From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived discussions

The Beach?[edit]

Both this article and Toronto/East End use "the Beach". Should it be "the Beaches"?

I'm an Ottawa boy who has visited Toronto fairly often. The term has always been plural when I've heard people -- mostly Torontonians, & including two friends who live in the area -- use it. Have I just missed something here? Are both terms used for different things? For the same thing? Pashley (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The east end lakeside neighbourhood is named "The Beaches". The singular, if used as a proper name without naming a specific beach (such as one of the ones on the Toronto Islands), is likely a typo. Admittedly I'm a +1 613'er too, but have worked in Toronto and Mississauga many years ago. K7L (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Both names appear to be useable, according to Wikipedia. They have a summary of the confusion/controversy over the name on their The Beaches page. Tourism Toronto refers to it as "The Beach". It seems like a good topic to cover in an infobox in the East End page, while on the main Toronto page I guess we could use both to reduce confusion. The singular use does seem weird though since I always heard it referred to as The Beaches until a few years ago (but I'm from Peterborough, so I'm not a resident or expert either). -Shaundd (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Weston, York (borough), East York[edit]

There was a question on Toronto/North York as to why Weston (former village in borough of York) is listed there... should it be in Toronto/Midtown? We don't seem to have a "York" or "East York" district in our metro Toronto article set. K7L (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a difficult spot to fit into our district structure. It's a bit of a stretch to say it's part of either Midtown or North York. I'm inclined to say leave it in North York, but have a line somewhere that says this North York travel guide includes part of the old boroughs of York and East York. Unless a case can be made that York should be a district. -Shaundd (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
One option would be to rename the page, Toronto/North (currently redirected to Midtown for some reason), Toronto/North York, York and East York or something. Creating a section for "York" or "East York" in the North York article might be an option, much like Napanee or Cobourg have sections for a list of tiny speck-on-a-map villages with only one thing to see (a really big wooden apple roadside in Colborne, an unincorporated village just west of the +1 905/613 area code boundary, for instance). Normally, if one divides Toronto into districts, one starts with the six boroughs - but that leaves relatively little in tiny East York and not much more in Weston. K7L (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears the former city boundaries were largely ignored when the districts were set up; only Scarborough appears to be coterminous with its namesake. But that does make sense; the former municipal boundaries have little meaning to the modern traveler. Powers (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Our coverage of Scarborough and Etobicoke seems to follow the original boundaries (the Humber River to Etobicoke in the west, Victoria Park Ave to Scarborough in the east). Toronto proper is multiple districts. That just leaves tiny East York and York (Weston) as former boroughs which don't fit our districts well. K7L (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think they don't fit our districts well because they don't seem as useful from a traveller's perspective. My impression from friends who have lived in Toronto (particularly in the old City of Toronto and East York) is that the neighbourhood was the real identifier for people. For East York in particular, I don't think it makes a very good "district". It was split across the Don Valley, and for all intents and purposes, was two different parts -- Leaside and Old East York. I think if you were going to describe Toronto for a traveller, it would make more sense to include Greektown and the Danforth (old East York) with the rest of the East End than with Leaside north of the Don River -- notwithstanding there used to be a line that said the two areas were part of the same municipality.
Anyway, here are my thoughts after thinking about this a bit more and looking at a map of Metro Toronto pre-megacity:
  • Include Weston in Toronto/Midtown. The rest of York already seems to be included in Midtown, so let's put all of it there. If there is enough content someday to support a York district, then it can be split out.
  • Split East York between Toronto/East End and Toronto/Midtown. Parts north and west of the Don River go to Midtown and parts south and east of the Don River go to East End.
Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the Danforth ever was in East York, the boundary was at least four blocks further north (Milverton Blvd, IIRC?). From w:East York#History "For many years, the borough did not allow serving of alcoholic beverages in restaurants. The result was a heavy concentration of alcohol-serving restaurants and bars on Danforth Avenue, a main street in the city of Toronto running east-west just south of East York." EY was also tiny by Toronto standards, population 110 thousand when Metro Toronto was 2542 thousand, so 4% of the total +1-416 population. Todmorden Mills Heritage Museum and Arts Centre is the only travel landmark which comes to mind. K7L (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking at a better map, the boundary was indeed a few blocks north of Danforth (it looks like between Milverton and Springdale for a long stretch of the way). My point was more that a significant part of East York lies south and east of the Don Valley, and is quite tied in with what we're calling the East End. If you're visiting Todmorden, you're probably coming from the Danforth and not north of the Don Valley. And if you're visiting Leaside, you're probably coming from Midtown or North York. As such, I think it makes much more sense split to East York in two (as it is now) -- particularly since it doesn't exist anymore. -Shaundd (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
A search for "Leaside tourism" turns up little of interest, there's a golf course but the bulk of anything of interest for travel in East York will skew closer to Toronto/East End than Midtown. Weston in Toronto/Midtown, leaving Todmorden in the East End looks reasonable. K7L (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I updated the map and moved the Weston info to Toronto/Midtown. Also updated the district description in the intro to the Midtown article to include Leaside and the borough of York. -Shaundd (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Harbourfront / Islands[edit]

Was there really so much information in the Toronto/Harbourfront article that the Islands needed to be split out? I think they should be merged back together. The Islands are nice, but the article's pretty sparse. Powers (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Toronto/Islands. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Malton airport[edit]

This section (Toronto#Toronto Pearson International Airport) should be cut back in size as the Mississauga airport has its own article at Toronto Pearson International Airport. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:9B 23:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Public transit[edit]

This section is way long. I've tried cutting it back, but transit fans keep adding details back in. I think it's time to fork this section into a separate article, which could have loads of details, and keep a higher level of information for the main article. This would be similar to articles like Driving in Italy and Rail travel in Italy that have been split off from Italy. I propose Public transit in Toronto. Comments? @Ikan Kekek: @AndreCarrotflower: @TheTrolleyPole: @LtPowers: @Hobbitschuster: Ground Zero (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ground Zero - Toronto, almost as much as Manhattan, is the kind of place where you really, really don't want to be saddled with a car if you can help it. So it's natural enough, I think, that there would be more information on public transit than the average Wikivoyage article. That being said, yes, it is excessive, but not so much that we'd need to spin the information off into a travel topic. I think that a multipronged approach of:
  • shortening the prose and simplifying the sometimes unnecessarily fine-grained detail in the "Fares" and "Transfers and proof of payment" subsections
  • devolving specific information on streetcars to the district articles (or eliminating it outright - Toronto streetcar lines are essentially analogous to bus lines, and we don't feel the need to describe each one of those in minute detail, right?)
  • devolving information in the "Connecting public transit services" and "GO Transit" subsections to Greater Toronto Area#Get around and Niagara Peninsula#Get around
would, along with vigilance in watching this page to guard against excessive information creeping back in (when reverting, you can refer to this talk page discussion in your edit summaries), be sufficient in addressing the problem you describe.
Hope this helps.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't actually like taking detail out, as it will be useful for someone - that's why I would prefer to transfer it to another article. Transit fans are wonderfully generous in contributing information to Wikivoyage and Wikipedia, but sometimes lose sight of the big picture. The problem with streetcar lines is that they tend to be very long, so the information on them doesn't lend itself to being moved to a district article. And the only way to manage to information-creep is through eternal vigilance, which diverts time energy from more productive endeavours. Ground Zero (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Aside from the 501 Queen, which is "an attraction in itself", I would agree with deleting the description s of all the streetcar routes if we don't create a separate article. Ground Zero (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Ground Zero:
First off, it bears emphasizing that there's no city in the world that has a Wikivoyage travel topic dedicated to its public transit system, even those with the most extensive such networks in the world - New York City, London, Tokyo, Shanghai - so the fact that we're having a conversation about spinning off our coverage of Toronto's transit system, which isn't even in the top 20 of the world in size, says unambiguously to me that there's too much information included. I expect that any such article would probably end up with a merge tag on it sooner than later. Believe me, I sympathize with your desire to include as much information as possible - ask around about my reputation for wordiness and exhaustive detail - but you do have to draw the line somewhere. But don't worry: our readers are big boys and girls, and even if they don't have every conceivable bit of information spoon-fed to them ahead of time, they'll survive. In fact, they'll probably be grateful you didn't give them reams and reams of information to digest.
