Talk:Line 5 Eglinton

I would like to reopen the question of whether the surface stations on Line 5 should have standalone articles. The 2024 merge discussion relied primarily on article length and duplication, but did not fully address Wikipedia’s relevant notability and content-organisation policies. With Line 6 opening soon, and Line 5….well….Line fiving…, it is appropriate to reevaluate this question again.

1. WP:GNG Notability is based on independent coverage, not article size. The previous discussion focused heavily on the fact that the station articles were short or “duplicative.” However, short or underdeveloped articles do not imply non-notability. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources — not a minimum article length.

Surface stations on Line 5 already receive: -coverage in municipal planning documents -environmental assessments, -community consultation reports, -construction reporting, and -post-opening service -accessibility coverage.

This is the same type of sourcing used for standalone articles on comparable Canadian LRT systems.

2. WP:TRANSPORT Stations are presumed notable when comparable infrastructure is covered elsewhere. Under WP:TRANSPORT, transit stations often meet notability through routine independent coverage and their role as fixed infrastructure. The guideline states that infrastructure with documented planning, construction, and operational coverage frequently satisfies GNG. ION rapid transit in Waterloo, which uses nearly identical surface-level platforms, has standalone articles for every station……Edmonton and Calgary surface stations do as well. For consistency under WP:NPOV and WP:CONSISTENCY, Line 5’s infrastructure should not be treated differently without a policy-based justification.

3. WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT Avoiding article bloat. The 2024 thread proposed merging all surface-station content into the Line 5 article. However, the current Line 5 page is already approaching 8,000 words of prose, nearing the point where WP:SUMMARY encourages splitting. Consolidating all station information into a single page contradicts WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which recommends creating subarticles for topics that would otherwise overwhelm the main article.

4. WP:INDISCRIMINATE Merging everything into one page creates the exact problem this guideline is designed to avoid. Some arguments in 2024 suggested merging because station information was “duplicative.” However, placing dozens of station descriptions, histories, and design notes into the main Line 5 page would create an indiscriminate collection of details, precisely what WP:INDISCRIMINATE warns against. Separate articles allow for sourcing, context, and expansion without turning the main page into a repository of loosely connected paragraphs.

5. WP:LOCAL and WP:NOTNEWS Brief mentions in news do not eliminate notability. The previous discussion used the logic that “news coverage of a redesign is routine, therefore not notable.” But WP:NOTNEWS clarifies that routine news coverage does not invalidate notability; it simply cannot be the sole basis. Line 5 station coverage comes from planning, environmental, operational, and local reporting………a mix that satisfies the durable, sourced coverage expected for infrastructure topics.

6. Comparisons in the 2024 thread were improper (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS misapplied) References to 512 St. Clair stops are not relevant comparisons. Those are TTC streetcar pole stops, not rapid-transit stations, and they lack the physical infrastructure, planning documentation, and role in the network that WP:NTRANSPORT uses to justify coverage. A proper comparison is ION, C-Train, or Edmonton LRT………all systems with at-grade LRT stations that have standalone articles. Consistency across comparable transit systems is an expectation under WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:NPOV.

So based on the combination of WP:GNG, WP:NTRANSPORT, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:CONSISTENCY, Line 5’s surface stations meet the typical standards for standalone transit-station articles. The 2024 rationale for merging was rooted in editorial preference (article size, duplication), not in policy. Now that Line 6 is going to be operational and hopefully Line 5 will follow suit in a few weeks, sourcing and long-term coverage will only increase.

I propose reinstating or recreating individual station articles, consistent with how comparable Canadian LRT systems are treated and in line with Wikipedia’s established content-organization policies. ~2025-38236-43 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Do not support the creation of standalone articles for all the Line 5 surface stations. It may be the case that one or some of the stations may be able to demonstrate notability (significant individual coverage) but not for all of them. Take Ionview for example – I cannot see any reliable, substantial secondary sources that would support a standalone article, it's always about Line 5 as a whole, or some/all of the surface stations. The surface stations are all very similar in design, which doesn't help to differentiate them. "[Following opening of Line 6 and 5] sourcing and long-term coverage will only increase" okay, so we can continue to wait and see if these appear over the next few years then.

With regard to point 2 about ION stations – I think many of those would fail if nominated at AfD, similar points were raised with regard to Croydon Tramlink stops that weren't former railway stations. (AfD:George Street tram stop)

With regard to point 3 – I would suggest moving the history of the project to a separate article - e.g "history of eglinton crosstown" - allowing it to be summarised in this article. Turini2 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

One approach could be following Manchester Metrolink and creating a standalone article that provides some more detail than in the main article (List of Manchester Metrolink tram stops). Turini2 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I found a post from @Elemimele at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravel Hill tram stop that I would like to reproduce (nearly) in full.

