Talk:Toronto/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Toronto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

climate

There should be a climate graphic for Toronto, just as there are for Montreal, Ottawa or Vancouver.

Semi-Protected?

Why on Earth is this article semi-protected? Markex (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-protected to prevent unregistered users from vandalizing it, or adding unsourced info. Blackjays1 (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I had been responsible for posting this article in Request for page protection page, since before then, there had been many anti-Torontonian comments and unsourced changes to various statistics; I was frustrated then. Even with semi-protection, there have been many unsourced changes, as well as a minor edit war regarding the infobox image, but the anti-Torontonian comments became very rare. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is, would that still be an issue? I personally know a few people who don't have accounts that have and would like to make good-faith contributions to the article. Semi-protection often does more harm than good. Maybe we should unprotect it, and only if the vandalism gets to insane levels, protect it again. But as with Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory, we should give it some time. That article received crazy amounts of vandalism within a couple days which has since subsided. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How is one supposed to edit the page, then? How long has it been semi-protected? Maybe we can try to take it off for a day or two and see if the vandals return. Correct me if I'm wrong, but occasional edit-war are by no means a valid reason for semi-protection. And unsourced claims...well, that's why we continue editing articles on Wikipedia. It happens to probably 99% of Wikipedia articles and I doubt is a good reason to keep people from editing the page. I vote that the page is un-protected for a test-trial (maybe 2 days?) and if vandalism increases to more than 5% of edits, lock it again.Markex (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been semi-protected on and off for over a year protection log. Every time it is unprotected, it gets protected again shortly thereafter due to vandalism. It has been nearly a month since the most recent protection, so you could ask the protecting admin if he feels it is time to unprotect. It is unfortunate that persistent vandalism to high-profile articles like this blocks anon users from editing but there are the options of registering or making edit requests on the talk page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Pwnage8, there had been high amounts of vandalism on Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory, since it was a featured article and semi-protection could not be used unless vandalism were too rampant. Once, Harold Innis was on the main page, but I managed to have an admin protect it despite being a featured article, since vandalism was too rampant. Fortunately, Toronto is not yet a featured article. Until Toronto receives the designation of featured article, it will remain semi-protected. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

@DoubleBlue: It's been protected for almost a year now (since November 2007). The recent protection in August was move protection due to the Grawp "H A G G E R ?" page move vandalism. Totally unrelated to anon vandalism.

@Johnny Au: I can hardly see how semi-protection will help this to become a featured article. I mentioned in a section earlier that it's killed editing. Anons are the ones that come here to read the articles, and as such, are great at fixing typos and grammatical errors. These are the little things that aren't noticed. Let's give unprotection a shot. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree the article should be unprotected. Sprot since last November is ridiculous. The natural state of an en:wiki article is unprotected, "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is just that. It's on my watchlist and a lot of others. Move protection and Grawp are a different story, but the edit protection should be removed. Franamax (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct Pwnage8 that I didn't notice that the latest protection was simply an add-on and thus has been semi-protected since November. I don't disagree with removing it but neither do I hold out much hope of it not being persistently vandalised and re-protected again but going through the process is worth it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just posted at Maxim's page asking them to review the protection. I'm happy to help with the monitoring. Franamax (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I had requested unprotection. If vandalism flares up again, I may re-apply this article to semi-protection. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now unprotected, but move protection is still in place. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How about semi-protecting this article again?