Not to mention the fact that a travel topic article wouldn't necessarily solve the problem of overzealous transit geeks re-adding previously excised information. Who's to say they wouldn't just steamroll over your friendly invitation to "see Public transit in Toronto for more information" (or whatever) and simply add everything back anyway? Then you'd have two articles with redundant information that you'd have to merge together - talk about taking time away from more productive activities. Sadly, in scenarios like this there's no real way around the more tedious aspects of vigilance, but in the end, it's a lot easier than you make it out to be in your comment above. All you have to do is click "Undo", and maybe provide a wikilink to this talk page conversation in the edit summary. A process of maybe 15 seconds, less if you cut and paste the edit summary. Just because transit fans add accurate information in a good faith manner doesn't mean they need to be given extra leeway when it comes to deciding what stays and what gets cut. As you said, they sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture. There's no shame in getting one's edits reverted, and as long as you don't bite the newbies, no one will fault you either for doing what you need to do to keep our articles within the bounds of Wikivoyage's scope.
As for the streetcars: you could simply delete them, but the reason why I made the suggestion above is because that's how I handled Buffalo's Metro Bus lines. Take Bus 23 for instance, which has a route shaped like the number 7 that snakes through four separate districts: check out Buffalo/West Side#Crosstown routes, Buffalo/North Buffalo#Crosstown routes, Buffalo/East Side#Crosstown routes, and Buffalo/South Buffalo#Crosstown routes to see how I did it. As for the 501 Queen, I'd say you might have an argument for converting that one into an itinerary article for those who want to treat it as "an attraction in itself", while treating it the same as the other streetcar lines for those who simply want to use it to get from Point A to Point B.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
We do have an article about Public transit in the San Francisco Bay Area, so I see no reason to reject a spinoff out of principle as I cannot see such a principle. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but there's a demonstrated lack of consensus about whether that article should exist, and in fact transit systems are specifically called out in wiaa as an example of something that should not be given its own article. I think just because there's one controversial exception to the rule doesn't mean the floodgates should be considered open, especially when there's a perfectly viable alternate plan spelled out above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Andre, your suggestion for 501 Queen is a good one - I'll look into implementing that.
On the question of what is an article, for every rule there is an exception. In this case, the policy you cited also says, "A good rule of thumb is that information about attractions, sites, events, and transportation should always be initially placed into an existing article, and only when that information becomes too large and complex (more than 3-4 paragraphs) should a new article be considered." We're well past 3-4 paragraphs. The list of examples provided does not include an urban transit system, but the exception type specifically mention "transportation", and articles have been created for "Rail travel in..." and "Driving in...."
In a project that it still in its adolescence, that something hasn't been done before is not a good argument for not doing it now. There are transit fans out there, and they will travel to explore transit. is evidence of that.
With regard to London and New York City, I would argue that the transit sections of those articles are way too long and detailed, and would benefit from having a lot of the detail branched into separate articles so that people who walk or take cabs don't have to scroll down past a very long block of text.
Finally, when someone as detail that is useful to someone, but not too very many, it is much easier to justify shifting it to another article than removing it altogether. We are in the business of providing information, but we want to make sure that we do so in a useful, accessible way. Loading tons of detail in, or deleting the detail altogether, does not achieve this aim. Ground Zero (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not in any way opposed in principle to creating a Public transit in Toronto article, but since it would be pretty much a complete 180 from our current policy of transit systems not getting their own articles, I think it would be better if we gained consensus from the community at large. I'll put up a pointer to this discussion at the pub and in Wikivoyage:Requests for comment. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't read the whole thread, but insofar as the request for comment in the pub indicated that an article about transit in Toronto would be in violation of WV:WIAA, I don't think that is a correct interpretation - the Bay Area public transit article already exists, as one example. The guidance from WV:WIAA that seems most relevant is "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article". If the level of detail is too much for a city article, a travel topic seems warranted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think streamlining the information in the section is a better way to go than moving it all to a new article. It wouldn't even be that particularly hard, since you guys have already identified the sections with too much excessive detail: the fares section (which certainly does not need such fine-grained detail) and the section on streetcar lines (which makes more sense at the district level). Yes, someone might try to add back in that excessive detail, and monitoring that information-creep requires vigilance, but such is the nature of many things on this site; I see the exact same thing in our sections on history and sports teams. Ensuring that excessive degrees of detail don't cloud the information we want to present is just one more part of maintaining our content.

