildings and uses, but it isn't a mall itself. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

text: See above.Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read any of the comments above?  Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. “WarKosign” 13:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful, if you are proposing a name for which problems have been identified earlier in the discussion, to address those problems in your comments. You don't need to agree on the magnitude of the problems, or even that they are problems, but we can't move forward or attribute a lot of weight to your comment if you don't speak to the identified problems (in a way, it's a variation of the WP:PERNOM dilemma).  It also gives the (undoubtedly false) impression that you haven't bothered to read anyone else's comments.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, and there is no way you would have known this (the article lead is misleading), but the PATH isn't really a system of tunnels.  Only a small portion of it consists of tunnels (usually crossing under streets).  PATH doesn't bill itself as a system of tunnels.  Most of it is a network passing through concourses, shopping malls, railway stations, hotels, subway stations, overhead bridges, etc. rather than tunnels.    Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

text:  I understood that your concern (but apparently not the nominator's) is that a reader may think the article is about paths in general, rather than about a specific transportation system in Toronto. I do not think it is a problem: the all-caps name looks like an acronym, and WP is not wiktionary so the readers do not expect to find definition of plain words. I do not pretend to know the nature of PATH, so PATH (walkway system) (or any other short description of the nature of the system) is as fine with me. My only point - it's more important to tell what it is than to tell where it is. “WarKosign” 19:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the delay in responding.While some people might (incorrectly) think PATH is an acronym, they will also undoubtedly, like everyone else, read it as the word that it is.  If the goal is to be more precise and clear, then having a title that on its face refers to all pathways generally (or all underground pathways generally) is a step in a far more ambiguous and misleading direction.  And while this is not Wiktionary, we have hundreds of thousands of articles on plain words (Table (furniture), Street, Rocking chair, etc.), so a reader would quite expect an article title referring to path walkways to be about paths that serve as walkways (as opposed to, say, flight paths). I am unaware of any policy or guideline (pls. let me know if I've missed it) which says, everything else being equal, that it is more important for disambiguation to tell us what it is, rather than where it is.  Similarly, I am also unaware of any policy or guideline which requires articles of subjects which are not alike in any way, other than appearing together on one disambiguation page among many, to be disambiguated in the same manner.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that this is your opinion, and I wrote above why I think otherwise. Let's see if other editors respond to this RfC. “WarKosign” 20:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously.  But most of my last paragraph isn't opinion, but fact.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current title 

message: Today, I was reading a forum thread which is mostly about public underground networks in Toronto.
I was reading about the fact that there's a network of public tunnels underneath the North York Centre area.
As well, I was also reading about a network of public tunnels underneath Bloor Street. The west end of this network is somewhat west of Bay Street. The east end of the network is at Park Road, a block east of Yonge Street. The network consists of about a dozen buildings.
Both the North York Centre network and the Bloor-area network are sheltered from rain, snow, and hail. Each network includes both shops and underground connections to TTC subway stations.
The City of Toronto's official PATH map omits any mention of the other two networks. I did some research into the situation. The North York Centre network is far away and unaffiliated with PATH. From what I learned, it sounds like the Bloor-area buildings, too, are part of their own network — which is separate and distinct from the PATH network. Their network is their own, and it's completely unaffiliated with PATH. These buildings don't have any PATH signage in their basements, and the buildings are not shown on the PATH map. I doubt that this situation will change any time soon.
(An aside: Over in one of the UrbanToronto online forums, tunnel enthusiast WislaHD has created an unofficial Toronto underground-networks map which shows both the PATH network as well as the Bloor-area network all in one diagram. Today, I did this search through his post history. It looks like the most recent version of his map was posted 16 months ago. The unofficial map shouldn't be spread far or wide, because it uses the City's official "PATH" logo and we don't know whether or not it's supposed to use that logo.)
Anyway. I think we should briefly describe the Bloor-area network and the North York Centre networks on Wikipedia. I went on IRC and asked for advice. AntiComposite's opinion is that we should divide this article into three sections — one about each of the three networks — and that we rename the article to "Underground networks of Toronto". 
I agree with AntiComposite's opinion.
Thoughts?
Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, better yet, maybe we should create a brand-new article named "Underground networks of Toronto". This new article could include a short description of each of the three networks. It could also include a link to our main PATH article for those who want to learn more about the PATH network. —Unforgettableid (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your second thought is probably a better option, although are these systems notable in their own right? If not, a brief mention of other unaffiliated underground connections may (or may not) be suitable, but regardless, the PATH article should stay at this location, as it's a notably system on its own. --kelapstick(bainuu)  09:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning the Bloor-area network and the North York Centre network in our article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on PATH (Toronto). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319023758/http://www.journalism.ryerson.ca/online/masthead/sep2607/Sept.26-07page1.pdf to http://www.journalism.ryerson.ca/online/masthead/sep2607/Sept.26-07page1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319023748/http://www.journalism.ryerson.ca/online/masthead/sep2607/Sept.26-07page5.pdf to http://www.journalism.ryerson.ca/online/masthead/sep2607/Sept.26-07page5.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Is it open 24/7?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.176.14 (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open 24/7? 

message: I believe this section should be updated with additional information. There is a new wayfinding system that has been rolled out through the majority of the PATH system as has significantly different features. http://dfm.steergroup.com/path Boy bedlam (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination and signage 

message: The source cited in this hyperlink, under External Links, has not been updated in several years and contains out-of-date information. The owner of the site was a third-party advertiser with no official link to the PATH. Should it be deleted as a source? Boy bedlam (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online directory of the PATH