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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada's streets and arterial thoroughfares 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.Canada StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada StreetsTemplate:WikiProject Canada StreetsCanadian street articles
Despite this bus not stopping on Eastern, I feel it's worth mentioning as it does run almost the entire length of the street, and certainly accounts for a large part of the bus travel along this road. - SimonP (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as the Don Valley Parkway makes no mention of the bus route that travels most of its length, this road shouldn't mention the bus that travels on it. Buses travel convoluted routes, and many stop or pass by roads; they aren't noteworthy. There is an article dedicated to this information; List of bus routes in Toronto. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢20:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The principal of detail proportional to length applies to the DVP and this page. We can have more detail on pages like this. Though, mentioning the number of GO buses that use the DVP would be perfectly appropriate for that article, in my mind at least. - SimonP (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we had articles on each GO bus route, I'd agree. Mentioning that GO buses travel along the DVP is good. If someone decides "I want to take that GO bus along the DVP", then they can look at the source for that piece of information: The Go schedule. The number of the GO bus isn't important to the subject of the Don Valley Parkway though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]