Talk:Flexity Outlook (Toronto)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flexity Outlook (Toronto) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

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).

Trains: Streetcars Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	June 27, 2022

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 Streetcars.

Route status info[edit]

User:PollardKay has added route status info (current bus substitutions, construction projects, streetcar route suspensions) to the Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar)#Rollout table. Route status is unrelated to the Flexity rollout. Thus, in my opinion, the rollout table should show only the first date(s) the Flexity was scheduled for service on a route. Route status belongs better in the Toronto streetcar system#Routes table and in the individual route articles. I propose that route status be removed from the Rollout table. @Peter Horn, Joeyconnick, Johnny Au, and Blaixx: Please comment on contents of Flexity rollout table. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, Peter Horn User talk 16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 17:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost count of the hours I've spent fixing unsourced, poorly sourced, and/or terribly formatted edits submitted by that particular user. The rollout table should only show rollout-related info as you've mentioned, TheTrolleyPole. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that his creativity is overwhelming us. Besides removing the route status info, I also restored the entry for 514 Cherry that he deleted in January. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move request: Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar) to Bombardier Flexity Outlook (Toronto)[edit]

I made the request to be consistent with the other articles pertaining to the Flexity family of LRVs as mentioned in Template:Flexity. Given that the redirect has been created and cut-and-paste moves are inadvisable as edit history isn't transferred, I am asking for consensus first. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can just page-swap it if necessary... it seems like a bit of a mouthful, though. I would think the common name is "Flexity Outlook" or "Toronto Flexity Outlook", so adding "Bombardier" to it seems like it might be overkill? Really all the existing articles should not have "Bombardier" as per WP:CONCISE—I'm assuming here there's no other use of "Flexity" (apparently there's a MV Flexity but that's different enough). So unless there's evidence that the common name includes the "Bombardier" tag... —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued this discussion at Talk:Bombardier Flexity to form a better consensus. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

shortening most Bombardier vehicle article names[edit]

(of relevance to Gorazghty): I've excised the "Bombardier" tag on most of the articles in Category:Bombardier Transportation tram vehicles, per WP:CRITERIA, since the names without the cumbersome repetition of "Bombardier" are recognizable, natural, precise, and – especially – more concise. There's also a WP:PROMO aspect that is addressed by only including "Bombardier" when it's necessary to distinguish from ambiguous names (like T2000 or the general family, Flexity Outlook, from a variant model, like Toronto's Flexity Outlooks). —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operational history versus Rollout versus Delivery[edit]

Hi all -

Chronologically speaking, the article is a bit of a mix. The protracted delivery delays (potential TMI, dunno) are a really long section of the article, with bits of service information (opening of Leslie Barns, introduction of first streetcars, withdrawal of CLRVs and ALRVs) mixed in. I started to combine the rollout section into the operational history section, but curious to your thoughts about this, because I kinda started and then decided it was too much work / too much of a big change all at once.

Frustratingly, the protracted delivery delays mean that a simple structure of Background, contract award, construction, entry into service - doesn't really work here. Is it better to have a specific delivery delays section below a history section? Or combined? What do you think?

As an aside, it is worth pointing out that when the cold weather froze out the CLRVs and ALRVs in January 2019, the Flexity fleet was not as badly affected? Didn't see it in the article anywhere. Turini2 (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]