Additionally, I fell compelled to add that the cited Bay Area transit article hasn't really panned out very well. The person who created it hasn't contributed in a while, and there hasn't been a substantial edit to that page in almost a year. While it was interesting to see develop initially as an experiment, I think it's a good example of what tends to happen when you pull that sort of content away from the destination articles; people forget that it exists and no one bothers to update it, because our attention is naturally focused on the destination pages. If anything, adding a new article for specialized content seems to require more vigilance than simply enforcing tight, informative prose on a destination article with many eyes on it. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I personally would always want a good Public Transit section for any city. I've never been to Toronto so I imagined doing so with this article and read "Line 1 Yonge-University runs in a 'U' shape, travelling north-south along Yonge Street, bending at Union Station, then travelling north-south along University Avenue, Spadina Avenue, and Allen Road. It meets Line 4 Sheppard at Sheppard-Yonge station and Line 2 Bloor-Danforth at Bloor-Yonge, St. George, and Spadina stations."
I appreciate the preceding text makes perfect sense to someone who knows Toronto well, but to me as a potential visitor I have to say it is completely no help at all. I would seriously need to research the city layout for a long time before any of this could start to be useful to me.
I would urge shorter and smarter guidance to the traveler that is easy to parse, not meticulous detail. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to add that I think there's this misconception that detail=information. That if a detail is potentially useful to someone, then we should include it as a matter of principle. But excessive detail merely makes the information within harder to decipher, and thus less informative for most people. My view is that tight, coherent prose is far more informative, especially for the purposes of a travel guide. The example Andrewssi2 cites above is the perfect example of prose that does the exact opposite of inform our readers. We shouldn't feel sheepish about removing this excessive level of detail--we're not Wikipedia, and we should be assertive in transforming this sort of content into something that is actually readable. PerryPlanet (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I see no inherent reason why such an article can't exist, but am concerned that - if we dump a huge pile of +1 416-393-INFO into Wikivoyage - it may be difficult to keep this info up to date. K7L (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Transit lines, at least buses, change frequently in most cities. I think it's a fool's errand to try to keep up with such changes. What the traveler needs to know about Toronto's transit system should absolutely be in this article and not shunted off to a subarticle. Any additional detail related to the transit system that would go in the subarticle is arguably more than we should try to maintain. Powers (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm in agreement with the above sentiments about streamlining the information in the main article, but I guess I'm not understanding why the "excessive detail" shouldn't be moved to a separate Public transit in Toronto article. Some readers (and editors) want a lot of detail, so moving the detail to a separate article is a compromise that serves both groups. As to the concerns that the analagous Bay Area public transit hasn't received much attention, that article is currently invisible - Special:WhatLinksHere/Bay Area public transit shows that it is unlinked from any Bay Area city article; I don't know if there is a reason for the lack of visibility, but if not then it should be referenced using a {{see also}} at the top of relevant city article sections, after which I suspect it would get more attention from editors. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The articles not have descriptions of bus routes, but of streetcar routes, which do not change often because of rails embedded in the road. Ground Zero (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I would vote for streamlining. PerryPlanet makes a salient point about how detail!==information. If you want to move the excruciating details to another page, I have no opinion on that. I probably would not click the link to view the page, if that helps with your decision at all. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have anything specific to say about Toronto, not knowing the city at all, but I suspect much of what I wrote in the pub would apply here too (if I can be so arrogant as to cite myself...) In a nutshell, a traveller with no prior knowledge or urban transport should be able to read the 'get around' section and think think to himself: "great, I have a good idea of how to get around Toronto now." Adding any detail beyond that seems contrary to our aims as a travel guide. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Two opinions above are that articles should provide a level of detail such that "a traveller with no prior knowledge of urban transport" can get around, and that information currently in the city article should be shunted off to the parent region, child districts, etc. To address those ideas:
  1. Most travelers are not unfamiliar with urban transport, so that level of detail is really only relevant to a small subset of travelers. It's valuable information to have for the readers that need it, but I don't think that level of detail is valuable as the default, particularly in already lengthy articles.
