Talk:Line 6 Finch West

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)

No problem! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Opening date of December 7, 2025

Here is the source: https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/Documents/Metrolinx/Item_9_-_Rapid_Transit_Capital_Projects_Progress_-_FINAL_ENG_Mx.pdf

Is this source acceptable? Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The link appears to be dead, so I think no. BLAIXX 03:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Link won't open for me... —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I have checked again and the link is now dead. Metrolinx pre-emptively released it then withdrew it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

No harm to wait until there's a secondary source (CBC News, Toronto Star example) Turini2 (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

That would be a better idea. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

There has been ~2025-35421-92 (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

"Finch West LRT to open to the public on Dec. 7" : CityNews BLAIXX 14:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll put that in unless there's any objection Transportfan70 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

"Finch West LRT opening next month, documents suggest. But transit agencies still not confirming": CBC BLAIXX 17:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Since the TTC has now officially announced the opening date (Coming December 7, 2025 - Line 6 Finch West), I have updated the page. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 20:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Stations, not stops. Is a change needed?

Now that Line 6 has opened, I noticed that the TTC refers to all 'stops' as stations, as can be seen here: https://www.ttc.ca/routes-and-schedules/6/0. The Wiki article says only terminal 'stops' are actually stations, while all at grade are 'stops'. Google Maps and Transit also say they are stations. Should this be updated? Might apply to Line 5 too. PascalHD (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The way I understand it – fare gates = station, no fare gates and at grade = stop. I think leaving it as present is best. Turini2 (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if fare gates are what decide the difference. The ION LRT in Kitchener is essentially the same kind of system that Line 6 is, and their at grade ‘stops’ are all called stations and all have articles. The Edmonton LRT as far as I’m aware, does not have fare gates. They appear to call theirs tram ‘stops’, and they all have Wikipedia articles. Regardless of name changing, each Line 6 (and Line 5) stop/station should probably have a Wikipedia article. PascalHD (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@PascalHD "each Line 6 (and Line 5) stop/station should probably have a Wikipedia article" - I believe that the community consensus does not support this as per Talk:Line 5 Eglinton#Reassessing standalone articles for Line 5’s surface stations Turini2 (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for sharing, will take a look. PascalHD (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Do we (or better yet, sources) call the stops along 512 St. Clair or 510 Spadina "stations"? Pretty similar infrastructure but clearly not stations. Except at, well, stations: Spadina station, Cedarvale station, Eglinton station, etc.

Do we "go into" Mount Olive or do we wait at it? Because I go into a station but I wait at a stop. (Yes, fine: I wait at a station too, sure, but I don't "go into" a stop.)

A station is a structure you can be inside of, whereas at a stop you may be sheltered but you are not inside/not in the interior of the structure. —Joeyconnick (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick You are absolutely correct. Although there’s certainly a distinction between the streetcar network and the ‘subway’ LRT stops, they are functionally the same. Ultimately it doesn’t matter to me, I was just curious if a change was warranted as I noticed the TTC considers them ‘stations’ on the subway network.

Maybe in the future if these ‘stops’ become notable enough, they could have their own articles. Clearly in the present there is little support for it, as I now see. PascalHD (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Runner beats the train

I'm seeing reporting about a runner who raced and beat a train (this individual is apparently known for racing streetcar lines) Worth a call out in this article? 331dot (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Does not really seem encyclopedic. The facts about the measured times makes the point. Alaney2k (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but this is also hitting more mainstream media like the CBC . I had envisioned maybe simply using it as a citation to add to the sentence with the times something like "slower than walking(or running) pace". But not a huge deal. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

We are not the news. Unless it receives widespread and sustained coverage, it's inappropriate to be considered for addition. Also all this coverage of how apparently slow it is is incredible recent—will it be relevant in 5 years? 10 years? 15, 20? Likely not, so likely not worth including. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I've been here for 13 years, so I'm aware of what we are, and just have a differing viewpoint as to what is "news". If it's not relevant it can always be removed in 5 years since this is not a paper encyclopedia. I just think it's a good way to emphasize the slowness of a "rapid" transit line that cost billions of Canadian dollars- but if people don't, that's fine too. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

As Joeyconnick said, it's best to wait for widespread and sustained coverage from various mainstream sources. It would be better to wait for mainstream non-Canadian sources to cover this as well. Yes, I have ridden Line 6 on opening day. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian from the United Kingdom now has an article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/30/i-dont-like-winning-toronto-man-outruns-streetcars-to-show-up-sluggish-transit-network. Should it be added to Line 6 Finch West? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's worth a line. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Reverted per WP:NOTNEWS, but not by me. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)