Many transport enthusiasts get very emotional about Wikipedia articles on stations and stops, feeling that every station or stop has a right to a full article. But these articles end up as generic clones all saying the same thing, and all based on the same primary sources. This doesn't help our readers. There is a very good reason why bus companies release their timetables as a single table, not a set of slips of paper, one for each stop. [...] Where a station has history, notable events, and secondary coverage, give it an article. Where it doesn't, write a single article about the entire route.
— User:Elemimele 19:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Turini2 (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that my points are identical to Line 6 stops having articles - only Humber College and Finch West would be notable. Turini2 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Do not support - The list in the Line 5 article does the job. Alaney2k (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Do not support — None of them are notable in and of themselves. And also def per Turini2, too. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Do not support - they are little more than glorified bus stops. Perhaps they develop notability over time but for now the list is sufficient. Echoedmyron (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Do not support - They are no different from individual stops on 510 Spadina and 512 St. Clair. Perhaps in the future when the individual stops become notable can they have their own articles. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• FYI I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunnybrook Park station at AFD following this consensus. Turini2 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there any way to phrase the opening date to say something like "presumed opening date" or "announced opening date" to still reflect that Feb 8 is very likely even if it's not technically official and avoid the back and forth of change and revert that we will certainly see in the next few days/weeks. --McSly (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done It has been fully confirmed by TTC officials that it will open on February 8. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Going with what was done with the Line 1 extension articles (Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension and Yonge North extension), should we do that here? Transportfan70 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we need three articles – Line 5 about the transit service (e.g. Elizabeth line), Eglinton Crosstown about the construction project (e.g. Crossrail) and an article about the phase 2 project. Turini2 (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

In other words, you don't? But this article is very long and somewhat unwieldy... Transportfan70 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I know that you are replying to Turini2, but to clarify my point, it should be split into three articles: one about the active service, one about the construction of the first phase, and one about the second phase. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I was, but thought his reference to the UK systems was snark because he thought the idea was stupid. I think it would be best not to split into three but just shorten the construction section as it has lots of excess detail for a now-completed line—people tend to add every small detail when a line is a work-in-progress. Transportfan70 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Oops...I meant still make a "Crosstown West Extension" split but just shorten the construction section. Having a standalone construction article seems excessive. Transportfan70 (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I thought my response was clear, and not snarky at all - as above I think we need three articles, as per the examples I gave of UK systems. A Eglinton Crosstown standalone article wouldn't just be about construction, it would be about the history of planning and approving the line, as well as construction of the line. The Line 5 article could then focus on the service itself.

This would also match others splits (Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension and Yonge North extension, and the Line 1 article about the service. Turini2 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

There can be three articles: Line 5 Eglinton (about the current service), History of Line 5 Eglinton (about a brief overview of the Eglinton West subway proposal, its cancellation, Transit City, its cancellation, its reinstatement and revisions, and the construction of the current service), and Line 5 Eglinton western extension (about the proposal and construction of the western extension to Renforth station). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

That would be great, but what I meant by a standalone construction article was for the construction of Line 5 as a whole, which I think should be shortened. Transportfan70 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I commented in 2020 that the Construction and implementation section felt unreasonably long. Splitting it and perhaps some of the history (e.g. Location of the tracks at Leslie) into a standalone article on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT project is certainly reasonable. The westward extension currently takes up a disproportionate amount of space in the history section so I think a separate article on the west extension makes sense as well.

If a split is done, I think construction and implementation as well as history need to be reorganized to order it well, perhaps after the Rob Ford–era redesigns the initial Crosstown project can be mentioned followed by a section on the westward extension. ~UN6892 ^t_c 01:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I support the creation of an Eglinton West extension article. I'm not sure that we need a third however. BLAIXX 15:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps start with two and see if we need a third in future then Turini2 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The whole article:

Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9342 words) "readable prose size"

Per WP:SPLIT, it's debatable we need any extra articles but we certainly do not need a separate article on the construction of Line 5, as that clearly belongs in the Line 5 article. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed; people add minute details while a line is a WIP, but it's too much after said line opens, especially after its been open for years Transportfan70 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• I bit the bullet and wrote Eglinton Crosstown this morning, I will start to cull this article now. Turini2 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, so I gave it a good go - but still more could be culled. I do think the Western extension would sit nicer separate from this article.

  In terms of things missing from this article

  • rewrite the lead
  • actually pipe Eglinton Crosstown in relevant places
  • a little background on the Rob Ford Transit City saga and how many stops, underground, surface etc - hard to get my head around to write that in a sentence or three
  • further trimming / succinctness of history section
  • details about transit signal priority
  • service levels, as per other articles

  Turini2 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah no... no consensus to do that; the only agreement that was vague was that a separate page for the next extension might be warranted. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  Concur that there is no consensus. I was beginning to draft a merge proposal when another editor moments ago reverted the creation of the second page. 42-BRT (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  I support a separate extension article, titled using the official name "Crosstown West extension". Transportfan70 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  I believe the official project name is: Eglinton Crosstown west extension . BLAIXX 20:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  I also support the separate extension article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Draft:Eglinton Crosstown West extension let me know what you think! Turini2 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I like it and the fact you found my yet-unused route map, but I believe the W is lowercase, as BLAIXX stated. Transportfan70 (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I concur. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Looking great! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 23:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  understood - I've re-added the improvements I made when I did the split (procurement, architecture etc). I did remove some of the duplication/too much information in the history but more needs to be cut for sure. Turini2 (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Split has occurred, following this discussion Eglinton Crosstown West extension Turini2 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done, but not by me. Thank you Turini2! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)