Since unprotection, vandalism is making a comeback to November 2007 levels to the point that it would probably need semi-protection. This unprotection just does not work. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Three editors vandalizing an article within a couple days does not warrant semi-protection, especially since none of the vandalism has been anti-Torontonian. Just the regular content blanking and stupidness. The vandalism level right now is actually normal. We mustn't be knee-jerk about this. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Let us revisit this issue when it actually becomes an issue and not only according to myself. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 04:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Now there are four instances of IP vandalism since un-protection, but I would think that the other editors would hold the semi-protection until it becomes too much. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And if you want to become an admin, it would be in your best interest to do the same :) --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall hold off the urge to request for page protection if there is on average ten instances of vandalism per week or less. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently, there is an average of ten incidents of vandalism per week since unprotection. Should the article be semi-protected? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not the kind of vandalism it ended up being protected for. Considering it's been unprotected for less than two weeks it is inappropriate to bring up these kinds of statistics and contemplate protection. It looks as though you had to calculate that statistic, which leads me to believe that protection is not necessary. If the article receives innumerable amounts of vandalism to the point that it's getting disruptive, then protection could be looked at. Edits from registered users have been more disruptive in the past weeks than run-of-the-mill anon vandalism. Can we please keep the talk page discussions to how to improve the article? Since nobody made any strides towards getting this to FA in the time it was protected, reverting one instance of vandalism per day (if it gets to that level and only one user did so) wouldn't have that much of an effect. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is now semi-protected indefinitely, since there has been excessive amounts of vandalism since the last comment. Pwnage8, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, the prevention is semi-protection and the cure is blocking vandals; it also keeps the article clean and according to DoubleBlue, if IP contributors want to point out errors and/or add new information, they can freely use this discussion page. This may mean that it would take a very long time to improve it into a featured article, since these articles are not created in a very short time. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is semi-protected because you requested it to be so.[1] Creating an entire section on the talk page about vandalism only encourages the vandals. You are also responsible for protecting Canadian federal election, 2008 when it was not necessary.[2][3] You are too extreme about this, and often do not consider the consequences of what you are doing (ex. this talk page). This is borderline WP:POINT. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, how did this happen? I checked the history (which I've watched) on 09Oct and saw a rate of ~1.5 vandalisms/day, so I didn't comment after Pwnage8's request to focus on improving the article. Protecting for that amount of vandalism is oversensitive to the extreme. I regularly revert that on articles about fingernails and cutting hair (God knows how I got those on my watchlist, but they're on it now). I've also noticed the occasional good edit by IP's, so I'm not understanding where this is coming from at all. I've been watching and imo this is not excessive vandalism, it's -umm- Wikipedia. Disagree with this protection. Franamax (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting for unprotection. Yes, I have zero-tolerance on vandalism, as stated on my user page. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Brother, I'm singin' from the same songbook as you. I hate vandals and wish they would just go away. I have some books on my watchlist and you can regularly see when they start teaching the book - or at least you can tell when the kids get their study break where the computers are. 'Spart of our commitment to an open 'cyclo though - we have to accomodate the idiots driving by... Franamax (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"is one of the top financial cities in the world."

I live in Toronto, and although I'm proud of it, that specific quote in the very opening paragraphs is, imho, hyperbole. Both references are based on the exact same MasterCard study, and the MasterCard study's inputs in deciding ranking was more along the lines of "factor in future growth, cost of living, etc etc".

"one of the top" to me means "in the top 5". It's not. It's #13 (currently, or tied for #10 with 3 other cities if you read Forbes carefully). And it's not "top financial cities", but rather "best", where best is a list of criteria decided by MasterCard.

Toronto is a lot better than the statistics say because they look at metro Toronto and not the greater horseshoe area which would be considered the metro area in the US and Australia. In that area Toronto has over 8 million people a gdp almost the same as Chicago and a per capita gdp that is almost the same as London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be more accurate to say something like "is the financial capital of Canada and one of the 20 best financial cities in the world". The references clearly support a statement like that.

CraigWyllie (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC) , being as Canadian as possible, under the circumstances...

Nicknames

The Big Smoke, Toronto the Good, T-Dot???? Seriously?
Lived there for a decade and never heard those. How about t'rana? Now THAT I heard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talk • contribs)

‘The Big Smoke’ is mostly used by people outside Toronto to refer to it; ‘Toronto the Good’ is a bit antiquated these days, and now used mostly to refer to the city as it used to be. ‘T-dot’ I haven’t heard, but it sounds like someone’s attempt to be ‘cool’, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were real.

‘T’rana’ I would say is more a (exaggerated) pronunciation than a nickname. David Arthur (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with DavidArthur. There's slightly more info at Name of Toronto, though that article is in a perpetual state of requiring attention. I believe T-dot (and similar monikers) derived from the music scene, probably hip-hop or the like. Mind matrix 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was sort of joking about 't'rana'. I am going to zap T-dot and see who reverts. I can't imagine even .00001% of Torontonians knowing of that one.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried that before - there are persistent editors who want it in there, though, and they'll likely revert it soonish. Mind matrix 16:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

They'll need a good reason to keep it there. T-dot?? Some obscure citation won't do the trick. A nickname has to be something more than what some reporter heard from some guy who heard it from his auntie. T-dot is as real as Kaiser Sauze. (...which is a good name to page at the airport, by the way. It really freaks people out.)

