Talk:Line 6 Finch West

The stations in the infobox on the stops default to "station" not "stop"

The Preceding station and Following station thing, for instance, says Driftwood (station), rather than Driftwood (stop). I have no idea how the hell this thing works and im just posting so someone smart can fix it. Humulator (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, can someone fix it, since for example on the Eglinton Line all the aboveground stopping points are listed as stops whilst the underground are labelled "stops" Danielg532 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

thought we had clarified that LRT stops don't warrant separate articles

I see that Danielg532 has started creating articles for this line's stops. Pretty sure we've discussed that surface-level stops with minimal infrastructure don't warrant their own separate articles and aren't notable in and of themselves. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Opening Date of Q4 2024

All the reliable sources currently say that Line 6 Finch West will not open until Q4 2024. If anyone decides to add a specific day or a specific month to the opening, please provide a new reliable source that says so. Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@T&TRKFNF2022 please see above, I have reverted your edits. Turini2 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Not just that, but several hidden notes state that the opening date should not be changed from Q4 2024 unless new reliable sources say otherwise and these notes surround the opening date itself. I have added all the notes myself. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Addition of maplink

Recently I added an interactive map of Line 6 Finch West to the article using the maplink-road template. It was removed under "Undid revision 1223384821 by Commotatoes (talk) 1) not an improvement imo 2) not a minor edit WP:MINOR".

The minor edit tag was my fault. I was unaware. However, I believe that adding the maplink map is an improvement to the article. I would like to outline my arguments for this.

Many people have a better sense of where things are on a map, rather than the names of the places. Thus, it may be hard for these people to get a grasp on where the line is.

I think the addition of a map will help people better locate how close they are to the line, and the places around the line. While a system map indicates which stops are on the line, it does not show the area around the stop, including parks, roads, major landmarks, neighbourhoods, buildings, public buildings, etc.

A map also provides a visual reference for how long the line is. System maps do not indicate this, and some people find that placing the route on a map provides a far better representation for how long it is, rather than a number.

If people are biking or walking to the line, they can determine the path to it from a map. System maps, again, do not represent the roads around them.

This is also generally standard across metros from what I can gather. Interactive route maps are on Line 1 Yonge–University, Line 2 Bloor–Danforth, Line 4 Sheppard, Toronto subway, Frankfurt U-Bahn, and S6 (ZVV). Non-interactive, but geographically accurate maps are also present on most metro lines. This line is an exception in the case it does not have a geographically accurate map anywhere on its page, interactive or non-interactive.

I hope I have properly outlined my arguments as to why I think that adding a geographically accurate map in the form of a maplink would be an improvement to the article. Thank you for reading.

Tagging @Turini2 (reverter) as he requested I discuss this here rather than his talk page. Commotatoes (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here so we can discuss to seek consensus, appreciate it! I've looked at featured articles of railway and metro lines and they tend to have either 1) an route map diagram (e.g. 1 Line (Sound Transit) or North East MRT line) or 2) a graphical map (e.g. Hastings line). Another example would be AirTrain JFK, which offers multiple options - both a diagram and a geographically accurate map.

I do agree with you that maps are better than diagrams - personally, I prefer use of a graphical map that uses OSM data as a base, rather than an interactive map. I also find the interactive maps on Wikipedia less user friendly, especially for mobile users - where an image is clear and distinct. We could use the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop to create a map? Turini2 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the response and feedback.

On the topic of these metros, I find route map diagrams lacking (at least, the ones referenced) because they do not incorporate any more information other than the physical shape of the line. The graphical map is far more appealing, however I find the lack of ability to zoom out/in a downside.

On using OSM data, The Maplink interactive map was/is based off OSM data. If you find that a static map is indeed better than an interactive map, I can create a .png map with OSM-Carto (Or a .svg map with a .png OSM-Carto background). It would look similar to the static map present on Line 1 Yonge–University.

However, I personally find an interactive map to be better. In my opinion, the ability to zoom in and out provides a better sense of locality than a static map. I think it would be preferable to have all three maps, a static version, an interactive version, and a system map.

On using the Map Workshop, I do not wish to ask the Map Workshop for help in this. It appears they are overworked already, and I am capable of making a static map myself.

On mobile phones, I am not aware that the maplinks have issues on mobile. What are they? I have checked on my phone and I have not found any issues on mobile Chromium and Firefox.

While I appreciate the feedback provided, and I am 100% open to making a static map for the line, I am still unsure why the original edit was reverted for not being an improvement. While I understand if there are some mobile issues I am unaware of, I still believe the interactive map provided value. Likewise, I understand if you find that static image maps are preferable to interactive maps, but I find that interactive maps are preferable to static maps.

Can we agree to simply put all three (system, interactive, static) maps on the page? Commotatoes (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I like the static map on Line 1 Yonge–University, so if you could create one similar to that and then have the option to pick between all three maps (route diagram, interactive and static), I agree that would be perfect.

In terms of the revert - I was under the impression that your edit replaced the route diagram (something widespread across articles) with the interactive map. That's why I reverted it. I can see now that your edit allowed both to be selected - so I apologise for that. Mea culpa! Regardless, I find it good practice to consult the talk page of the article for major changes - people are generally helpful and considerate with suggestions on how to improve articles. Thanks again! Turini2 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will update the article with the other two maps. I am glad the misunderstanding was cleared up.

Have a great day, and thank you once more for the feedback. Commotatoes (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)