1028:. I checked their contribution history and could see 0 sign that they discussed this idea with anyone, prior to making it. This is counter-policy. There has already been some attempts to update the article so it reflect the new name. However, the basic premise behind this renaming is highly questionable. This renaming should never have been made, without a prior discussion. For weeks Premier Doug Ford has been saying that, once the Province takes over the TTC's subways, they will use "new technology". So, the Ontario Line will not use the rolling stock that was going to be used for the DRL. Neither is it going the route the TTC's planner spent years mapping out.
2428:
overruns and schedule slippage) I have no issues with these things being discussed about in other pages, (Ontario Line etc.) as the OL project progresses. That's how projects work, with scope, cost and time being refined as the project moves along. However, comparing the project duration of a conceptual design alternative that will never see the light of day to an, in 10 years, implemented alternative is disingenuous. Are we going to update the comparison every time the OL project gets delayed or overbudget? If so, who is to say that Relief Line project would go exactly to what was pitched in 2017.
1620:(Some) shared station locations is merely one factor. Aren't you ignoring that because the Ontario Line will use different rolling stock, different station designs, and, if they are to be believed about changing the alignment, like changing the crossing of the Don River from a tunnel to what they describe as a cheaper bridge crossing, the environmental assessment done for the Relief Line is no longer valid? A brand new set of environmental assessments will have to be done. The environmental assessments done for the Relief Line took years.
306:
408:
2221:
the project progresses and designs are refined. My view is that putting what ended up happening with the selected project (timeline slips, cost overruns, scope changes etc) as part of this table after the fact does not make sense. It leads to a false comparison between the two projects because who is to know if the same changes would have happened to the the relief line project if it moved forward and designs were refined further down the road. (We don't)
2111:
timeline lengthened to 9 years. The issue is that
Ontario Line proponents (i.e. Ford and his government) positioned it as a quicker build, and with the revised completion date of 2030, it is not looking significantly quicker. Now of course continuing to list end dates makes the Relief Line seem like a faster project because of course neither its start nor completion date will be revised, so switching to a project length metric adjusts for that. —
372:
467:
440:
1462:. Counting all the IP addresses they use they have made hundreds of harrassing edits using IP addresses. Prior to their well deserved block they were unable to understand our policies. They did however master leveling accusations that give the surface appearance of regularity, which are only exposed as nonsense when one looks into the details. The nonsense accusation above is a good example of this skill.
2174:
since at the time of the RL estimate, the project end date was based on an estimated start in 2019, whereas the earliest the OL with the 2030 completion date was likely to start would have been early 2021 (since the 2030 estimate is from late 2020). Conversely, leaving the July 2019 dates there is also misleading since the length of the OL estimate has increased since July 2019 (from 8 years to 9 years). —
2191:: I think what you are saying is instead of showing the estimated completion year as reported in REFs, show #years to complete = completion year - start year. The problem I have with that is that REFs may not give the start year, and it appears to be subjective. Is it the year that construction is estimated to start? Is that when utilities are relocated, the ceremonial first shovel, tunneling started?
623:
384:
296:
265:
203:
234:
587:
1747:: The "Ontario Line" was just announced and is far from a done deal. Funding has not been secured from all levels of government, extensive planning is still required for a good portion of the route (particularly west of Osgoode), and the Toronto area has a good track record of cancelling proposed transit projects. As already mentioned, criteria for
1719:), linking to this as the main article. The Relief Line article would include all of the information about routing and stations and EAs that has been removed from this article, the history will just focus on the history of this version of the project, and all the info about precursors dating back to the 1910s would be on the Ontario Line article.
1568:, two separate transit lines deserve two separate articles, even though some elements of their routes are shared, since they have or had two distinct environmental assessments, would have used two distinct rolling stocks, and two distinct station locations, for the portion of their routes that were shared, and only shared part of their routes.
1704:, the government said "Ultimately, the government plans to expand the current routing of the City’s Relief Line South proposal to: ...", and "The government could achieve this by fundamentally redesigning the Downtown Relief Line project." These statements all would indicate that this is a (big) expansion/redesign of the Relief Line South.
1179:
previous plans dating back to the 1910s which don't require separate articles). The DRL is, in my view, merely a previous version/plan of the
Ontario Line project (it for the most part has the same route but extended further downtown). Since Ontario Line is the current name of this project, this should be the article's name.
481:
2427:
The Relief Line is cancelled based on information provided in 2017. That is the comparison being made in that moment of time, you can debate whether the pitch for the
Ontario Line was realistic but these are the promises as laid out in the 2017. Any changes to the Ontario Line project afterward (cost
2055:
that mod saying "NPOV to compare apples to apples its better to show what was proposed in 2019". Well, what was proposed in 2019 still showed. I don't see why showing revisions in addition to the original violates NPOV (presumably meaning "neutral point of view"). Not showing revisions is misleading.