  2. While in many cases it makes sense to move details to district articles, or to a region article, one of the issues that Bay Area public transit was trying to solve is that even if you referred to "Bay Area#Get around" every time you mentioned a transit option in the Bay Area, that section of the parent region article would necessarily be huge in order to explain all available options given the complexity of the network.
I think the approach of waiting until info becomes large and complex, and then potentially consolidating it within a common article, addresses the concerns of both those who advocate that "articles should not contain excessive detail" and those who advocate articles should be written for travelers with "no prior knowledge or urban transport". Additionally, it eliminates some duplication of effort required for regional systems. My two cents. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't taken part in this discussion because I've never been to Toronto. For the record, I think we should have whatever articles best serve the traveller, and if that means a separate article on local or regional transit, that's fine, and if it doesn't, that's fine, too. But as a New Yorker who's often been in the same subway car as clueless folks from parts of the U.S. with no subway who don't seem to even know that you have to hold onto the pole and not fall all over other riders when the train sways as normal, I would strongly disagree that only a "small subset of travelers" is unfamiliar with urban rail. They may have ridden buses before (though let's not assume - large parts of the U.S. lack decent bus transit, too, including, from what I understand, most of the state of Florida, and there are even larger portions of the U.S. where buses are considered to be only for people "so poor" they can't afford a car and avoided by everyone else for reasons of class snobbery), but they sure don't have any idea how to use or behave on the subway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a look at "streamlining". I can see removing the route descriptions for the subway and streetcar lines, as that is commentary that a travel guide doesn't typically provide, but ticketing and transfer information is useful because it has become complicated by the ongoing movement to a smartcard, and the very slow arrival of new streetcars. I wouldn't want to remove that altogether, but I can see that a lot of readers would not be interested because they will use cars, Uber, or get around on foot. They may never use a streetcar. Ground Zero (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Even just removing the detailed descriptions of the subway/streetcar routes would reduce the size of the Transit section by at least half, which would be pretty significant. And even though the fares/transfers sections have more vital info, I still see places where the prose could easily be tightened up. For instance, this:
Transfers have two purposes:
  • To allow a rider to complete a trip on multiple TTC vehicles using a single fare.
  • To serve as proof of payment to show a fare inspector on a streetcar line.
Could be shortened to this:
Transfers allow a rider to complete a trip using multiple routes and serve as proof of payment to show fare inspectors on streetcars.
Without losing any vital information whatsoever. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

I have cut out the subway and streetcar routes descriptions as discussed. Perhaps someone could look at "streamlining" the other sections, especially the fare section. This doesn't solve the broader issue of the London and New York City articles, where I think branching public transit info out is the only way of dealing with the volume of useful information. Ground Zero (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Toronto#Public transit[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Wikivoyagers, your opinions are needed on this brewing talk page discussion. User:Ground Zero feels that Toronto#Public transit is too long, and would rather merge the detailed information into a new Public transit in Toronto travel topic rather than streamline away any excessively fine-grained detail. This pretty much flies directly in the face of wiaa, but I have to admit he's making some good points. What do you all think - should we change policy, or at least make an exception for this particular case?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I would raise a similar point about the relevant portion of the London, England article.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I would welcome travel topics on large complex public transport systems. In some cases the system covers a wider area than just a city, and so a separate article would be particularly good. Like with airports, this should be restricted to the really large systems. I would also prefer that we had Toronto public transit, as I think that it would be easier for readers to find the article than Public transit in Toronto. AlasdairW (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I also think that public transit systems in certain cities or metro areas (especially when there are many overlapping systems and jurisdictions or tariff zones to contend with) are a worthwhile topic for standalone travel topics. With the caveat that much of this information is liable to become outdated through yearly fare adjustments, new construction or service cancellations and it would be nice (in general, but for this as well) to have some template or something telling us from when a piece of data is and when it has become (likely) outdated. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. We should be able to get transport content simple and short enough so that it fits into a city article. What extra information is really needed beyond what we currently have in London#London Underground (for example) that would warrant a separate article? It's a practical level of detail and scope (if anything, some of it is too much detail - looking at you, 'Photography'), and anything more than that is already much better covered by Wikipedia. The tourist elements (interesting architecture, notable journeys, rail aficionado stuff) of such transport systems should largely go in Urban rail adventures.
