Talk:Main Street station (Toronto)

Trains: Stations / Rapid transit Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Station location within former municipality

Someone has hit several articles indicating that the majority of the stations of the Danforth Ave. stations were in both East York and Toronto (Former City). Please consult a map of the old city boundries before editing such content. the dividing line as indicated on several maps (such as this one: [1]) is clearly North of Danforth. This therefore means the station was ONLY located in the former city of Toronto. Eja2k (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of "Template:Commons category"

The input of other editors regarding the placement of the "Commons category" template would be appreciated. Template:Commons category states that the default position of the template is on the right side of the page. Also, WP:MOSSIS states that an inline (left placed) link to the Commons could be used when the default right alignment is not "aesthetically pleasing", or when it causes an "odd layout, such as a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article or excessive white space when the section is laid out in columns".

After moving this template to the right, my edit was reverted and replaced with an inline, left-aligned template, which did not seem necessary based on the criteria above.

A glance at other Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) subway stations shows that many have a right-aligned template:

While other stations have an incorrectly placed template:

Some consensus on the correct placement of the Commons category template would be appreciated, so that the TTC subway station articles are consistent. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here because of this edit at Template talk:Commons category.

Consistency among a group of articles doesn't come into the template's placement; the number of other bullet-listed external links in each article determines aesthetics, and neither placement is "incorrect". With only 1 external link overleaf, the right-aligned box template creates indeed white space that can easily be avoided by the inline version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is very important, so that when people browse a series of articles they can easily find information. I don't care what it is, but wherever possible a predictable location should be maintained. I don't disagree with any choice. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC) It should be noted that, despite the selective list above, most TTC station articles use an inline left aligned template. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should ever be ignoring guidelines simply for the sake of consistency. Consistency is not unimportant but as per WP:OTHER, a bunch of pages that are consistent with one another but ignore guidelines should not be left as-is simply because they are consistent with everything else in that subset. That also puts a ridiculous burden on someone wanting to help make an article more aligned (one might even say more "consistent") with guidelines, because I've seen people come in and basically claim that because another editor improved 1 article, they have to improve ALL related articles or else... that's patently ridiculous and discourages people from contributing to the project. Just because you've fixed or improved one article shouldn't mean you are responsible for then improving a whole other slew of them. So while I appreciate consistency as a principle, it should never be the overriding one.

As to left or right alignment, given how small most Commons category boxes are for these station articles, I think we should go with right alignment... even if that creates some horizontal whitespace when we face short "External links" sections, it will be very minor, as can be seen at the Finch station and Eglinton West station pages where I've modified the location of the boxes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This version was correct.

There has been some poor wording in the past, not helped by the overlap of many MOS pages covering the same material. There is also an OWN problem with some aspects of MOS and an assumption that long-experienced editors have no place there, if they're not part of the necessary clique (when is WP going to grow out of this hall monitor nonsense?)

There are three issues:

The size of the box to be used
Its placement within a section
Its formatting left or right

The size of the box should not be changed on a whim (as some mis-interpretations of MOS have had it). That does nothing other than to make the article confusing to readers. We use the small inline format only when it is part of a list of links, or truly inlined within body text. Otherwise we keep the default form.

Placement within a section is a question of placing it into the last section, so that the CSS flow and float model works correctly. It's not that this is regarded as an EL.

The formatting left or right is the default of placement on the right, but for short articles with long infoboxes, it is often better to place it to the left. This is done with the |position=left parameter to the standard box, not changing the whole appearance of it in order to make it unrecognisable! In such a case, the float behaviour also works best if the box is placed in the wikikext after the body text content and two blank lines. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Danforth Avenue Station"

@Joeyconnick: reverted my change and linked `Danforth Avenue` to Danforth Avenue station. However, that page is describing a station in New Jersey, which has no relation with TTC. In fact, "Main St. at Danforth Ave." is just a stop, according to http://ttc.ca/Routes/506/Westbound.jsp . It is not even a "station." Tusooa (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... wasn't trying to link to another station, just not to the street. I've addressed by removing the succession box for the 506 since it's not a subway and the other subway stations it serves don't include a succession box for it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]