1289:
When we work on a topic and our personal opinion is at odds with what RS say, we have to keep our personal opinions to ourselves, and cover what RS say. This can be hard, when have strong personal opinions on a topic. Nevertheless it is what policy requires. Those who can't bring themselves to add
899:
focus. The "classic" Relief Line proposal, or something like it, has been called the (Downtown) Relief Line for literally years. The purported "Ontario Line" (which definitely shows no particularly greater chance of being built despite all the flash of its recent announcement) has existed for around
807:
That discussion seems to not fully consider having two separate articles for the same line. It seems there's some confusion there, with claims that this was a new line, when it's quite clear from the documents that have been released, that most of the station locations are essentially unchanged, and
2110:
Or maybe it would be best to remove the "(as of July 2019)" bit and switch to something like "Project timeline" and list that in years, so originally for the Relief Line, it was 10 years, and for the
Ontario Line, it was 8. Then (being generous) if Ontario Line construction had started in 2021, its
2106:
Beyond that, it may be the "as of" is tripping us up. That makes it seems like the table will/should be updated. Perhaps it's better to fix it at that date, so something like "Comparison of Relief Line and
Ontario Line features (July 2019)" or "Comparison of Relief Line and Ontario Line features in
1073:
Ontario Line name. I have no issues with the move, and expected to see it happen. The rolling stock and other technologies are planned to be different, but this is very clearly the same project which has undergone a (major, granted) revision. Should plans change once again, that can be reflected in
2220:
My understanding is the table is supposed to show the most up to date data (or promises) as of 2019 on the two competing projects and inform the reader that this was the information everyone had to work with at the time of decision. As construction progresses these values will ultimately change as
2154:
offered 3 suggestions. I did not understand the third suggestion. I am inclined to go with the second suggestion ("Comparison of Relief Line and
Ontario Line features in July 2019"). However, borrowing from the first suggestion, I would like to add an efn for "In late 2020, the expected completion
1115:
Parts of the DRL were going to run down the middle of arterial roads, but other portions were going to take a diagonal path that crossed under existing blocks of buildings. Using the DRL route for a new elevated line would either leveling whole blocks. I don't know where you go the idea that the
2195:
says RL construction would have begun in 2020; I don't see a corresponding date for the OL. Generally, it's completion date that is reported rather than elapsed time to construct. I also think completion year is a fair comparison as starting late means finishing late. To be fair, the OL has other
1665:
I have worked on controversial topics, where I disagreed with every single reliable source. I thought my choices were to either keep my personal opinions to myself, and to neutrally cover the positions taken in the RS I disagreed with, or to walk away from those articles. I think I did a pretty
1272:
to deal with the dangerous congestion on Line 1, the Yonge North Subway
Extension that will connect the subway to one of the region's largest employment centres, the three-stop Scarborough Subway Extension to better serve communities, and the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension — a large portion of
2173:
In 2019, RL was estimated to complete by 2029, so a 10-year period. OL was going to complete by 2027, so an 8-year period... which was subsequently revised to a 9-year period (2021 to 2030). Comparing the current OL completion date of 2030 to the RL's estimated completion date of 2029 is unfair,
1706:
However, having now read the arguments you have made about historical information being lost with this renaming process, I am not so sure of my position. Incorporating all of that information into the history section of the
Ontario Line article would have to leave some important inclusion-worthy
858:, it's pretty clear it's the same project, even including the planned Relief Line North to Eglinton. Basically the Relief Line, with an extension to the southwest. I see no reason not to merge these two articles. Does anyone any longer have any objection, given it's clearly one project, not two.
1810:
As I explained above, I don't think there is consensus among RS as to whether this technically is a new line or a massive expansion/redesign of the old. However, due to the info from Relief Line (Toronto) that has been lost, this should be restored to the original with that information, and the
1714:
For these reasons, I think the following compromise might be the best course of action, if everyone is okay with it: This article's name is reverted to "Relief Line (Toronto)". A new article is created with the name "Ontario Line", which goes into depth about and is updated about the province's
1178:
This is, for all intents and purposes, the same project that was formerly known as the Relief Line. The new technology/rolling stock does not make it a separate project but a revision, as has been mentioned. This article should and does mention the city's previous relief line plans (along with
681:
The government may position this as they like, but the route is substantially the same (particularly the core Queen to Pape section, and the northern terminus at
Science Centre) and would fulfill the same role in the transit network. I believe you'll find the press also considering it the RL's
1197:
to "Relief Line (Toronto)". It's been less than 12 hours since the provincial announcement and it's still unclear how much of the 2018 design will remain. Maybe once the dust settles "Ontario Line" would be a good title but for now, the controversial, undiscussed page move should be reverted.
1125:
The
Ontario Line might be shot down, and the DRL might be built after all. Or the brand new Ontario Line might be built, instead of the DRL. In either case there should be two articles. In the 1980s considerable funds were allocated to choose a route, choose station locations, and perform
1251:, had all asserted, without citing any reliable sources, that the Ontario Line is essentially, another name for the Relief Line. Some RS, like CTV, have characterized it as a renaming of the Relief Line. The CBC and the Toronto Star say it is a replacement for the Relief Line. tth
750:
article - Ontario is calling the Ontario line a subway, and all indications are that the alignment is the same for the part that had the approved EA - but with western and north extensions? At the most it's a variant of the same project ... it's not like they would build both!
2311:
I went ahead with my compromise solution of showing both the original and revised estimated completion dates but with the latter documented in a footnote. I feel that not reporting the revised date is misinformation by ommission even with a more precise table title.
1787:- I think it's clear that the Ontario Line is new, although it keeps some of the original Relief Line design. So having two articles is appropriate. The Relief Line (Toronto) almost certainly will not proceed as is. Would another government overturn it in 3 years?
1511:'s way too hasty move. This is a developing news story and a name change plus an excision of a large amount of material should be discussed here first, especially once he was reverted (to be transparent, by me) shortly after he made his controversial changes. —
665:
The article currently describes the Ontario Line as "formerly the Downtown Relief Line", even though it would not share the same route, or rolling stock as the DRL, and the Doug Ford government seems to have explicitly said it is not an adaptation of the DRL.