I agree with some of the comments above - these nickname sections tend to attract the worst kind of spam, WP:OR and nonsense. Having said that, I'm a 39-year old corporate lawyer (I.e. hardly a member of the city's hip hop community), and even I have heard T-dot used extensively. Heck, even those tourist ads the City produced post-SARS mentioned something along the lines of "welcome to the T-dot" at one point. I'm not saying that the nickname doesn't need to be properly referenced, or that we shouldn't stick to nicknames that have some sort of mainstream recognition, but if someone were to do the work I strongly suspect that T-dot would make the cut, references to Kaiser Sauze notwithstanding. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't misunderstand what I wrote; I've heard "t-dot" and the like for a few years, and have even seen it in print. Unfortunately, these sparse mentions aren't sufficient to qualify them as citations in this case. On the other hand, "the big smoke" is mentioned often enough on local television news broadcasts that it ought to be considered "well-known" at this point, and "Muddy York" et al have sufficient media coverage, only requiring us to dig up these refs. I'm sure we'll eventually have them for t-dot too, but not yet. (The most prominent source I've found so far, other than hip-hop lyrics, is an Eye Weekly column.) Mind matrix 01:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Muddy York" and "Toronto the Good" are nicknames used in JMS Careless' book Toronto to 1918: An Illustrated History (1984, reprinted in 2002), published by Lorimer. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to the others offhand, but there is a current play called Toronto the Good[4]. -Dhodges (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I dug a little and it seems that all the nicknames are good except T-Dot, which only really appears in the Urban dictionary. I suggest we leave it the way it is and if anyone wants to put T-Dot back in then we laugh at that person for being un-cool.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Do you people even live in Toronto? I've lived here 10 years, everyone calls it T-Dot, where do you think that comes from? You put T.O. as a nickname, that's where the T dot comes from the start of that. Who calls it Toronto the Good?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.2.228 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlike T-Dot, Toronto the Good is sourced. See JMS Careless's book Toronto to 1918: An Illustrated History (1984, reprinted in 2002), published by Lorimer for a mention of Toronto the Good. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So everyone calls it one thing and it doesn't count, then one guy makes up a term in a book that no one has heard of and that makes it valid very funny. Whatever very funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.2.228 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't know the history, doesn't make it untrue. It has long been known as Toronto the Good, though it certainly refers to an earlier age when there were many bylaws on things like Sunday activities and alcohol. Oh, and JMS Careless ain't just some guy. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling JMS Careless some guy can be considered insulting. He is a professor emeritus in history at the University of Toronto. Two of his other books won the Governor General's Award. In other words, he is a distinguished researcher, despite his unfortunate surname. 70.27.2.228, please do some research and make use of the ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"T-dot" appears in the 2002 Shawn Desman song "Get Ready", from his self-titled album, but I don't think he originated it. It's also used for this performing arts outreach project, this anti-smoking group, in the title of this music column from 2006, and this Star column from 2008. If you want a published book with the nickname, I don't have one, but Google does return over 400 000 hits for "t-dot toronto", which shows to me that there's some currency to the nickname. —Silly Dan _(talk) 14:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fan of hip-hop music (including the local scene), and I first heard the term "T-dot" back in 2000 when Kardinal Offishall released "BaKardi Slang". The oldest song that uses the term, that I know of, is "Much Love" by Ghetto Concept (1996). Blackjays1 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also note that the term "T-dot" is used in the "You belong here" commercial produced by the City of Toronto's SARS recovery task force in 2003. There seems to be sufficient sources to demonstrate that the usage of the nickname is not sparse, and is recognizable in the mainstream. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm utterly mystified by the notion that "T-Dot" is obscure and unattested; it's one of the most common nicknames I actually encounter for Toronto in daily usage in 2009. Names like Big Smoke, Hogtown, Muddy York and Toronto the Good are all outdated historicisms that people simply don't actually use much anymore; T-Dot is completely current. I'd be exaggerating if I claimed that I hear it every day, but I certainly hear it far more frequently than any name other than "T.O." or "Toronto" itself.

Want examples?

The background on it is that it originally grew out of hip hop, where the rhythm and pacing of the lyrics generally lends itself to a city's name being abbreviated or nicknamed more often than being referred to in full. And, of course, the fact that it started off within a black cultural community goes a long way toward explaining why some people ignore or dismiss it or never heard it in the first place. But it most certainly does exist, and it most certainly has bling blinged its way into wider mainstream consciousness. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bearcat, I don't think anyone was disputing the term's current use (at least, I wasn't); rather, we didn't find many references. We now have a fairly good example of usage, but still no third-party discussion of t-dot itself (ethnocultural or linguistic research, etc.). These are more than sufficient to use for a Wiktionary entry, and I'll look into updating Name of Toronto at some point with these sources. (BTW: I don't think tdot.ca is a valid source, given it's an acronym, though likely a backronym or retronym to fit "t-dot".) Come to think of it, look at a term such as retronym, first coined in 1980 but only now being used with any frequency; t-dot is following the same track. Mind matrix 20:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the discussion did start off with a "never heard of it!", FWIW... Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I also hear T-dot a great deal these days. Here are a couple of references I could find for it being a current nickname:

"Over the years, let's see, Toronto has been known as "Hogtown," "The Big Smoke," "T-dot," and "T.O." ("Toronto's more than just a motto." Vinay Menon. Toronto Star. Jan 27, 2009. pg. A.2)
"During the last few years, the T-dot [hip-hop slang for "Toronto"] scene has really started to mature," ("It's Offishall: Toronto's hip;" Jeff Breithaupt. National Post.Jun 9, 2001. pg. W.4)

- SimonP (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to the story from the Toronto Star: Toronto's more than just a motto

The NP story doesn't seem to be online. Mind matrix 13:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a poll or something, how many people here over the age of 30 are the ones contesting that T-Dot is a valid name? You're all fighting to keep "Toronto the Good" and these old names that are found in dusty text books. Spend a day in a highschool or university, T-Dot is used all the time even on CityTV and CTV news. If someone were to ask me what the biggest Toronto nick name is I'd immediately say T-Dot. "The big smoke" is so generic, you can use that term for any large city. The funny thing is you have T.O. as a nickname, where do you think T dot comes from??? The T. in the T.O.! When have you ever heard someone say oh I'm from T dot O dot??? It's just T-Dot, get the facts right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.15.45 (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We use consensus instead of voting on Wikipedia. Holding polls would violate the no original research policy. Last thing, please sign every comment that you made with four tildes at the end. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 04:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I find it a little strange the debate here over the validity of nicknames, especially when the people spearheading it are so clearly out to lunch on the actual nicknames in common currency. I agree 100 percent with the other exasperated readers who, like me, live in Toronto and are well aware of the ubiquity of "T-Dot" and "T.O." and feel a bit strange that the rather archaic "Toronto the Good" gets more play in this discussion simply because it there is an academic imprint behind it. In the context of nicknames, aren't hip hop recordings, street slang and common parlance exactly the kind of information we're trying to gather? And don't get me started on "The Centre of the Universe," (mentioned below) which also to Canadians and Torontonians is a familiar and widely understood nickname, and which was dismissed with a snide "Me thinks not" from a Wikipedian who thinks she knows better... Remotedevice (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also well-known that Toronto was rated as the most multicultural city by UNESCO; that's patently false. This is why we request citations for the claims. One editor may have dismissed the claim, but others were simply asking for proof, even having stated that they knew of the term and had heard it. Street slang and urban dictionaries are usable sources for Wiktionary, but not Wikipedia. Anyway, the discussion is moot now, since quite a few sources have been listed - not all of them are acceptable, but we should have enough for proper referencing. Mind matrix 12:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Building on all this, I've added "The Centre of the Universe" to the nicknames section. This appelation is more or less ubiquitously applied to Toronto by Canadians; and while some sensitive Torontonians may find it derogatory, it is also embraced by citizens there as a commonly understood reference to the city's prominence and economic/cultural significance in the Canadian landscape. I contend that if this page is going to include "Toronto the Good," which at one time was also seen as somewhat derogatory (ie, as being a reference to the city's once-oppressive drinking laws and sunday shopping bans), then the page should also include "The Centre of the Universe," which is a far more relevant term in contemporary Canada. BTW, a Google search for "The Centre of the Universe"+Toronto yields over 15,000 hits... Remotedevice (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

JMS Careless has his own article if anyone is curious about him. As mentioned earlier, he wrote a book and mentioned "Toronto the Good" in it. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Centre of the Universe should be included, because if you say to the average Canadian: "I'm going to the centre of the universe" they know where you are going. You're going to Toronto. People from Toronto my not like it but that's what everybody else out side of Toronto will refer it to. just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.22.11 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a source for this, right? -t'shaél^chat 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

yes I do: Centre_of_the_Universe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.22.11 (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't referencing a Wikipedia article in support of an entry on another Wikipedia article kind of... umm... circular? I live in Toronto now, but I lived outside it for 75% of my life so far (in Moncton, NB), and I never ever heard anyone say "I'm going to the Centre of the Universe" in reference to a trip to Toronto. 207.112.125.151 (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, ironically, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Also there was no reference backing up the statement in that article, so I've removed it.DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Toronto Parks

Would be there any interest to start a section about Toronto Parks? For example, I would like to donate few articles about it. If there any interest, I would like to ask for help in adopting these articles to Wikipedia standards. I just want to avoid publishing something that is not interesting to any one.

