Talk:Viva Rapid Transit

Name Poll

Well, I guess just put your username beside the Title that you think is appropriate for this article. The deadline for the poll is 2005 Nov 07. (See below for some discussions regarding the the name change.)

Viva York -

Viva (BRT) -

YRT Viva -

Viva (bus rapid transit) - The Wikipedia:Manual of Style discourages the use of initialisms in article titles. Ground Zero | t 18:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Phil Hong that because "Viva" tells you nothing about what it is (as opposed to Toronto Transit Commission, e.g.), so adding "bus rapid transit" would help. Wikipedia:Naming conventions indicates that Wikipedia style is to:
  • use lowercase second and subsequent words in titles: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne, but not Computer Game); and
  • spell-out phrases rather than use acronyms: Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (laser, radar, and scuba are good examples).
• So "Viva (BRT)", "YRT Viva" and "Viva (Bus Rapid Transit)" are not consistent with the Wikipedia naming conventions. Ground Zero | t 14:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is what I find acceptable: First preference "Viva (bus rapid transit)", second "Viva (York Region)". It's a service, like a subway/metro, and it's best served with a title that tells you directly what it is. "Viva York" misleads people to think that, since both words are capitalised, that it's the official name. and YRT Viva doesn't cut it either, because it misleads people to think that Viva is a subsidiary of the YRT, like RBC and RBC Centura. User:Phil-hong

I agree with you, Phil: first choice "Viva (bus rapid transit)", second "Viva (York Region)". Ground Zero | t 04:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to Phil-hong, regarding the comment "YRT Viva doesn't cut it either, because it misleads people to think that Viva is a subsidiary of the YRT, like RBC and RBC Centura". I have to disagree, just to make things clear, YRT is the public agency that administer public transport in York Region, this agency administer 2 transport system: the regular YRT bus service and the Viva rapid bus service. The public controls all the assets, including vehicles and terminals, as well as control of public policy, including determination of the fares. Even though as you've said Viva is not a subsidiary of YRT (at least in the sense of regular YRT bus service, if that's what you meant), the Viva system works under the YRT umbrella organizational structure. Regardless, in consideration of all your responses and comments posted here (Thank you so much) and for the purpose of the article, I have decided to change my vote to "Viva (bus rapid transit)".--AmosNider 00:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Footnote: York Region Transit indeed is a public agency (most public transport agencies are in Canada), but Viva itself is run by a Public Private Partnership, so though technically there are staff from the Region working at Viva, in theory, it is separate from the YRT itself as the York Region Rapid Transit Corporation. Can't get any more precise than that. I know. I've followed the subject since '02. User:Phil-hong

I'd say keep it as it is - this communicates the name as well as anything. If it must be changed, I'd say Viva (York Region). David Arthur 01:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Result of the Name Poll: From the discussion, there is a clear concensus that a more apporiate name for this article is needed. The name of the article should be named simply as Viva (which is the only name of the BRT system), but since there are other subjects on Wikipedia that also use the name Viva, therefore (bus rapid transit) will need to be added to the title to differentiate from other subjects. Thus, the title of this article is Viva (bus rapid transit). Thank you for all your comments, suggestions and reasoning. --AmosNider 09:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to weigh in rather late regarding this. We should try to name (and categorise) all Canadian RT articles in a consistent manner, except where there may be ambiguity. We should also not try to split too many hairs: what will online users understand and intuit? Viva (York Region) makes sense, but is this incompatible with Montreal Metro, Toronto Subway and RT, or Ottawa O-Train? If so, I'd suggest naming the article Viva (York rapid transit), keeping it as is, Viva York rapid transit, York Viva (given examples cited), or variant. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 15:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

along with Warden Avenue

Oh, oh, now we've done it!! We're in wiki's bad books........ Maybe this will get deleted along with Warden Avenue..... And York Region Transit...... Maybe all my postings will be verboten!! Bacl-presby September 27, 2005.

Tagged

I have to ask the question once again;

Why has this page been tagged? How does this NOT "shape up" to Wikipedia's Style Guide??

There will undoubtably be some changes made in the following week, as changes happen to the subject matter this weekend.

So, what will constitute this message to be deleted?? (or do I just remove the tag myself?)

Bacl-presby 23:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Bacl-presby.

What about now; attempts have been made to clean it up; can the designation be pulled??

Bacl-presby 15:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggested changes and upgrade

First, I would like to thank David Arthur for making the beautiful route map.

There are definitely room for upgrades to make the page look more organized and clean.

Can somebody please take a nicer picture of the Finch Terminal.
Some more pics of the buses and stations would be nice (better take them while they are new before the winter).
All photographs with a consistent width and height place on the right would look nice.
I also suggest that we start a Viva York page at the Wikicommons and dump all our Viva photographs there.
See example: MTR

Can someone please confirm the fact regarding 4286847 Canada Incorporated?

Operations:
If nobody can find out and confirm the President and Chair of VIVA then we should probably clear that area, rather than leaving it N/A. The Connex part can stay. More details about the organization and operation of VIVA can be added there.

Fares:
Maybe we can put the ticket prices in a table or something. A photograph or two would be nice. Someone can add a few sentences or so if they know anything about the GTA Smart Fare Card that they are planning on over the next several years.

See also:
The non-existent transit system should be taken away (Aurora, Markham, Newmarket, RH & Vaughan Transit), they are distracting. Let the York Region Transit page take care of them.

If people agree to these changes, then we can start upgrading our Viva York page. Please add to the suggestions if you have any. Thanks
I can do some of the changes when I find the time later. User:AmosNider 2005 Oct 24

User:Phil-hong 2005 Oct 30: I don't even think Viva has a President! They don't usually publicise about things like this, and since we can't seem to know who the management structure is I'm just knocking that part out.

User:cncxbox 2006 May 07: I can confirm that VIVA's operator is 4286847 Canada Incorporated. I don't know why the company's name is a string of numbers.

When someone registers a compay, they must pay to have a corproate name search done in order to avoid using a name that is already in use. This charge can be avoided by registering the company under a number instead of a name. So it is officially 4286847 Canada Incorporated, but operates as "Viva". This is not uncommon in the corporate world. Ground Zero | t 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Vivayork?!?

-VIVAyork came from the URL for the viva website, www.vivayork.com

Well, I do agree that some companies do use their names as the URL (ie Yahoo, yahoo.com), but I assume that Viva itself was a little too late to claim ex "viva.com" or "viva.ca". It would have been best if the Viva corporates did buy viva.ca because it would be consistant with branding, but they probably couldn't. User:Phil-hong 2005 Dec 31

To be honest with you, I agree to whoever stuck that clean-up tag on the top of the Viva page.

First of all, where did the heck did the name Vivayork come about? Never heard of it at the public information meetings, the identity ceremony or in the media. Can't we just rename this page "Viva (BRT)" or something as it's actually named, and put an disambig link for whatever's in the article "Viva" right now?

Second of all, whoever renamed this article from Vivayork should be applauded. However, whatabout the improperly named "Vivayork"+ articles, such as Vivayork Monthly Pass? The official name for the combined YRT/Viva system is called "1system", as it is on the logo and most of the Viva RTVs and the stations and the terminal signs.

We need to stop imagining "innovative" but silly names and rename the articles properly. Let me know otherwise if the signs and livery on Viva RTVs are renamed "Vivayork" and the 1system logo reflects the silly name. User:Phil-hong 2005 Oct 26

User:AmosNider 2005 Oct 27: I totally agree with User:Phil-hong on the name thing, the name "Viva York" is just so non official. There was a time earlier that this article was named "YRT Viva" which I think was appropriate and also ties its relationship with YRT, because no matter how you cut it, Viva will always be under the YRT system. "Viva (BRT)" describe it nicely too.

Can we come to a consensus (a vote or something) over the next 7 days regarding the name of this article. Thanks.

The question behind viva's operator.