2327:
I disagree, I feel that reporting the revised date of the Ontario Line is a poor comparison via a false equivalence. If the Metrolinx studied the Relief Line up to the detail of the Ontario Line is today (biddable design) is a 2029 opening date even possible?
1662:
just a renaming of the Relief Line. Bzzzt! Go re-read VERIFY. Knowledge contributors are not reliable sources. Our opinions don't matter. We are not supposed to put intellectual content into articles simply because it is what WE believe to be the truth.
1616:
Aren't you ALSO choosing to ignore that the Doug Ford government's official position is that it has cancelled the Relief Line, and that the Ontario Line is a brand new line that merely happens to have stations at the same location as the cancelled route?
2169:
I prefer the third and I'm not sure what's difficult to understand: instead of saying "completion date", we say "length of project", "time to complete", etc. so we're comparing apples to apples regardless of when the project was anticipated to start (or
1699:
has given examples of RS that refer to it as an extension/expansion. As you know, many RS refer to it as a new line. You mentioned Ford's government in their announcement positioned it as a new line, and I agree with that assessment. However, in their
2102:
revision of the Ontario Line, that would probably be good as an additional column in the table, maybe with the addition of a row to cover "Expected project launch" date so as not to make it seem like the Relief Line was the quickest project of the
696:
No, I find reliable sources to be SPLIT on whether the line is a replacement or a revision to the existing plans for the Relief Line. So, how many RS did you look at before you predicted I would find all the RS agreed with your personal opinion?
1459:
1455:
2087:
I would say we just get rid of the "(as of July 2019)" caption—it's unnecessary given every element is sourced with dates—and then list the completion for the Ontario Line as 2030 given that's the most up-to-date info there is (with maybe an
855:
1309:"The Doug Ford government characterizes the Ontario Line as a brand new route, but transit experts, like Joe Blow have questioned this characterization, saying the Ontario Line is just an expansion of the already existing Relief Line..."
2380:
This is why finding reliable sources are very important. I prefer that the revised completion dates not be hidden in footnotes as there's many casual Knowledge readers who simply can't find stuff in footnotes and it is bad practice to
1363:
Let me elaborate further: the Ontario Line is not only named after the province that is funding the line, but because it connects the Ontario Science Centre with Ontario Place, both properties of the Government of Ontario.
922:
Though I expect the whole thing would get sidetracked about what to call it. With the current naming, I suspect that one day we'll all agree that there'll be a single article (or perhaps an article with sub-articles) at
1137:
Attempts to adapt this article to cover both the old possibly stillborn line, and the new possibly vapourware line, into a single article will be a disservice to readers. Some of our readers may only be interested in
153:
2261:
prefers to freeze the table as of July 2019. I prefer to freeze the table but add footnotes (efn) to document later revisions, so that readers won't think, for example, that the OL would be completed in 2027. As per
1655:
policy. Your sole argument seems to be that, without regard to the Doug Ford government's official position that the Ontario Line is a brand new line, replacing the Relief Line, you have decided that it is
1608:, I think you are missing the point, missing several important points. No one is disputing that multiple RS have characterized the Ontario line as a renaming, or reasonable equivalent, of the Relief Line.
1669:
This is the requirement on everyone. This is a requirement on the four of you. You simply cannot ignore and suppress the RS you disagree with. Do I have to explain why this is also a violation of NPOV.
2155:
for the line was revised from 2027 to 2030." Essentially, this presents subsequent revisions as footnotes rather than squeazing them into table cells beside the original data. Would this be acceptable?
1715:
Ontario Line version of the project. In the history section of the Ontario Line article, which would include what is presently in this article's history, the Relief Line South project is summarized (
1539:, and finally that such a move should have never been made without a proper move request in the first place, as is precedent with prior efforts such as the renaming I led several years ago on
1759:
we know definitively that the "Ontario Line" will get built or close to (i.e. cancelled the day before ground breaking), then maybe "Ontario Line" would be a suitable title for this article.
1134:, but no one is suggesting those two articles should be merged. Merging them makes no more sense than trying to cover the old Relief Line, and the new Ontario Line, in the same article.
1613:
I repeat what I said above. NPOV and VERIFY require us neutrally cover all positions taken by authoritative reliable commentators, not favour the commentators we happen to agree with.
1030:
I strongly urge contributors to stop trying to update this article, to reflect the new name, until we discuss, and sort out, whether we should have two articles, or one article.
2192:
147:
2510:
927:(perhaps with the only remaining link to Ontario being that the proposed Sherbourne/Queen station has a secondary entrance near Ontario Street - LOL!). In the interest of
808:
it's primarily extending the existing project further north and west. There needs to be only one article about this line, not two. The other article should be redirected.
194:
1680:. Even if, or when, some RS explicitly say that, we can't simply ignore the RS that echo Ford's official position that it is a distinct line, not a simple renaming.
1304:
When reliable sources differ we are supposed to find a neutrally worded way of covering both interpretations, all interpretations that are not fringe interpretations.
2409:
Not only will revised info not be in the footnotes, it will not be in the article at all as, if anyone attempts to insert revised info (even from reliable sources),
2500:
2465:
1673:
I spent years, tens of thousands of edits, measuring up to these policies. Why shouldn't I feel entitled to expect you to also measure up to these policies here?
547:
352:
986:
1109:
reports DoFo's government says the Ontario Line will be largely elevated, using shorter train-sets (and a different rolling-stock) than Toronto's existing lines.
44:
2525:
2515:
1589:
79:
1764:
For the time being, the current "2019: Provincial takeover" section of this article is sufficient for mentioning plans for the proposed "Ontario Line".
1221:
as Ontario Line because it is basically an expanded Relief Line. We don't need a new page for every iteration of design and phasing of a transit line.
1130:. Tunnelling had already began, when newly elected Premier Mike Harris pulled the plug. That still-born Eglinton subway share a similar route to the
2266:'s second suggestion, I would reword the table title to "Comparison of Relief Line and Ontario Line features in July 2019". So what do we want to do?
2495:
2485:
2475:
2460:
769:
I agree with Nfitz. The Ontario Line is the successor of the Relief Line (I also support the merger of Eglinton West Subway with Line 5 Eglinton).
422:
2505:
1264:
Our government is investing in transportation to bring relief and new opportunities to transit users and commuters," said Ford. "We announced the
557:
362:
1912:
non-votes. I suggest that, if they don't return soon, we go ahead and restore the original name. I've been working on a draft of a new article
1610:
And other commentators have characterized as a brand new line. Is it your intent to ignore the RS that described the line as a brand new line?
1290:
content that summarizes RS they strongly disagree with, can sit out covering that topic, and leave covering it to less involved contributors.
2520:
2490:
85:
1543:. If there is no consensus, the default should be the previous name, not a name that was implemented without consensus in the first place.
190:
966:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
1433:
891:
I suggest you propose a merge and let people comment, given such a merger/replacement was literally undone less than two months ago. As
596:
450:
1112:
This means all the existing environmental assessments would be worthless. Brand new environmental assessments would have to be done.
2480:
2470:
519:
515:
328:
1964:
Why is the talk page for Ontario Line a redirect here? Is there a technical reason or rule why there is not a separate talk page?
1586:
168:
1584:
FYI, Here are RSs that mention the line as an extension/expansion of the Relief Line. In addition to the comment by Steve Munro.
1560:-- for the record, for the reasons I outlined above, I explicitly support restoration of the original title. As above, like the
135:
2399:
2294:
2139:
2024:
1881:
1397:
The “Ontario Line”, a rebranded and extended version of the Relief Line, will run from Don Mills and Eglinton to Ontario Place.
1378:
1349:
836:
783:
731:
99:
30:
1707:
stuff out or be way too long and detailed in addition to all the forthcoming info about the Ontario Line, and would justify a
1283:
The Premier calls it a NEW line. Multiple RS call it a replacement line, not an expansion of a line already being worked on.
2253:
prefer that the table be updated to reflect later revisions and to add a construction period row ("Project timeline") as per
104:
20:
644:
417:
397:
279:
275:
74:
1267:
1263:
895:
pointed out then, there's a huge potential to lose valuable historical information if the merger is done with an overly
511:
502:
445:
319:
270:
245:
1540:
998:
65:
1917:
129:
2107:
July 2019". If we did that, we'd stick with the 2027 completion date for the Ontario Line in that particular table.
1913:
640:
202:
185:
1938:
1531:
is the long-standing name, as well as the common name that such a proposed route is known by. In accordance with
1273:
which will be built underground to keep people and goods moving on our roadways. This is our plan, our priority."
957:
213:
125:
2418:
2371:
2317:
2271:
2201:
2160:
2077:
1984:
1429:
Steve Munro is the expert on the TTC. Also, Geo_Swan appears to be bullying people who are voting against them
1678:"Although Doug Ford calls the Ontario Line a brand new route, it is really just a renaming of the Relief Line"
1414:
2433:
2333:
2226:
1852:
1596:
1437:
1226:
881:
109:
1331:
Ontario Line is essentially the same line, just with different branding and technology (which I agree with
175:
2048:, I changed the Ontario Line expected completion from "2027" to "2027 (revised to 2030 as of late 2020)".
1403:
993:
1286:
What NPOV, VERIFY and other policies require of us is that we keep our personal opinions to ourselves.
2347:
2179:
2116:
2045:
1950:
1946:
1744:
1528:
1516:
1484:
1447:
1021:
967:
913:
901:
798:
251:
24:
1752:
1561:
1532:
233:
2414:
2395:
2367:
2313:
2290:
2267:
2197:
2156:
2135:
2073:
2020:
1980:
1877:
1816:
1769:
1724:
1374:
1345:
1184:
896:
832:
779:
727:
161:
55:
2280:
That is correct. I prefer the table itself updated as soon as reliable sources become available.
327:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2429:
2410:
2351:
2343:
2329:
2258:
2222:
2059:
2049:
1998:
1969:
1925:
1897:
1848:
1832:
1792:
1696:
1685:
1636:
1625:
1605:
1592:
1573:
1565:
1469:
1410:
1318:
1248:
1222:
1163:
1131:
1127:
1079:
1043:
1035:
877:
702:
687:
671:
218:
141:
70:
970:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
622:
2007:
1748:
1548:
1536:
1492:
51:
2359:
2263:
2254:
2246:
2188:
2175:
2151:
2112:
2067:
1695:
I don't think there is a consensus among RS as to whether this is a new line or a revision.
1652:
1512:
1199:
1058:
928:
909:
794:
215:
1708:
936:
863:
813:
756:
1144:
plans. Other readers may be students, with a historical interest in planned routes that
407:
2387:
2382:
2363:
2350:
that the Ontario Line is projected to open in 2029 instead of 2017 for the reason that
2282:
2250:
2127:
2063:
2012:
1905:
1869:
1812:
1765:
1720:
1648:
1644:
1366:
1337:
1244:
1180:
924:
824:
771:
719:
507:
389:
466:
439:
2454:
1994:
1965:
1921:
1901:
1828:
1788:
1681:
1640:
1621:
1569:
1508:
1504:
1465:
1451:
1314:
1240:
1159:
1089:
1075:
1039:
1031:
1017:
980:
892:
698:
683:
667:
523:
490:
311:
1979:
Bad move! Bad Edit! People don't know what they are doing. I've fixed the redirect.
