This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
Toronto-gauge railways's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "50YPT":
From
Spadina streetcar line (1923–48):
John F. Bromley and Jack May (1973). 50 Years of Progressive Transit. Electric Railroaders' Association. pp. 37, 74, 107, 158, and map section.
From
510 Spadina:
John F. Bromley and Jack May (1973). 50 Years of Progressive Transit. Electric Railroaders' Association. pp. 37, 74, 107, and map section.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not so useful revisions.
@
TheTrolleyPole: A certain
User:EelamStyleZ made a slue of not so useful opinionated revisions thus undoing your hard work. Perhaps they should be eliminated by going back to my last revision.
Peter HornUser talk 02:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Could you explain what you mean by not so useful revisions? Also, reverting edits does not lead to elimination of any sort.
EelamStyleZ (
talk) 14:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
EelamStyleZ,
Peter Horn,
Blaixx,
Johnny Au, and
Joeyconnick: Please comment. I haven't yet gone into every one of the many changes
User:EelamStyleZ made, but some should be reverted. The first sentence ("Toronto-gauge railways refer to trackage of light rail and rapid transit lines built to Toronto gauge") is incorrect it should say "streetcar" not "light rail". I prefer the original order of sections with "Variations" being a sub-section of "Development" as they are closely related. "Radial railways" should be last as streetcars and subways are more prominent. I am glad you restored all the sub-sections for "Radial railways" as without them, the section looks too unstructured. Combining streetcars and subways into one section "Current usage" creates an error as the Hamilton LRT is not "current usage", but I had included it under "Subways" as LRT lines are often considered as rapid transit. I feel that listing the 3 heavy rail lines is unnecessary. I wish you hadn't done so much shuffling of text, as it makes the series of mods difficult to follow. I can understand why
Peter Horn suggests reverting the mods. Perhaps, the simplest solution is to revert the mods and allow
User:EelamStyleZ to make suggestions for change on the talk page. Could
user:Joeyconnick provide comment?
TheTrolleyPole (
talk) 20:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Reverted all changes back to previous revision. It was only for clean up purposes (i.e. reduce the number of bullet points). Listing the specific rapid transit lines seems more relevant than listing all the streetcar lines (previous revision) which can be cut down to the point that the entire streetcar system operates on Toronto gauge. I reworded streetcars and subways as light rail and rapid transit respectively as the former terms are pretty Canada/North America specific. The article was otherwise well written, so I didn't make any content changes.
EelamStyleZ (
talk) 01:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply