This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Line 2 Bloor–Danforth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months

	Line 2 Bloor–Danforth has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 25, 2012 Good article nominee Listed August 25, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Rapid transit Low‑importance Trains Portal Sel week 31, 2012 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 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 Rapid transit. Canada: Ontario / Toronto Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as High-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Line 2 Bloor–Danforth.

The middle of this page has a list of stages in a table right next to a map of the line. The map (from top to bottom) is from East to West, while the table starts from the West to East. It's rather disorienting. Could either the table be reversed or the image be replaced with one that is vertically flipped (with the proper oriented wording of course)

Right now, they look like normal text when they are actually the title of a new section. ~2025-43113-76 (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's just how heading look at that level of nesting. It may be a good time to split out the extension into its own article, like Toronto–York Spadina subway extension and Yonge North subway extension. BLAIXX 15:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree, especially given that it is now under construction. An article just about the extension would be great. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyconnick: this is a reply to your comment: why would we give a date before which the construction *won't* be completed? it also won't be completed before 2025, 2024, 2023... it's pretty nonsensical; either we leave it as is or we say "there's no announced completion date" (preferably with a source).

I don't think it's nonsense to give readers a general idea of when the thing might open, even if we don't have an exact date. Unlike Line 5 which has no date but is set to open imminently, the SSE is years away at least and I wanted to make that clear. The reason I wrote "2030" instead of another year is because that is the earliest date that has been attached to this project. The citation I used was a Star article from this year which said "projected to open in 2030".

Essentially the point I want to get across is that the extension will open in 2030 or later, but not before. Is there a better way we can word this in the article? BLAIXX 16:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to reflect what sources have said: originally slated for 2030 completion; this past September, Metrolinx refused to confirm 2030. While other news sources at the time simply re-quoted the 2030 date, the previous Star citation only had that in its subhead, not the article body, and the Global piece better reflects reality, including the Metrolinx CEO doing the hand-waving "new world of construction" thing to allow him to dodge the question. 😅 —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands right now, the SSE section of this article is around 1/3 of its total length (~2100 of ~6450 words) and well above the length of any other section of the article (the History section including all previous extensions of the line is around 1100 words). This would imply the SSE is a much more important part of the Line 2 article than it likely is. 2100 words is more than enough to start an article with, so I think a split is more than warranted here. ~UN6892 ^t_c 01:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the split tag to Line 3 Scarborough too, it also has a large section on its replacement proposals. ~UN6892 ^t_c 01:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support the split - clearer and easier to have extension projects as separate articles, as per Toronto–York Spadina subway extension, Yonge North subway extension and Eglinton Crosstown west extension. Turini2 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A split is absolutely justified. BLAIXX 03:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree... there's such an overdo on splitting things. WP:SPLIT suggests it's warranted when an article is around 50k.

Prose size for this article is:

Prose size (text only): 38 kB (6452 words) "readable prose size"

If the SSE section is large, that suggests it should be cut down. The overdetailing is painful. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My justification to split has nothing to do with the total prose size of the article itself (apart from the SSE section's size relative to it). Even without all the material from primary sources we are left with a lot more than makes sense for this article. As well, the section on the Line 3 article covers some topics in more detail than here, topics which should probably be in one article about the SSE (looking at the section about the LRT proposal especially). The content needing to be covered in both locations appears to be preventing us from having one good summary of the extension and the proposal's long history of changes. ~UN6892 ^t_c 04:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support PascalHD (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Transportfan70 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom – I'd say at this point it's a no-brainer, especially after the additional splits of North Yonge subway extension and Spadina subway line. The extension only makes up a fraction of the entire line, so having a very detailed section about the project that makes up 1/3 of the article I feel is definitely a WP:WEIGHT issue. I feel the point about the Line 3 Scarborough article is also pertinent with it having so much info about a separate replacement project. Having a single detailed article for the project helps keeps things properly focused per WP:SS and avoids duplicating and/or fragmenting the info across several articles, which makes it harder for readers to find the relevant info.

I feel like this is all very good reasons for a split; it's not just being split solely on length like what WP:SIZERULE is advising against. For what it's worth, I don't believe it to be overdetailing, the complex political development of the project helps to provide context. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. RapidDweller (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]