By the way: The operator name is usually printed on each and every YRT and viva vehicle. So that question behind viva's operator can be found by just boarding a viva RTV. Which I already have. And it's the same as what the page reads.

As well, York Region Rapid Transit Corporation is printed at the official viva website. Just to let you know. User:Phil-hong 2005 Oct 26

YRT and Viva different categories?

I'm still a little itty bitty confused about why Viva and YRT constitute different categories. Don't both operate in York Region? In transit material they show themselves as one system, not Viva producing maps for themselves and the YRT producing their own maps (actually both systems collaborate on that one). So why are we Wikipedians separating the two when they don't act separately outside of human resources and corporation organisation? User:Phil-hong 2005 Oct 30

It's like the separation between the TTC's buses, streetcars, and trains; in this case, Viva is still a bus service, but it's based on a different paradigm, and I think it would get overly dense if we merged it together with the main YRT page. David Arthur 01:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the question was not about articles, but about categories. Viva is a distinct part of the system, and there is enough info about it to warant a separate article, but there isn't an over-abundance of articles in Category:York Region Transit or in Category:VivaYork, so there is no need to separate the categories, in my opinion. If others agree, I will move the YorkViva category articles to the York Region Transit category. This would also address the problem of "VivaYork" being a confusing category name since it is not used anywhere by as this category name. Ground Zero | t 15:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with GZ: there's enough information about YRT and Viva (with the latter being part of the former) to necessitate separate articles; even if the Viva article were currently sparse (and it's not) , it's perfunctory.

In terms of categories: I think we need to think about mass transit systems in the GTA, Ontario, Canada, and worldwide, and build categories with this sorta structure in mind. Nix Category:VivaYork for now.

Ditto for naming of articles. I hope this helps! E Pluribus Anthony 14:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi...I've been off-line for a while, but I'll do some thinking about the above content (any luck getting Warden Avenue back up?)--good input so far! Bacl-presby 01:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)User:Bacl-presby

A week has passed, and I hope I've made it before the deadline; if nothing else, group everything that is York Region Transit (YRT, VIVA, predecessors) and put into a concise article with links to the other sites... How's that?? Bacl-presby 23:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Viva station articles

Should there be separate articles for individual Viva staions, or should they be grouped into one omnibus article called "Viva stations" (or something else)?

At this time, I don't think there should be separate articles for each individual Viva stations. Even for Bernard station, it's just a back wall of a shopping plaza! Just take some photographs and organize it into galleries inside the Wikimedia Commons under Viva and write a few notes about it. --AmosNider 12:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If they are to remain as separate articles, they will have to be renamed from, e.g., Clark (VIVA) to "Clark (Viva station)" or something like that. Viva is not an initialism, so it should not be all in caps. Ground Zero | t 16:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello! A similar challenge has arisen with the various stations in the TTC subway/RT network. Perhaps a starting point would be to expand on appropriate stations within each of the YRT line articles, like a paragraph for each (if warranted)? I don't think there's currently a need for articles for each YRT station, but maybe later. E Pluribus Anthony 14:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

YRT and VIVA relationship

They are both owned by York Region.

YRT is 100% Maintained by Public Funds. VIVA was bulit and is maintained by a public-private consortium, York Rapid Transit Corporation.

here is a link to a Zoning Notice from the Town of Markham which cites "York Rapid Transit Corporation", not "York Region". http://www.markham.ca/markham/resources/pm_050322_yrt.pdf

the operation of VIVA is contracted out to Connex Transportation. YRT is run by Miller Transit, Laidlaw, and Can-Ar Coach.

York Region does maintain full control over fares and services, and they have decided to combine fares with YRT.

So as they act as one single service, they are two seperate systems.