Thanks a lot, March 19, 2009 User:DreamGYM —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

Have you seen List of Toronto parks? You can start from there, either expanding current articles or creating new ones. Judging from your few edits here, I assume you intend to add these articles to Wikipedia - no articles currently exist for those parks. Please note that all content will have to be licenced using the GNU Free Documentation License, so that anyone may use it for any purpose, including for profit. (By submitting the works, you implicitly agree to this.) If you need help with formatting, style, or other issues, I can help out. Mind matrix 14:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New photos

There has been a concern regarding the photos User:Guyfrombronx has uploaded and inserted into Canadian articles. A number of fellow editors have found that Guyfrombronx has not obtained or failed to properly show the licensing required to use these images on Wikipedia or the Commons. The photos are primarily from Flickr.com and from several photographers. We also have not been able to determine if all the photos are from Flickr and could be from other sources. Due to these facts we are inclined to believe that he has obtained these images illegally and have removed them from Wikipedia articles as per WP:COPYRIGHT. Until we have confirmation that such permission to use these photos under a Common license has been granted by each photographer we will continue to remove the images. Attempts have been made to contact Guyfrombronx, and it appears they have been unsuccessful. Mkdw ^talk 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, first comment on wiki so hopefully this works. Can someone put a better picture of City Hall and Nathan Phillips square up? That photo is atrocious. It almost makes me think that whoever put it up hates the square (as some do) and wants to show it's ugly, concrete side (which is does have to some degree). However, on any given day there are usually a lot of people in the square, either skating in the winter, or at some sort of exhibition in the summer (where there are also leaves on the trees, making the concrete seem a bit less onerous). I'll try to get around to taking a pic, but I lost my camera recently, so in the meantime if anyone has one, please do swap them. Thx. Duke of Curl (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate Data

So several editors keep changing the climate data, recorded in The Annex, to data recorded at Pearson Airport. Pearson Airport is not in Toronto, but in Missassauga and weather information gathered there isn't quite that relevant to the article on Toronto. Data collected in The Annex seems as good a place as any to gather the data from for the city of Toronto. Canterbury Tail talk 02:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the data again to the sourced version stated on the page. Data taken at Pearson, and especially unsourced data from Pearson, is not a substitute for data taken from an Environment Canada source for a site within the city of Toronto. Canterbury Tail talk 11:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the recent news stories on late spring frost in the GTA, many of which noted that there can be a difference of a few degrees between central Toronto and parts of the city north of the 401, I would have to agree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

-40c: I will look for another source to put there, probally Downsview Airport would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by -40c (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If The Annex isn't reliable, for one reason or another, I'd try and get one for near the centre of the city, not that far north. Temperature differences occur even between the 401 and downtown and snowfall is considerably different. I think somewhere as close to the actual centre of the city would be best, not on the outskirts. For example down by the harbourfront gets about considerably less snowfall as even as close as Eglington. Canterbury Tail talk 11:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a fact that there are temperature deiffrences between Downtown Toronto and the Northern suburbs like Woodbridge,Richmond Hill, Markham,Thornhill etc.---40c (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Collage

This article needs a collage on the infobox like most world city articles. It should be able to show most of Toronto's landmarks, such as the city's skyline, Hockey Hall of Fame, Art Gallery of Ontario, Dundas Square, a streetcar, the Scarborough Bluffs, Eaton Center, and any other great places. I'll try making one, unless someone is already making it. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 13:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to discourage you, but please see the discussion above under the "Infobox picture" heading. There is no consensus at the moment to use a montage in the infobox. That doesn't mean there will never be consensus, but I wanted to give you a heads up. Perhaps if you make a great montage, you will win people over. However, don't be surprised or disappointed if you do not find sufficient support to use your montage in the infobox. I should also point out to you that there is a wide consensus here that the infobox image should not be changed without first having a discussion on this talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't see that. Thanks for the heads up! Eelam StyleZ (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Education

This sentenance is in contridiction with the wiki page for the University of Toronto.

"In nearby Oshawa, usually considered part of the Greater Toronto Area, are Durham College and the new University of Ontario Institute of Technology, while Halton Region is home to Sheridan College and a campus of the University of Toronto."

There is no campus of UofT in Halton Region. The western campus of the UofT is in Mississauga which is part of the Regional Municipality of Peel. Sheridan College also has a campuses in Halton (Oakville) and Peel (Brampton)Regions.