Furthermore, if we create an article that just focuses on public (rail?) transport in a given place, there's either going to be lots of duplicate information between the new and existing article, or any reader who wants to get a full picture of how to 'get around' will have to look at two completely different articles. All the road, taxi, biking (buses, boats...?) will be in the main destination article, with the metro, train and tram stuff elsewhere. I don't see how it serves the traveller to have to read something that could turn into the War and Peace of the Underground, just to figure out how to use it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think a lot of these points would apply to any branched article, whether it's a "Rail travel" article, or an airport article, or a neighbourhood article. We could always include less, there will always be overlap or duplication, and it could always become out of date. Readers who don't want to read a War and Peace about the Underground don't have to - and it is best if they don't have to scroll past it in the London article. The difference between a WV transit article and a Wikipedia one is that the WV article has to focus on getting around and points of interest, and not include details on history, rolling stock, rail gauge, planning, which would be appropriate for a WP article. Finally, what information isn't useful to or of interest to you may be to someone else. Ground Zero (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just done a print preview of the London article, and "Get around" takes up just over 20 pages (of a 67 page article). I think that it could usefully be condensed to 5-10 pages, and have a 30 page London public transport article, but it should be about all public transport, not just the underground. It may also be appropriate to include private transport (car, bike, foot) as well, but that is a detail to consider later. AlasdairW (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Points taken, but I still don't buy it. There has to be a bare minimum of detail in the destination article so that a person with no prior experience of public transport in a city can still use just the destination article's 'get around' section in order to understand how to get around by Tube. They should not have to consult an entirely separate article just to get up and running with the system. Currently, I would say they can do that, with the caveat that some sections are already overlong or unnecessary so that they detract from usability.
What's more, it is for district articles to tell people which Tube stations are nearby to which attractions, and our district articles also have the routes each line takes through and beyond the district at the bottom of the page. What I would support is expanding the 'get in' sections of the district articles, where more detail about a specific station or route is necessary.
I'm a transport nerd, and I would probably enjoy helping to write articles on different transport systems around the world, but looking at it from the perspective of a travel guide writer and not a trainfan, I (a) don't see the need, and (b) think such an article would damage usability for travellers.
Things would be a lot simpler if on desktop you could expand / collapse individual sections of the page like on the mobile version. That would solve the annoyance of scrolling past walls of text to get to the bit you're interested in. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(reindent) Speaking of not redirecting users to separate pages, I wish we could have funneled all our comments to Talk:Toronto#Public transit rather than having half of them here, because if you look over on that other page you'll see a specific proposal that I came up with that wpuld preserve the vast majority of the information Ground Zero doesn't want to see deleted, and would work very much like what ThunderingTyphoons! proposed in his most recent comment for London. Specific information about streetcar lines (cf. the Tube) belongs in the district articles, while information about regional commuter rail (i.e. GO Transit) belongs in Greater Toronto Area#Get around and whichever other region articles apply, with perhaps a brief summary in Toronto#Get in (not "Get around" - very few people use the GO train to get from place to place within Toronto; it's mostly used to get to Toronto from the suburbs and nearby satellite cities like Hamilton, Barrie, and Kitchener/Waterloo), and of course it should be mentioned in the "Get in" section of any articles for said suburbs and satellite cities. Information about suburban transit systems (MiWay, YRT, Viva et al.) doesn't belong in the Toronto article at all, but again in the articles for the respective subregions and/or suburban communities. As far as overly detailed transit information, then, all that's left is the "Fares" and "Transfers and proof of payment" sections, which can be safely streamlined or omitted as information that a) is susceptible to becoming outdated quickly and/or b) that travelers will eventually find out on their own anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I frankly fail to see how spinning of the likes of Rail travel in Switzerland (for which there seems to be ample consensus to do that) is different from spinning of complicated public transit systems of certain metro areas. There are several reasons why our readers might not want to read through pages and pages of that in our main article on a city (e.g. someone who is just convinced that they will take a car everywhere advice to the contrary be damned), but some public transit systems are really that complicated/interesting/extensive that more than would reasonably fit into a single city article can and should be said about them in a travel guide. For instance the way tickets work is not at all self-evident. In some systems you have to swype/insert at a fare gate. In some systems you get it back and have to insert it again in another fare gate upon leaving. In some systems you only have to present