YRT's website is http://www.yrt.ca and YRTP's website is http://www.vivayork.com

Thanks. Then, should it not be "maintained by York Rapid Transit Corporation, within which YRT operates" ... something or another? And still, the relationship with YRT is non in the lead of the article: it is very odd that there is no mention of YRT there now. E Pluribus Anthony 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Phases and Proposed Extensions sections

What does ‘Scarborough RT-Style transitways (Other Lines)’ mean? Is York Region really considering elevated railways on major streets, or did someone misunderstand the meaning of the word ‘transitway’, which YRT have used to mean reserved lanes in the centre of the street? Also, what is the source for the items in the ‘Proposed Extensions’ section? Some make sense, but the Viva Blue extension to Eglinton seems a bit odd, and doesn't resemble anything I’ve seen on official sites. David Arthur

Any cited sources of this section? To be honest with you, I agree with David Arthur that the extension DOES look a little odd, and then the Viva "Red" line sounds a little confusing. It seems that the idea of transitways will be phased in sometime soon but I didn't hear about an exact date until I read this section. Where is all of this info from? User: Phil-hong, 1 Jan 2006

I have copies of the YRTP official plans, these are somebodies fantasys, not real plans. I think we should remove the full section, as the only credible expantion is the one to Cornell.. User: CorSter, 2 Jan 2006.

I know that the Cornell extension's on hold for the moment because of Markham-Stoufville Hospital's concerns. It stated looking suspicious when the so-called "Viva Red" line would like up Downsview, Finch and Sheppard stations. Problem? Viva doesn't serve the Toronto area, it serves York Region. So I agree. Strike out the possible extensions section until we have a credible outside source (i.e. regional plans, stuff from the York Region Rapid Transit Corporation). User: Phil-hong, 3 Jan 2006

Gone. User: CorSter

Extentions once again...

sigh

2. Viva Blue Line to be Expanded to East Guillimbury and/or Newmarket GO Stations 3. Viva Purple/Viva Orange Extension to Bramlea City Center 4. Viva Purple Full Service to Martin Grove (And Eventually Bramlea

number two is possible but not on the plan.

3) NOT IN YORK REGION 4) NOT ON OFFICIAL PLAN

STOP POSTING BULLSHIT. Im deleting them all unless a source can be provided. User:CorSter 01/14/06

Aznium

added some time and peak hour details

source: http://www.vivayork.com/

Aznium 17:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Really BRT?

I was under the impression that bus rapid transit systems operated on exclusive rights of way, as in Ottawa or Pittsburgh. Until Viva develops separate transitways, is it really anything more than a few express bus lines? -- Mwalcoff 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's all it is at the moment, but it's in early phases of an overall transit strategy. They have publicized plans for dedicated transitway/lanes along Yonge St. and parts of Highway 7. PKT 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, but until then, should the article title be Viva (bus rapid transit) or Viva (bus system)? -- Mwalcoff 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed many of the "bus rapid transit" references to "quality express bus" since this more accurately fits the definition. Since Viva does not fit a key component of bus rapid transit: exclusive lanes. Maybe when some of the lines start running in dedicated corridors we can go back and change all of those references to "bus rapid transit", but for the moment, I think it's unreasonable to call Viva something it is not. Viva Orange will be rerouted to the York University Busway on March 1st, and the first Viva rapidways are scheduled to open in less than a year, so the change is only temporary anyway. Reaperexpress (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Markham-Stouffville Hospital

The article now says that the Purple route has been extended eastwards, but the map on yrt.ca still shows those stops as ‘future’. Can someone provide confirmation that service has indeed begun? David Arthur (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi David - this link makes it look pretty official. PKT (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Viva Purple buses eastbound now display 'Markham-Stouffville Hospital'. I have updated the various articles that are affected by the extension opening. - Enzo Aquarius (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Markham Stouffville Hospital is the correct name for the hospital. It does not have a dash and neither does the Vivastation. Don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia - check their web site [1]. Should someone move Markham-Stouffville Hospital to Markham Stouffville Hospital which already exists as a redirect page? The redirect page has many more links than the main page. I don't know the proceedure for this. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The procedure is to use the 'Move' tab (at the top of every page, between 'History' and 'Watch'). I have taken care of this. PKT (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks — I’ll probably upload a new version of the SVG map later on today. David Arthur (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Vivastations