Rehfer (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We could just refer to the primary source. Campuses at St.George, Mississauga and Scarborough. Nothing in Durham or Halton. Mind matrix 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Photo

Hello everyone. I just want to make a suggestion that we should change the photo of the Toronto skyline in the infobox to a photo collage. The current photo is not that great, and because of its small size you can barely identify the buildings in the skyline. It would be better if we replace it with a collage of city landmarks, similar to the pictures of these city articles: Chicago, Washington DC, New York City, Los Angeles. For the Toronto collage we could have photos like the CN Tower, Skydome, Royal York Hotel, Museums, Business Center, city hall, etc. Thank You, Bakersdozen77 (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the same post above. We had a lengthy discussion on this topic. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods section

In that section it says that Kensington Market is in the 'east or west' of the downtown. This is inaccurate. Kensington Market is almost smack dab in the middle of downtown. Schnerg (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your defintion of downtown really. A common western boundary for downtown is Bathurst Street, which would put Kensington on the western edge. - SimonP (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And most definitions of downtown that I hear are defined as the area inside Bloor, Yonge, Front and Spadina, which would put Kensington Market to the west of downtown. Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While there is no official definition of downtown that applies in all instances, I note that Toronto's Official Plan defines downtown from a planning perspective as extending to Bathurst in the West, to the Waterfront in the south, to the Don Valley in the East and (interestingly) to Rosedale Valley Road/the rail corridor north of Dupont in the north. But even under that expansive, forward-looking definition of downtown, Kensington is still on its western perimetre rather than being "smack dab" in the middle. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Montage (Check this out)

Sorry to bring this up again, but I think many are concerned about the current photo this article has. Giving Toronto it's own montage would let it live up to its counterpart city articles. I know there was already a conversation here about it, but pardon me, I don't wish to read through all of that. I have created a montage and I was wondering if anybody would be interested in using it for this article's infobox. The image can be found here. Please provide any suggestions.

Also, if there are any disagreements or if a consensus has already been made about the current infobox photo, it would be nice if someone could just summarize it here right now, rather than refering to the lengthy convo above. Apparently, there is no concensus made about it yet. Thanks!. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I hate to represent Toronto with the fleet of czar Miller's regime... Also, there is nothing to show the environmental aspects of Toronto. I'd suggest switching the centre or centre-right picture (Kind of a bad angle of Y&D square, really crowded picture) with one of the pictures of the ravines from List of Toronto parks (Personally I think the picture of the rouge valley highlights the opposite extreme of the downtown skyline and would go perfect)

I think the image looks pretty good. One important thing is that you should make sure the image description page links to the original photographs so that their creators get proper credit. I like the selection of images, and I think the Scarbrough Bluffs one shows enough of the city's nature. I might consider going down to four images in the lower portion, as six makes them a bit too small. I agree with Floydian that the Dundas Square one is one of the ones that could go. - SimonP (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's beautiful but I don't see it's better to have a montage in the infobox than a skyline. As it stands, the montage would be far too big and disrupt the rest of the article and the elements of the montage are or should be represented within sections of the article. A simple skyline shot illustrating the city seems illustrative enough for the infobox with details to follow below. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we would resize it to keep the same width of the infobox. A quick look at other alpha cities, such as New York City, Mexico City, London, Tokyo (Just below the infobox) and Moscow will show you that its pretty much the norm. A skyline does little to nothing to give the reader a visual of the city's culture. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the skyline image shows just Downtown Toronto, however, others claim North York and Scarborough city centres to be secondary downtowns in Toronto. Toronto is a large city and there are notable landmarks scattered throughout the city. Also, I agree with the picture angle of Dundas Square, but this is just a prototype, so I'll try to make or find a better view of it. As with nature, I chose the bluffs as the best example (shows land, cliffs and Lake Ontario). Any other suggestions for change in design? Eelam StyleZ (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll swing by Bluffer's Park in a few days and get a better photo to highlight the natural aspects of the area, rather than the height of the cliffs. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks! Eelam StyleZ (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed on the whole montage vs. no montage debate. I do, however, believe that there should be clear consensus before making any switch, given the past discussions. As for the proposed montage itself, it's the best one that has been put forward to date. However, the photo of Dundas Square isn't the best one we have - the first things that jump out at me in that photo are the garbage bin, pylon and fire hydrant, and the square itself seems secondary to the sidewalk elements and the buildings in the background (in fact, I am not entirely sure why we'd even include Yonge Dundas Square in the first place - surely there are other more prominent landmarks for which we have been photos at the Commons). I also note that the streetcar shot features a now demolished facade of the AGO - we should try and find something more current. Second, and this is just me nagging at this point, but all montages (even prototypes) should be uploaded at the Commons (there is a category - Commons:Category:Montages of Toronto), rather than being uploaded locally -- doing do allows the image to be used by other projects and eliminates the hassle of someone else having to transfer it to the Commons eventually anyway. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't know there was a whole portal for this there. I agree with the suggestions about YDS image. I'll find something that makes it look better soon, or, anyone can suggest a replacement for it--a better Toronto landmark. I'll use the ideas to make another one and upload it at Wikimedia Commons. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

These montage suggestions have dragged on for far too long. Four points to summarize:

