Talk:Steeles, Toronto

Canada: Toronto / Communities 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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Toronto Neighbourhood Geography template

In order to be proactive and prevent a possible edit war, I wanted to start a discussion about this template, specifically regarding its placement in this article. The template is not yet on every single Toronto neighbourhood article (something I'm working on, slowly), but all the articles it does appear in has it at a uniform location, below the final section on the page (usually External links) (see Bathurst Manor, Bedford Park, Toronto or Garden District, Toronto for examples). I originally moved the template to appear in the same location on this article, but it has now been moved back to it's previous location, in the middle of the article. My suggestion would be to move it back, to be uniform with the other articles. Thoughts? –Dvandersluis 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I accidentally didn't add an edit summary

I just added two citations to the "Economy" section, but I accidentally published my changes before I added an edit summary. Here's the diff: [1]. I am just notifying anyone who thinks my edit is confusing since it doesn't have an edit summary here. I provided the diff so that you can see what I did. Thank you. Friend 505 12:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend505, under Preferences > Editing there's a setting that will prompt you if you don't enter an edit summary. I keep it turned on. —valereee (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Thank you so much, Valereee! I have already enabled the setting. Thanks! I just tested it when I was posting this reply to you, and it works. Now that I've already tested it, I am going to reply to you. Thanks! Friend 505 13:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Hi, Valereee! I just want to make a comment. I think the "History" section of the article used to be a copyright violation of the toronto.com source, since I find in this edit, Leventio removed content that was basically just a copy of content from the toronto.com source that I found. So I think that we were plagiarizing toronto.com, instead of toronto.com plagiarizing us. Friend 505 14:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure it was copied from the Adler article, parts of which are currently being used on Toronto.com. —valereee (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished

@Valereee: Hi, Valereee! I have already finished sprucing up the article by adding citations. Please review my citations. Note: I have already removed the "Unreferenced section" templates for the sections that I have worked on, and I have removed the unreferenced template for the entire article. Thank you. Friend 505 23:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Kennedy Road to a redirect because redirects can be useful -- for instance, if you install User:Anomie/linkclassifier#Legend, it lets you see more than just redlinks and blue links. When I see a link is green, I know it's a redirect, and I can check to see if it's notable enough that it might need to have an article written. (Linkclassifier would also have let you see immediately that you'd added a link to a disambiguation page, as it puts a yellow highlight behind links to dab pages.) —valereee (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend505 Okay, the next thing you want to do here is ask yourself whether anything is missing. Look at the Demographics section, for instance, and take a look at the source for that section. There's a lot of information there. We don't need to add all of it or even most of it, but there are a few pieces of information that are pretty important but are missing from the article. Read that source and let's talk about what probably needs to be covered in the text of the article. —valereee (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I guess you're talking about the age distribution of the neighbourhood of Steeles. I actually think that that's the most important part of "demographics". The major focus of demographics, according to my view, is not the distribution of ethnic groups; it's about age group distribution. I think we need to include this information. I would like to hear your opinion. Thank you. Friend 505 17:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm not opposing the inclusion of the ethnicity information. In fact, I think that both the ethnicity information and the age distribution information. Friend 505 17:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure ethnicity is important, either. I think we need to include population and number of households, and I think it might be important to include things that are very different from the rest of Toronto, such as the number of people for whom English is not their native language and which those first languages are. This is a neighborhood where many, many people are immigrants or first-generation, and that is IMO an important detail that is not evident from this article. Why don't you rewrite that section based on what you think is probably important for people who don't know the area need to know about it? —valereee (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: But you need to admit that in the neighbourhood of Steeles, 91% are ethnic minorities, compared with the City of Toronto 51%. So, I think we should simply summarize the ethnicity stuff by saying that "Ethnic minorities represent 91% of the population of Steeles." in the demographics section. P.S. Thanks for your speedy response. From the "Revision history", you can see that I was removing the sectional link when you had already replied to me. Thanks! Friend 505 18:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend505, I think we could say that, plus the fact the vast majority are from China or Hong Kong. I don't think it probably matters that x% are East Indian. —valereee (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

error

Friend505, nd here's a puzzle for you: I accidentally introduced an error with this edit. Can you spot it? It has to do with me being from the US. —valereee (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I spotted it. I just went on a car ride so I couldn't see your messages. Anyways, I'll help you to spell it in the Canadian spelling. Thanks! Friend 505 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted 4 more places where the American spelling was put in. I changed them to the Canadian spelling. Friend 505 17:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. :) Notice that it always is going to depend on two things: the article itself, and the creator of that article. If the article subject is inherently Canadian (which of course this one is), we go with Canadian English throughout. If there's no inherent country connection, the spelling chosen by the original creator is the one we use. Policy is at MOS:ENGVAR. —valereee (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I agree with you, Valereee. P.S. Please take a look at the "Finished" section above. Thank you. Friend 505 18:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source behind paywall

Friend505, what does the Star Dragon Centre article say about this being part of the Scarborough Chinatown? It's behind a paywall for me. —valereee (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Sorry, this was a mistake on my part. I didn't realize that the Dragon Centre can only verify that the Scarborough Chinatown itself exists; it cannot verify that the neighbourhood of Steeles is part of the Scarborough Chinatown. I will revert my citation move and try to find a source for Steeles being part of the Scarborough Chinatown. Thank you. Friend 505 19:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend505, do you know that it is indeed generally considered part of that Chinatown? What I mean is, if it's not generally considered part of that, you shouldn't bother to try to find that info, we should just change the sentence to reflect reality. —valereee (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Well, you didn't have to talk about "if it's not generally considered part of that...". However, I simply know that Steeles is part of the Scarborough Chinatown since I live in this neighbourhood and it just simply seems like a Chinatown, except there aren't skyscrapers and other stuff around unlike the Downtown Toronto Chinatown. P.S. I guess you mean we don't need a source for it, but then why did you mark it as citation needed? Thanks! Friend 505 19:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend505, I think we're talking past one another. What I was trying to say was that I, not being from the area, don't know whether Steeles is or isn't generally considered to be part of the Scarborough Chinatown. You, being from the area, probably do know, or at least know a lot better than I do. I wanted to make sure that you understood that I wasn't asking you to find a source proving it was part of it if in fact it wasn't generally considered part of it.

I marked it as citation needed because if we're going to leave it in the article, we need to find a source that is calling Steeles part of the Scarborough Chinatown. —valereee (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Oh, I'm finally understanding what you mean. I live here, and I do know that it is in the Scarborough Chinatown. I also understand now that you mean just because of that, we need to find a source to prove that. Before this post that you made, I thought you meant that if I know this, then I don't need to provide a source. Actually, at that time, that also felt very strange to me, but you aren't acting strange since I didn't exactly understand what you meant. Now, let's cooperate to find a source for that. P.S. I understand everything in your last post except what you meant when you said "I think we're talking past one another." Anyways, it's okay. As long as I can understand the real essence of what you mean, I guess everything will be okay. Thanks! Friend 505 23:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After we find a source for that, I'm going to start adding more relevant information for the "Demographics" section. I think we should just say "Ethnic minorities represent 91% of the population of Steeles, compared to 51% in Toronto." Or, we can write "Ethnic minorities represent 91% of the population of Steeles, compared to 51% in the City of Toronto." Friend 505 23:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can also leave the Chinatown assertion as 'citation needed' for now, then circle back in a few months. That's considered acceptable for some fact that we believe to be true but that we haven't found a source for, as long as it isn't controversial (and in particular as long as it isn't a controversial fact about a living person.) —valereee (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Yeah, before I became a Wikipedian, I would use Wikipedia as a great encyclopedia reference, but I would see these small superscripts that said "citation needed", and I would think, "What's this little thing? It's okay, I'll just ignore it." At that time, I didn't even know about citations. Now I know. So, good point, we can just leave it like that for the time being. Thanks! Friend 505 11:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Demographics" section

@Valereee: Hi, Valereee! I've made the Demographics section better. Please take a look. Also, the citation at the end of the paragraph is supposed to apply to the entire paragraph, so I put it at the end of the last sentence. Is that appropriate, or do I need to put that same citation there for each sentence in the paragraph section? Thanks! Friend 505 14:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend505, I think it's starting to look pretty good! So, based on your knowledge of the area, are there any glaring omissions? Is there anything about the area that isn't mentioned but should be? —valereee (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Do you think we need to include information about the Toronto Public Libray Steeles branch, located at 375 Bamburgh Circle, in the Bamburgh Gardens Shopping Plaza? I think we can mention it as a local library in the area. We can provide a link for List of Toronto Public Library branches. Do you think we need to include it? If you want to learn more information about it, you can take a look at the table provided in my article link, where there is a table entry for "Steeles". You can also visit the website of the TPL here: [2]. Thanks! Friend 505 18:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friend505, you could add it. —valereee (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Then where should I add it? In the part before the History section? Thanks! Friend 505 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd add it in either education or recreation —valereee (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Well, I was considering adding it as a sub-section in the Education section but you didn't leave a reply at the time when I added the information, so I created a new section here. Do you think it is appropriate? If not, feel free to move it as a sub-section into the "Education" section. If you had used the user mentioning template, I probably would have saw it on time and put it directly into the "Education" section. However, I don't think putting it into the Recreation section would be good. Thanks! Friend 505 22:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the Public library system section to the Education section, where I have placed it as a sub-section. Friend 505 00:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I think you may have done as much as you can. This article will now appear on your watchlist. Your watchlist is something you should check every day to see if any of the articles you're most familiar with have been edited. You can check those edits to make sure they're not vandalism. If you find clear vandalism on one of the pages you're watchlisting, revert it with an edit summary explaining that you feel the edit represented vandalism, and ping me to come take a look. If you find what you think might be vandalism but you aren't sure, ping me and I'll come take a look. —valereee (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: OK, thanks, Valereee! The article is in my watchlist. I will move on to other articles that need improvement. Thanks! Friend 505 14:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]