I have restored a record for each of the "missing" Vivastations, gathered together on one page. Navigation was broken in the infoboxes and the Template:VIVA Stations. Because I have retained the same naming convention you can repair any broken links you find by simply prefixing the old name with Other Vivastations#. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And another thing

There is no need to maintain the same information about YRT Vivastations and Terminals in several places. For example the article for Richmond Hill Centre (YRT) has all the information in one place (and more), that is also broken into three tables at Viva Blue, Viva Purple and Viva Pink which are all redundant. And then there's the orphaned List of York Region Transit/VIVA stations which repeats the same tables for all 5 lines. Why? The Template:VIVA Stations does a vey good job of listing the routes and if an existing or proposed station does not justify the creation of its own page an entry can now be added to Other Vivastations. I advocate eliminating all those tables, using the appended template to navigate, only retaining the brief history of each line, and the immediately deletion of the so called list. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vivayork.png

Image:Vivayork.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Phase confusion

The third paragraph of the article uses "phase" to describe the initial rollout of the system, and describes the current phase as being phase 4. Later, the article talks about "phase" to describe the initial implementation, the movement of buses to dedicated ROWs, and the replacement of buses with LRT. These two uses of "phase" contradict each other. One needs to be renamed, but I'm not sure which. Is there an official definition of "phase" in the context of Viva? 216.220.43.110 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

YRT / VIVA Fares combine

Since YRT and VIVA fares are identical by means of same fares, rules and ticket agents, maybe we should consider creating a new article that links the two sections. York Region Transit \ VIVA (fares)? There is quite a lot of repetition among the two YRT and VIVA fare articles. --Eddiet19 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiet19 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't open a new article - I think it would be quickly deleted. A better alternative is to have the YRT article contain all of the subject matter about fares, and the VIVA article could cross-link to the section with York Region Transit#Fares. But your point is well taken; they are in fact on one fare structure and trying to maintain that information in both places is awkward. PKT 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We can create a template. I did this before: I created Template:Application_Tuning_on_the_Coolthreads_Platform that gets linked into UltraSPARC T1 and UltraSPARC T2. -- Raysonho (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarify all Viva station articles

The station articles of Viva don't indicate that they are bus stops. Would someone please correct all the station articles to indicate that they are bus stops? - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Viva (bus rapid transit) → Viva Rapid Transit – Name used here by York Region Transit, as the system will ultimately also use light rail as well as buses and this name provides natural disambiguation rather than the clumsy parentheses currently used. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with the reason given. Martin Morin (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• I can agree, although the service isn't terribly "rapid" yet, there has been a lot of construction to make it so. PKT(alk) 21:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

---

• WITHDRAWN - Viva Rapid Transit → Viva rapid transit – Not a proper name. Remove capitals only used for disambiguation. Modification of my previously approved request. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn after the discussion below. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agree again with the reason given. Martin Morin (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If it's only called Viva, the title should be Viva (rapid transit). --BDD (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Natural disambiguation is preferable to parentheses. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

But what's natural about this? Do people in York say "I'm going to take Viva rapid transit to work"? WP:NATURAL does not mean that parenthetical disambiguation is a last resort. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you see the link above for the previous move to Viva Rapid Transit? Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one who closed it. That appears to be evidence that this is a proper name. I'm not opposed to the current name. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. Agreed. I can settle for that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hum1969's work

As many of us have seen Hum1969's sock account 911plantisimo edit Viva Purple in his POV, it may possibly mean that other Viva articles are also being edited in the same manner. Please help me in doing some major clean ups on the pages to remove any unsourced information, speculation, and information directly copied from the CPTDB wiki page. For more proof, think back to the "Viva Red" page that Hum1969 created about a Viva route on McCowan Road. His user page currently states that he wishes for a Viva route on McCowan, because " MCCOWAN ROAD IN MARKHAM IS F***ING THE NUMBER ONE BUISIEST ROADS OF ALL TIME IN YORK REGION..." Alexhead8835 (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)