them during spot checks, but they are not valid unless stamped, some machines in such systems sell pre-stamped tickets but not necessarily of all types. Day tickets may be valid a precise 24 hours, from the date of the timestamp to the next day x AM (e.g. a day ticket stamped at 0:10 in Berlin on the fifth of January is valid until the early morning hours of the sixth of January) or from the "business day" (which ends at say 5 AM in the logic of the transit provider). And then there are cities where tickets are not integrated or only partially integrated and you will for example need a different ticket for the commuter rail system and the subway (which would surprise very close to every German who take U-Bahn and S-Bahn working on the same ticket system as a matter of course). And that does not even get into where which line goes and how useful a commuter rail system is to visitors who are unlikely to want to use a system that only does commuter runs during rush hour. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You fail to see how the railway system of an entire country (which in Switzerland's case, can be considered a tourist attraction in its own right) is different to that of a city? Nobody is denying that ticketing can be complicated, but it is not ordinarily so complicated that it cannot be summed up in a couple of paragraphs in our 'get around' / 'get in' sections. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That article looks shorter than the London ==Get around== section, and contains similar information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It also depends upon your audience. Are you writing for people who are transit savvy (e.g., most Germans)? Or for people who've never used any mass transit system at all (most Americans)? Sometimes, it's quite simple ("Every single time you get on a bus, put US $1 cash in the box by the driver. Make sure that you have exact change."). Other times, it's quite complex: you buy the tickets from newsstands, but don't forget to get it stamped on the bus and then keep it with you at all times, and a standard ticket is good for this or any other bus for a total of four stops, but only in the same direction and during the two hours after you stamped it, and if you transfer to the subway, then you have to re-stamp, but you can do two subway stops or two bus stops plus one subway stop – in short, it's a complicated system that even locals sometimes have to think about, and someone who's completely unfamiliar with mass transit (much less the mass transit system for this country) is going to need a lot more help just to be able to manage a simple bus ride.
Overall, I'm in favor of articles that explain large systems. The main article should contain the basics (and specifically enough detail about price and how to handle tickets to get you from the airport to a hotel area by mass transit), but if there's a lot to say, then a very detailed sub-article that explains it for neophytes would be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether the size comparison is accurate but someone once told me Dallas/Fort Worth is as big in area as Switzerland. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
If transportation-fans really wish to write separate, detailed and extensive articles about public transportation, I have no strong objections. We should keep in mind, however, that for many average travellers such articles will seem terribly boring and will not be what they are looking for. Whatever we do, the primary information should always stay available in the actual travel guide for a city or country. I've travelled extensively and all over the world - always making extensive use of local transportation. I've NEVER had to read 25 pages of information on how it works in any given place, as other travel guides simply have more concise information. If we have excessive sections, we should trim them. I'm pretty sure even average Americans can find their way around public transportation with an overview of the most relevant information ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to think that average Americans can use mass transit, but it's my experience that most of them never have. 95% of Americans don't use mass transit to get to work. If you've never used even a simple public transportation system, then getting dumped into something as complicated as London's system would be very intimidating. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Add the general lack of foreign language proficiency (and the often poor quality and quantity of English language signage) and you have a good justification to go into some supposedly "obvious" detail. Besides that we would be amiss not to mention routes, vehicles or stations that are attractions in their own right. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

While there was a fair bit of support for public transit articles for major cities, I wouldn't say we have consensus. At Talk:Toronto, several people wrote that it would be easy and better to "streamline" the "Get around" section, but no-one has been willing to do so. I cut out some unnecessary parts, and had already done some trimming, but I still think it is too long. If others are happy with the still very long section instead of branching it off, then I'll leave it alone.

Meanwhile at London, User:ThunderingTyphoons! and I have taken turns at wielding a large and very sharp machete to hack away at the undergrowth, and have significantly reduced the length of the "Get around" section, but it too remains quite long. I think this shows the merit of having a public transit article. Ground Zero (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Just so people know, I am still convinced the vast majority of these sections can be brought down to an optimal length without the need for a new article, London included. I haven't necessarily finished that job, but am going to be too busy today, tomorrow and possibly after to devote the necessary time. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)