2092:
1716:
1544:
1496:
1025:
1013:
743:
714:
371:
1827:
I withdraw my previous Keep vote, based on the consensus of the discussion here.
217:
2437:
2422:
2404:
2375:
2337:
2321:
2299:
2275:
2230:
2205:
2183:
2164:
2144:
2120:
2081:
2029:
2002:
1988:
1973:
1929:
1886:
1856:
1836:
1820:
1796:
1773:
1728:
1701:
1689:
1629:
1600:
1577:
1552:
1520:
1488:
1473:
1441:
1418:
1383:
1354:
1332:
1322:
1230:
1213:
1188:
1167:
1083:
1062:
1054:
1005:
940:
917:
885:
867:
841:
817:
802:
788:
760:
747:
736:
706:
691:
675:
932:
859:
809:
752:
379:
301:
295:
264:
2346:
is saying that there must be no mention (not even a footnote) in the section
2098:
note to say "originally 2027" and when it was updated to 2030). If there's a
1666:
good job at staying neutral, and neutrally covering RS I disagreed with.
908:
called "Ontario Line" to cover the (extremely more) recent developments. —
900:
two months. If we move to having a single article, it ought to remain at
1503:
TTC-knowledgeable person. His opinion is by no means definitive. Also,
586:
1293:
When we work on a topic and RS are split on a key issue we don't just
324:
1446:
I've already reported the indefinitely blocked wikistalker who uses
1150:. The value of this article for readers with a historical interest
1335:). The part about the Relief Line can stay in the history section.
1122:. Sorry, I just don't find your confidence in this to be credible.
717:
is now a different article, focussing on Doug Ford's current plan.
480:
510:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
2354:
gave above, and that any mod violating that perspective will be
1313:
I am not aware of anyone who has said this, as of 2019-04-10.
854:
Based on the city report about the Ontario/Relief Line and the
617:
227:
219:
15:
1464:
So, they should be discounted in any conclusion drawn here.
931:
I've got no great desire to trigger this discussion quickly.
1945:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
621:
585:
506:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
406:
370:
1908:
have had a chance to return here to further explain their
514:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
1847:
but if consensus says restore, I'm not going to stop it.
2355:
2052:
1151:
1093:
160:
1937:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1635:
Hmmm, let me explain more fully why the position you
323:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
876:
this is clearly a continuation of the same project.
568:
1953:. No further edits should be made to this section.
1495:. If absolutely necessary, start a new page for
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1811:Ontario Line details split into a new article.
1507:is being completely appropriate in questioning
1395:
2196:benefits that may justify a later completion.
1074:the article, but this is where things stand.
793:It was all hashed out in the section below. —
174:
8:
1676:I pointed out that no RS, so far, have said
956:The following is a closed discussion of a
565:
434:
259:
2511:Unknown-importance Rapid transit articles
1307:Are there any RS that say anything like:
1252:
2125:That would make things less confusing.
436:
261:
231:
2501:Low-importance rail transport articles
2466:Low-importance Canada-related articles
1487:and its historical information as per
1297:, and exclusively cover that position
1099:"the route is substantially the same"
983:to revert a recent undiscussed move.
7:
1499:. All kudos to Steve Munro but he's
1450:twice, for their use of this IP, at
975:The result of the move request was:
500:This article is within the scope of
317:This article is within the scope of
2526:Knowledge requested maps in Toronto
1126:environmental assessments, for the
569:Associated projects or task forces:
250:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
2516:WikiProject Rapid transit articles
2348:Relief Line (Toronto)#Ontario Line
2046:Relief Line (Toronto)#Ontario Line
1651:seem to want to take violates the
661:Ontario Line NOT the former DRL...
14:
1299:as if other positions don't exist
479:
465:
438:
382:
304:
294:
263:
232:
201:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
2496:B-Class rail transport articles
2486:Mid-importance Toronto articles
2476:Low-importance Ontario articles
2461:B-Class Canada-related articles
2366:agree with this point of view?
2044:Within the comparison table in
1918:User talk:Geo Swan/Ontario Line
552:This article has been rated as
357:This article has been rated as
2506:B-Class Rapid transit articles
1254:What does the Government say?
1119:"substantially the same route"
987:closed by non-admin page mover
1:
2300:01:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
2276:00:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
2231:04:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
2206:03:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
2184:02:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
2165:01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
2145:00:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
2121:18:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
2082:18:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
2056:May I reinstate my revision?
1702:budget released earlier today
1038:) 21:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
594:This article is supported by
520:WikiProject Trains to do list
415:This article is supported by
395:This article is supported by
331:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
2521:All WikiProject Trains pages
2491:All WikiProject Canada pages
1046:) 21:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
949:Requested move 10 April 2019
532:Knowledge:WikiProject Trains
337:Knowledge:WikiProject Canada
535:Template:WikiProject Trains
340:Template:WikiProject Canada
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2542:
2438:02:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
2423:01:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
2405:00:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
2376:20:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
2338:03:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
2322:01:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
1930:19:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
1914:User:Geo Swan/Ontario Line
1887:13:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
1857:01:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
1837:19:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
1821:14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
1797:13:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
1774:00:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
1729:04:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
1690:03:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
1630:02:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
1601:23:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
1578:20:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
1553:17:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
1521:05:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
1474:19:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
1442:02:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
1419:01:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
1384:00:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
1355:01:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
1323:00:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
1231:23:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
1214:22:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
1189:22:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
1168:22:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
1084:21:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
1063:02:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
1006:14:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
707:00:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
692:21:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
676:21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
558:project's importance scale
363:project's importance scale
941:16:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
918:05:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
886:04:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
868:02:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
842:23:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
818:22:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
597:WikiProject Rapid transit
593:
564:
551:
460:
414:
378:
356:
289:
258:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
2481:B-Class Toronto articles
2471:B-Class Ontario articles
1943:Please do not modify it.