First, somebody really should take the montage vs skyline issue up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities for a long, complete, Wikipedia-wide debate. I suspect by the end of the debate we will have one single Wikipedia-wide standard that puts an end to this stupid montage fad once and for all. Better to have one real discussion there than having this issue pop up here every other week.
From past discussion, no montage supporter has given a convincing, logical, well articulated reason why skyline picture is not suitable. All I ever hear is something along the lines of "OMG we have to has a MONTAGE for all the pretty pretty colors and picutures!!!" I'm sorry but pretty decoration is not a good enough reason. The creator of this latest montage says he's too lazy to bother reading the past discussions. Well, it will be a good idea for him to do so because it's the same non-reason over and over again. There's nothing wrong with things as it is.
The quality of this particular montage is just terrible, especially if you compare with the professional-looking montages for Chicago, New York, London, etc. This looks like something done in MS Paint. And as others have said, not only are the photos' quality poor, the selections are equally bad. There is nothing iconic (except the skyline photo itself), nothing historic, nothing cultural in those photos. That's the problem with montages, they only create more debate, more controversy over what to include and what not to include. And if 7 pictures is already a mess, what's stopping the next guy from using 10 or 20? Montages don't add anything new that can't be accomplished by the photos in the article itself.
One single iconic photo on its own is enough to identify the city, and that is the only real valid purpose, not pretty decoration. Look at articles for famous cities like Paris, San Francisco, Shanghai, Sydney, Montreal, Vancouver, etc. The Toronto skyline instantly identifies Toronto, there's no need for anything else. This is an encyclopedia not a travel guide. Most cities in Wikipedia use just a skyline picture.

Those are the points that I wanted to make. 209.195.109.145 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New York City, Mexico City, London, Moscow, Singapore, Istanbul, Geneva, Kuala Lumpur, Buenos Aires, Mumbai, Brussels, Seoul, Los Angeles, Chicago, Tokyo (an exception that is below the infobox, but the infobox does not contain a skyline), etc etc etc. That is only looking through the Alpha global cities, and a few recognizable Beta cities. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you for briefly but boldly making these points clear. It was a lot easier for me to read these instead of that lengthy conversation up there. My suggestion for a montage was so that Toronto could match articles such as London, New York City, etc. It would be hard to get those cities to just have their skylines up but wouldn't necessarily hurt to have a montage for the Toronto article. Of course it would be helpful if Wikipedia made a new rule to just have primary skylines on city infoboxes and no montages (or vice versa). If skyline is what everyone wants the most then it shall be so. FYI, the montage was made with Adobe Photoshop, despite its quality. It wasn't even meant to be the one for uploading anyway, hence was just a prototype. Once suggestions came along, a better one would be made. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A skyline is enough. Any more than that would constitute clutter. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the naysayers. About half the city article have a skyline and half a montage. Any argument asserting that "Other cities do it" is invalid. While some of the photo's are indeed switchable, most are fine. The skyline, TSX, bluffs, and city hall all highlight various aspects of the city. Other things to include may be: Roy Thompson Hall, AGO, ROM, UofT, Skydome, Toronto Islands, Royal York Hotel, and many more —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs)

It does not appear that there is any consensus at this point to use a montage in the infobox. That doesn't mean that the interested parties shouldn't continue to work on one if they wish, but simply that we need a clear consensus before one is used in the article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point there isn't consensus either way, which on wikipedia means be bold, make the edit, and let someone else clean it up if they object to it that much. I count 3 (eelam, SimonP, and I) editors vs 2 (Double blu and yourself), perhaps 3 editors against (I say two, because Johnny Au only made a redundant point that can be easily dealt with when choosing the size of the picture in the infobox, and claiming it as clutter is a fallacy when half the cities on wikipedia use montages), as well as two anonymous IP's who I feel have made genuine points that should be considered, but shouldn't count towards consensus if they aren't willing to put an identifiable username behind those comments. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Toronto Nationals

The Toronto Nationals won their first championship this year (2009; their inaugural season I might add) and should be reflected in the Toronto Sports Teams table.

Mjones242 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Topography

Thank you for your article.

elevation differences range from 75 metres (246 ft) above-sea-level at the Lake Ontario shore to 270 m (886 ft) ASL near the York University grounds in the city's north end.

According to [5],

highest point is 209 m (at intersection of Steeles Ave West and Keele St).

This is confirmed by Google Earth. However if there are more acurate data that would be helpful.

