Talk:Line 2 Bloor–Danforth

The middle of this page has a list of stages in a table right next to a map of the line. The map (from top to bottom) is from East to West, while the table starts from the West to East. It's rather disorienting. Could either the table be reversed or the image be replaced with one that is vertically flipped (with the proper oriented wording of course)

Right now, they look like normal text when they are actually the title of a new section. ~2025-43113-76 (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

That's just how heading look at that level of nesting. It may be a good time to split out the extension into its own article, like Toronto–York Spadina subway extension and Yonge North subway extension. BLAIXX 15:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I strongly agree, especially given that it is now under construction. An article just about the extension would be great. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: this is a reply to your comment: why would we give a date before which the construction *won't* be completed? it also won't be completed before 2025, 2024, 2023... it's pretty nonsensical; either we leave it as is or we say "there's no announced completion date" (preferably with a source).

I don't think it's nonsense to give readers a general idea of when the thing might open, even if we don't have an exact date. Unlike Line 5 which has no date but is set to open imminently, the SSE is years away at least and I wanted to make that clear. The reason I wrote "2030" instead of another year is because that is the earliest date that has been attached to this project. The citation I used was a Star article from this year which said "projected to open in 2030".

Essentially the point I want to get across is that the extension will open in 2030 or later, but not before. Is there a better way we can word this in the article? BLAIXX 16:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Reworded to reflect what sources have said: originally slated for 2030 completion; this past September, Metrolinx refused to confirm 2030. While other news sources at the time simply re-quoted the 2030 date, the previous Star citation only had that in its subhead, not the article body, and the Global piece better reflects reality, including the Metrolinx CEO doing the hand-waving "new world of construction" thing to allow him to dodge the question. 😅 —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

As it stands right now, the SSE section of this article is around 1/3 of its total length (~2100 of ~6450 words) and well above the length of any other section of the article (the History section including all previous extensions of the line is around 1100 words). This would imply the SSE is a much more important part of the Line 2 article than it likely is. 2100 words is more than enough to start an article with, so I think a split is more than warranted here. ~UN6892 ^t_c 01:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added the split tag to Line 3 Scarborough too, it also has a large section on its replacement proposals. ~UN6892 ^t_c 01:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Support the split - clearer and easier to have extension projects as separate articles, as per Toronto–York Spadina subway extension, Yonge North subway extension and Eglinton Crosstown west extension. Turini2 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Support Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

A split is absolutely justified. BLAIXX 03:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Disagree... there's such an overdo on splitting things. WP:SPLIT suggests it's warranted when an article is around 50k.

Prose size for this article is:

Prose size (text only): 38 kB (6452 words) "readable prose size"

If the SSE section is large, that suggests it should be cut down. The overdetailing is painful. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

My justification to split has nothing to do with the total prose size of the article itself (apart from the SSE section's size relative to it). Even without all the material from primary sources we are left with a lot more than makes sense for this article. As well, the section on the Line 3 article covers some topics in more detail than here, topics which should probably be in one article about the SSE (looking at the section about the LRT proposal especially). The content needing to be covered in both locations appears to be preventing us from having one good summary of the extension and the proposal's long history of changes. ~UN6892 ^t_c 04:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)