1916:. Comments welcome at
1867:vote despite consensus.
1863:I will also maintain my
963:Please do not modify it.
803:19:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
789:02:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
761:19:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
742:How can we have both an
2040:Ontario Line comparison
2030:00:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
2003:16:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
1989:16:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
1974:16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
1541:Line 1 Yonge–University
1491:... this has been done
1431:] This is unacceptable.
1154:has already been eroded
1116:Ontario Line would use
737:02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
631:It is requested that a
538:rail transport articles
343:Canada-related articles
1407:
650:Wikipedians in Toronto
627:
590:
411:
375:
240:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
2257:'s third suggestion.
1745:Relief Line (Toronto)
1529:Relief Line (Toronto)
1485:Relief Line (Toronto)
1022:Relief Line (Toronto)
902:Relief Line (Toronto)
625:
589:
410:
374:
195:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
25:Relief Line (Toronto)
1562:Eglinton West Subway
1195:Speedy restore title
652:may be able to help!
105:No original research
1255:
645:improve its quality
643:in this article to
418:WikiProject Toronto
398:WikiProject Ontario
2411:user:Terramorphous
2352:user:Terramorphous
2344:user:Terramorphous
2259:User:Terramorphous
2050:User:Terramorphous
1566:Eglinton Crosstown
1253:
1132:Eglinton Crosstown
1128:Eglinton West line
822:I strongly agree.
628:
591:
503:WikiProject Trains
412:
376:
320:WikiProject Canada
246:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1281:
1280:
1065:
990:
981:technical request
656:
655:
616:
615:
612:
611:
608:
607:
604:
603:
498:
497:
433:
432:
429:
428:
226:
225:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2533:
2413:will delete it.
2392:
2390:
2360:User:Joeyconnick
2287:
2285:
2264:User:Joeyconnick
2255:User:Joeyconnick
2247:User:Joeyconnick
2189:User:Joeyconnick
2152:User:Joeyconnick
2132:
2130:
2097:
2091:
2072:Please comment.
2071:
2017:
2015:
1893:Call for closure
1874:
1872:
1405:
1371:
1369:
1342:
1340:
1269:new Ontario Line
1256:
1047:
1003:
1001:
996:
984:
979:: treating as a
965:
829:
827:
776:
774:
724:
722:
618:
576:
566:
540:
539:
536:
533:
530:
483:
474:
473:
469:
462:
461:
456:
453:
442:
435:
392:
387:
386:
385:
345:
344:
341:
338:
335:
314:
309:
308:
307:
298:
291:
290:
285:
282:
267:
260:
243:
237:
236:
228:
220:
206:
205:
196:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2541:
2540:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2451:
2450:
2403:
2388:
2386:
2342:I believe that
2298:
2283:
2281:
2143:
2128:
2126:
2095:
2089:
2057:
2042:
2028:
2013:
2011:
1962:
1957:
1885:
1870:
1868:
1406:
1401:
1382:
1367:
1365:
1353:
1338:
1336:
999:
994:
992:
961:
951:
840:
825:
823:
787:
772:
770:
735:
720:
718:
663:
574:
537:
534:
531:
528:
527:
499:
485:
484:
454:
448:
388:
383:
381:
342:
339:
336:
333:
332:
310:
305:
303:
283:
273:
244:on Knowledge's
241:
222:
221:
216:
193:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2539:
2537:
2529:
2528:
2523:
2518:
2513:
2508:
2503:
2498:
2493:
2488:
2483:
2478:
2473:
2468:
2463:
2453:
2452:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2415:TheTrolleyPole
2393:
2383:bite newcomers
2368:TheTrolleyPole
2314:TheTrolleyPole
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2288:
2268:TheTrolleyPole
2251:User:Johnny Au
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2198:TheTrolleyPole
2171:
2157:TheTrolleyPole
2149:
2148:
2147:
2133:
2108:
2104:
2101:
2074:TheTrolleyPole
2041:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2018:
1981:Secondarywaltz
1961:
1958:
1956:
1955:
1939:requested move
1933:
1895:
1894:
1890:
1889:
1875:
1860:
1859:
1840:
1839:
1824:
1823:
1800:
1799:
1777:
1776:
1761:
1760:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1633:
1591:
1588:
1585:
1581:
1580:
1555:
1523:
1502:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1422:
1421:
1408:
1399:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1372:
1358:
1357:
1343:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1239:
1238:
1237:point of order
1234:
1233:
1216:
1192:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1135:
1123:
1113:
1110:
1103:
1011:
1009:
973:
972:
958:requested move
952:
950:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
925:Line 3 Ontario
907:
871:
870:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
830:
777:
764:
763:
725:
712:
711:
710:
709:
662:
659:
654:
653:
648:
629:
614:
613:
610:
609:
606:
605:
602:
601:
592:
582:
581:
579:
577:
571:
570:
562:
561:
554:Low-importance
550:
544:
543:
541:
508:rail transport
496:
495:
486:
478:
477:
472:
470:
458:
457:
455:Low‑importance
443:
431:
430:
427:
426:
423:Mid-importance
413:
403:
402:
394:
393:
390:Ontario portal
377:
367:
366:
359:Low-importance
355:
349:
348:
346:
329:the discussion
316:
315:
299:
287:
286:
284:Low‑importance
268:
256:
255:
249:
238:
224:
223:
214:
212:
211:
208:
207:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2538:
2527:
2524:
2522:
2519:
2517:
2514:
2512:
2509:
2507:
2504:
2502:
2499:
2497:
2494:
2492:
2489:
2487:
2484:
2482:
2479:
2477:
2474:
2472:
2469:
2467:
2464:
2462:
2459:
2458:
2456:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2430:Terramorphous
2426:
2425:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2401:
2400:contributions
2397:
2391:
2384:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2330:Terramorphous
