![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Please see the discussion here and share your thoughts. Thanks! EelamStyleZ ( talk) 02:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
u:174.91.132.224 (alias u:184.147.137.223?) added a row to the TTC buses#Vehicles table showing 91 "Spirit of Independence/Promaster" buses manufactured by "ARBOC Speciality Vehicles". I found a TTC document saying that in February 2021 the TTC was seeking approval for one 7-metre pilot bus and later 90 additional 7-metre buses from Creative Carriage Ltd. (not ARBOC Speciality Vehicles). CPTDB says the pilot bus has been received. I changed the quantity to 1 for this bus type pending the next TTC Service Summary when it comes out. The table should only show buses in service and should agree with the latest TTC Service Summary. TheTrolleyPole ( talk) 01:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Please see the discussion here and share your thoughts. Thanks! EelamStyleZ ( talk) 02:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
u:174.91.132.224 (alias u:184.147.137.223?) added a row to the TTC buses#Vehicles table showing 91 "Spirit of Independence/Promaster" buses manufactured by "ARBOC Speciality Vehicles". I found a TTC document saying that in February 2021 the TTC was seeking approval for one 7-metre pilot bus and later 90 additional 7-metre buses from Creative Carriage Ltd. (not ARBOC Speciality Vehicles). CPTDB says the pilot bus has been received. I changed the quantity to 1 for this bus type pending the next TTC Service Summary when it comes out. The table should only show buses in service and should agree with the latest TTC Service Summary. TheTrolleyPole ( talk) 01:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)