Talk:Rapid transit in Canada

message: Many people would consider the O-Train (including official website), and the Ion rapid transit (including official website) as being rapid transit. I know the American Public Transportation Association does not, but I recommend we go with local sources, instead of American sources. I also suggest we match this page with Rapid transit in France and include a second section for LRT systems, so that readers looking for, say Ion rapid transit, don't wonder why its not on this list. Remember we are writing wikipedia for the general public, and people in general would consider "Ion rapid transit" to be "rapid transit". Mattximus (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point about local sources terming those systems as rapid transit, but I think this needs to be balanced with the use of a consistent standard, because individual local sources are not consistent. Some transit systems have "BRT" systems that are just express buses, but which they nevertheless call rapid transit, and I think including those here would be silly. I think your suggestion of keeping the main list as APTA-standard rapid transit and a separate section that lists Canada's light rail systems while linking to Light rail in Canada, à la Rapid transit in France, and its more detailed descriptions of each system is a good compromise between these two needs, and I'll go ahead and implement that. UmpireRay (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Actually, looking at the above discussions, I think consensus was reached to merge all these pages (commuter rail, rapid transit, and light rail) into a single Urban rail transit in Canada page. This seems to be a good compromise to encompass all these systems which have heavy overlap (such as GO Transit's RER project giving it some rapid transit characteristics and the O-Train and Ion like you mentioned) while providing details into all of them. Rather than editing this article further, I will start Draft:Urban rail transit in Canada. Once it is completed, we can publish it and redirect this and the light rail article to it.UmpireRay (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I support the move to merge everything into a single Urban rail transit in Canada. Terramorphous (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me too. I do disagree with splitting the Toronto subway system into two parts as that constitutes WP:OR. It is an integrated system, and even the current light rail component (line 3), is referred to as part of the subway system. This was discussed at length, and the conclusion was that WP:COMMON overrides the technical pigeonholing. And since that table is a list of Rapid transit systems and not Rapid transit lines, we must use the system, not splitting the system into parts, then it's not a system anymore. Also the new line 5 is primarily an underground rapid transit system, with a portion above ground. If that's not rapid transit, then you don't believe the Chicago L is either? Almost all it's long lines do that. Many other examples can be found. It's just best to treat the Toronto subway as a unified system, with several modalities. Mattximus (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Ion rapid transit, O-train into this page 

message: You reverted the merge of this and the light rail page into Urban rail transit in Canada citing the lack of an actual discussion. However, this had been discussed on multiple occasions, including in 2015, in 2019, and now in 2020 with clear almost-universal consensus that a merger would be advisable, particularly in that it resolves the issue of which systems go in which article and the competing definitions or designations of rapid transit vs. light rail. Given this ongoing consensus, I thought this is an uncontroversial merger that should have been WP:BOLDly executed. I'm happy to start a formal merger discussion if you or any other editor think it would actually be warranted, but I still don't think that's necessary given the history here (a move discussion should happen at the merged article if that ends up being controversial). UmpireRay (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to echo that I do think this proposed merge is a good idea, I even support separating into sections like the rapid transit in France page. My only desire is that systems not be split, and be place in whatever category they best fit. Splitting a system into two or three parts is original research.  Mattximus (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the extent of the reconfiguration and the various discussions you're citing, , it would have been (more than) prudent to at the very least mention some form of all the above in the edit summaries of your major edits. Not all of us follow every talk page discussion on every transit-related page in Canada and as for the most recent discussion, one might argue 3 editors agreeing on something over the course of maybe 24 hours is not carte blanche to execute the extent of the changes that you then did. But given good faith and your subsequent explanation, I'll back out my reversions. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: PS you need to merge the Talk pages too. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually really like the table made by UmpireRay, I think it really considered all viewpoints expressed on this page. Thank you! Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

text: In the recent merge, certain sections from the old Light rail in Canada article were dropped. Was that accidental or deliberate? If deliberate, is there a reason? The deleted material was about the Longueuil proposal and about cancelled projects.  Sections lost in merge. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-added.UmpireRay (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I think cancelled projects are encyclopedic and should be included. There was planning, press and some recognition of the processes so it makes perfect sense to include it. I think you're being a bit hyperbolic by saying that there would be hundreds of them as we don't even have a dozen locations where such a project would be considered and the planning alone would take a few years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are probably a dozen plans for a subway under just queen street in Toronto...! Nevertheless, if planned systems do have a place in Wikipedia it’s surely in the respective pages for each system, not in the general overview page (which this is). This should just stick to the very basic facts for each system, and the individual pages can contain more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are they a dozen plans or a dozen proposals or a few approaches for one proposal? Did any proceed to government level? Were any cancelled? Where I live, there have been several proposals for actually extending the SkyTrain to UBC, but none were ever approved or cancelled, and it's that last step—the actual cancellation—that would allow it to be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that those things could belong, but certainly not in the "overview" page, but in the specific Skytrain page in your example. No need to have it in both pages. Mattximus (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was not an example of a cancelled proposal though. What we had in the other article were actually cancelled. For example, one that should be listed is the :Surrey LRT. It was planned, revised, approved, funded, work on the line had started, but public backlash and change in administration resulted in it being cancelled in favour of SkyTrain extension. That fits the criteria of a cancelled project. The numerous discussions around Queen Street subway line do not. In short, yes, we should list cancelled projected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of merge