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2301:
2296:
2295:contributions
2292:
2286:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2265:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2245:I think that
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2223:Terramorphous
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2194:
2190:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2172:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2153:
2150:
2146:
2141:
2140:contributions
2137:
2131:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2109:
2105:
2099:
2094:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2060:Terramorphous
2054:
2051:
2047:
2039:
2031:
2026:
2025:contributions
2022:
2016:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1959:
1954:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1935:
1934:
1932:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1898:Terramorphous
1892:
1891:
1888:
1883:
1882:contributions
1879:
1873:
1866:
1862:
1861:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1849:Terramorphous
1846:
1842:
1841:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1825:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1809:
1805:
1802:
1801:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1779:
1778:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1753:WP:COMMONNAME
1750:
1746:
1742:
1739:
1738:
1731:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1712:
1710:
1703:
1698:
1697:Terramorphous
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1674:
1671:
1667:
1661:
1660:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1637:Terramorphous
1634:
1632:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1618:
1614:
1611:
1607:
1606:Terramorphous
1604:
1603:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1593:Terramorphous
1590:
1587:
1583:
1582:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1533:WP:COMMONNAME
1530:
1527:
1524:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1500:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1483:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1448:24.53.119.203
1445:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1434:24.53.119.203
1432:
1430:
1428:
1424:
1423:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1411:Terramorphous
1409:
1404:
1398:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1385:
1380:
1379:contributions
1376:
1370:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1356:
1351:
1350:contributions
1347:
1341:
1334:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1310:
1305:
1302:
1300:
1296:
1295:pick one side
1291:
1287:
1284:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1250:
1249:Terramorphous
1246:
1242:
1236:
1235:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1223:Terramorphous
1220:
1217:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1149:
1148:
1147:weren't built
1143:
1142:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1121:
1120:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1002:
997:
988:
982:
978:
971:
969:
964:
959:
954:
953:
948:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
921:
920:
919:
915:
911:
905:
903:
898:
894:
890:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
878:Terramorphous
875:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:media reports
853:
843:
838:
837:contributions
834:
828:
821:
820:
819:
815:
811:
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
785:
784:contributions
781:
775:
768:
767:
766:
765:
762:
758:
754:
749:
745:
741:
740:
739:
738:
733:
732:contributions
729:
723:
716:
708:
704:
700:
695:
694:
693:
689:
685:
680:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
660:
658:
651:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
624:
620:
619:
599:
598:
588:
584:
583:
580:
578:
573:
572:
567:
563:
559:
555:
549:
546:
545:
542:
525:
524:Trains Portal
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
494:
493:
492:
491:Trains Portal
487:
482:
476:
475:
471:
468:
464:
463:
459:
452:
451:Rapid transit
447:
444:
441:
437:
424:
421:(assessed as
420:
419:
409:
405:
404:
400:
399:
391:
380:
373:
369:
368:
364:
360:
354:
351:
350:
347:
330:
326:
322:
321:
313:
312:Canada portal
302:
300:
297:
293:
292:
288:
281:
277:
272:
269:
266:
262:
257:
253:
247:
239:
235:
230:
229:
210:
209:
204:
200:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2310:
2249:and perhaps
2043:
1963:
1942:
1936:
1909:
1896:
1864:
1844:
1807:
1803:
1784:
1780:
1756:
1740:
1713:
1705:
1677:
1675:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1658:
1657:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1609:
1557:
1525:
1497:Ontario Line
1493:way too soon
1481:
1463:
1426:
1425:
1402:Steve Munro
1396:
1392:Here you go:
1328:
1312:
1308:
1306:
1303:
1298:
1294:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1282:
1271:
1268:
1261:
1218:
1209:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1194:
1175:
1174:
1153:
1152:
1146:
1145:
1140:
1139:
1118:
1117:
1107:Toronto Star
1106:
1098:
1097:
1070:
1069:
1050:
1049:
1029:
1026:Ontario Line
1014:Ontario Line
1010:
991:
976:
974:
962:
955:
897:WP:RECENTISM
873:
872:
744:Ontario Line
715:Ontario Line
713:
664:
657:
649:
636:
632:
595:
553:
518:. See also:
512:project page
501:
489:
488:
416:
396:
358:
318:
252:WikiProjects
198:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
2176:Joeyconnick
2113:Joeyconnick
2100:significant
2068:Joeyconnick
2008:Much better
1951:move review
1843:I maintain
1535:as well as
1513:Joeyconnick
1333:Steve Munro
1094:wrote above
968:move review
910:Joeyconnick
795:Joeyconnick
748:Relief Line
682:successor.
148:free images
31:not a forum
2455:Categories
1960:Talk pages
1749:WP:TOOSOON
1537:WP:TOOSOON
1051:Relisting.
626:Map needed
516:discussion
2389:Johnny Au
2364:Johnny Au
2284:Johnny Au
2129:Johnny Au
2064:Johnny Au
2014:Johnny Au
1947:talk page
1906:Johnny Au
1871:Johnny Au
1813:UmpireRay
1766:Northwest
1721:UmpireRay
1653:WP:Verify
1649:Johnny Au
1645:UmpireRay
1368:Johnny Au
1339:Johnny Au
1245:UmpireRay
1181:UmpireRay
929:WP:NORUSH
826:Johnny Au
773:Johnny Au
721:Johnny Au
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
2053:reversed
1995:Alaney2k
1966:Alaney2k
1949:or in a
1922:Geo Swan
1902:Radagast
1829:Radagast
1789:Alaney2k
1755:is met.
1709:WP:SPLIT
1682:Geo Swan
1641:Radagast
1622:Geo Swan
1570:Geo Swan
1564:and the
1509:Canuck85
1505:Geo Swan
1466:Geo Swan
1315:Geo Swan
1241:Radagast
1160:Geo Swan
1090:Radagast
1076:Radagast
1040:Geo Swan
1032:Geo Swan
1018:Canuck85
977:Reverted
893:Geo Swan
699:Geo Swan
684:Radagast
668:Geo Swan
641:included
522:and the
199:180 days
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
2356:deleted
2193:One REF
2066:, and
1993:Thanks
1804:Restore
1781:Restore
1741:Restore
1558:Restore
1545:Flynn58
1526:Restore
1482:Restore
1141:current
906:section
904:with a
874:Support
556:on the
361:on the
280:Toronto
276:Ontario
242:B-class
154:WP refs
142:scholar
2103:bunch.
1910:"keep"
1659:REALLY
1489:Blaixx
1452:WP:SPI
1096:that
1092:, you
1055:B dash
1020:moved
1016:→ ? –
1000:(talk)
529:Trains
446:Trains
334:Canada
325:Canada
271:Canada
248:scale.
126:Google
2358:. Do
2170:end).
1808:Split
1785:Split
1717:WP:SS
933:Nfitz
860:Nfitz
810:Nfitz
753:Nfitz
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2434:talk
2419:talk
2396:talk
2372:talk
2362:and
2334:talk
2318:talk
2291:talk
2272:talk
2227:talk
2202:talk
2180:talk
2161:talk
2136:talk
2117:talk
2078:talk
2021:talk
1999:talk
1985:talk
1970:talk
1926:talk
1904:and
1878:talk
1865:Keep
1853:talk
1845:Keep
1833:talk
1817:talk
1806:and
1793:talk
1783:and
1770:talk
1751:and
1725:talk
1686:talk
1647:and
1626:talk
1597:talk
1574:talk
1549:talk
1517:talk
1470:talk
1460:here
1458:and
1456:here
1438:talk
1427:Keep
1415:talk
1375:talk
1346:talk
1329:Keep
1319:talk
1301:.
1247:and
1227:talk
1219:Keep
1185:talk
1176:Keep
1164:talk
1105:The
1080:talk
1071:Keep
1059:talk
1044:talk
1036:talk
995:SITH
937:talk
914:talk
882:talk
864:talk
833:talk
814:talk
799:talk
780:talk
757:talk
746:and
728:talk
703:talk
688:talk
672:talk
637:maps
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
2093:efn
1920:.
1501:one
1210:IXX
1158:.
1102:...
1024:to
639:be
635:or
633:map
548:Low
353:Low
176:TWL
2457::
2436:)
2421:)
2385:.
2374:)
2336:)
2320:)
2274:)
2229:)
2204:)
2182:)
2163:)
2119:)
2096:}}
2090:{{
2080:)
2062:,
2010:.
2001:)
1987:)
1972:)
1941:.
1928:)
1900:,
1855:)
1835:)
1819:)
1795:)
1772:)
1757:If
1743:—
1727:)
1688:)
1643:,
1639:,
1628:)
1599:)
1576:)
1551:)
1519:)
1472:)
1454:,
1440:)
1417:)
1400:—
1321:)
1243:,
1229:)
1187:)
1166:)
1082:)
1061:)
1048:--
960:.
939:)
916:)
884:)
866:)
816:)
801:)
759:)
705:)
690:)
674:)
575:/
449::
425:).
278:/
274::
197::
156:)
54:;
2432:(
2417:(
2402:)
2398:/
2394:(
2370:(
2332:(
2316:(
2297:)
2293:/
2289:(
2270:(
2225:(
2200:(
2178:(
2159:(
2142:)
2138:/
2134:(
2115:(
2076:(
2070::
2058:@
2027:)
2023:/
2019:(
1997:(
1983:(
1968:(
1924:(
1884:)
1880:/
1876:(
1851:(
1831:(
1815:(
1791:(
1768:(
1723:(
1711:.
1684:(
1624:(
1595:(
1572:(
1547:(
1515:(
1468:(
1436:(
1413:(
1381:)
1377:/
1373:(
1352:)
1348:/
1344:(
1317:(
1262:"
1225:(
1207:A
1204:L
1201:B
1183:(
1162:(
1078:(
1057:(
1042:(
1034:(
989:)
985:(
935:(
912:(
880:(
862:(
839:)
835:/
831:(
812:(
797:(
786:)
782:/
778:(
755:(
734:)
730:/
726:(
701:(
686:(
670:(
647:.
600:.
560:.
526:.
401:.
365:.
254::
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