Thank you. With respect, Immi1234 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)immi1234

Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture for the infobox

I changed the picture of the Infobox from

to

The reasons for the new picture are obvious:

The old pic has a smaller resolution
The new pic has a clearer view of the city, there are no trees hiding the view

– Wladyslaw (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the lighting is much better in this second shot. The original has too much of a haze. The angle also creates a much better and ominous perspective. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the first picture is better at exemplifying the skyline of the city. Shows it's by a lake, the second could be by a river. Also shows more of the skyline, illustrates the islands in front of it, and provides more depth to the city. It clearly shows many of the cities landmarks in one photo (CN Tower, Roger's Centre and First Canadian Place.) Plus it's in the daytime. While the second may be a more artistic and visually pleasing photo, that isn't the point of the infobox picture. Canterbury Tail talk 00:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparing night verse day solely on the that basis and not on the effects it has on the photo means squat. It does not matter if it is a night shot or a day shot if the night shot is clearer, nor does it really matter that the first photo shows more water (It doesn't necessarily convey that its a lake in doing so), but to counter that, it also gives the impression that the trees (Which are on the islands) are part of the main land, and that the skyline doesn't front onto the water. I also have to disagree that the first photo shows more landmarks, as the second essentially shows an equal amount of the landmarks you listed. Personally I'd like to see it as a montage, as our city has too many features to sum up with a simple city skyline. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comparing them on the basis of night and day. I believe the first shot gives a more representative view of the skyline, shows the relative heights of the different buildings and the spread of downtown. The second shot is taken at an angle that results in no conveyance of height or scale. The two towers on Spadina appear to be the same height or taller than the buildings of downtown. The Rogers Centre is almost totally obscured and no one not really familiar with Toronto would be able to pick out First Canadian Place. It shows no distinct financial centre, which is immediately obvious from the first shot, and in general doesn't do a good job of illustrating the skyline.. In fact the condos of CityPlace seem more prominent than the rest of the city. Yes it's a great shot, no doubting that, I just don't believe it serves well as an infobox picture to illustrate the city. All in all I believe it's a very bad perspective to use as a skyline photo as it really doesn't illustrate the skyline very well. Canterbury Tail talk 01:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You make a point. Perhaps we can agree that neither photo is all that amazing, and that a photo from the front of the islands, or above them, would accomplish so much more. A photo from the opposite side from the top of a tall building about 2-4km out from the city centre might work as well, showcasing the lake in the background, rather than the foreground. (On a side note, there's a bar at the top of the Manulife centre at Bay and Bloor that has a nice open-air observation deck. Amazing view) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have shoots from the middle of Toronto Islands too (day and night). There is no reason to keep an old skyline picture with obvious poor quality. – Wladyslaw (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well lets have a look and we can discuss them. If something better comes along then I'm all for changing the image. I have a few I may be able to dig out. I have some aerial ones as well, but they fail my own points above due to the angle and perspective. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I got a couple nice shots from the lookout point at the Brickworks, and the DVP lookout just north of the Bloor Viaduct that I'll upload. I don't feel they're taken high enough to get everything in the picture. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit:

While this is clearly not encyclopedic, I believe this might be the perfect vantage point. First Canadian Place towers over everything else, the skydome is slightly visible, possibly the best you'll get of it with how much crap blocks it now.

Here's the angle from The Don Valley Lookout on Chester Hill Rd. As you can see, it shows the buildings off well, but the lake isn't visible, nor is the Skydome.

Heres the Toronto.com website for the Panorama, the bar I mentioned earlier. There's a shot of the view from there on the page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

While I think this is a great discussion, I just wanted to remind everyone that there is a consensus that the infobox image not be changed until there is agreement to do so here on the talk page. Some time ago, the infobox was a revolving door of various images, which numerous editors unilaterally changing the image based on what their own opinions of what constituted better images. There is a reason why the infobox contains wikitext asking editors not to change the image absent consensus - it's to avoid the image edit wars. Having said all that, I am not wedded to the current image, and I hope you guys can reach agreement on a new one. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pics

I have no intention of changing it myself, just making suggestions.

Here's a perfect angle, but bad lighting. This photo, taken at the same time of day and in the same conditions as Wladyslaw's photo, would get my vote in a heartbeat.

Some more:

Every one of these is 1000% better than the current photo IMO. They'd obviously need some cropping here and there, but you get the idea. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be for one of those last two. The others have too many niggling things to stop them to my mind (not covering enough skyline, bad angles or lighting.) However those last two are really good at showing the city with a preference for the aerial one. In fact, thinking further, I don't like the one from last due to the angle as it condenses the financial centre together too much. Further east and it would have been perfect. Canterbury Tail talk 16:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, the comment about getting consensus wasn't directed at you.

Good selection of images. I'd be happy with 4, 5, 6 or 7. 1 is a little too dark (2 as well, but not as much), and 3 doesn't contain enough of the skyline (besides the CN tower and Rogers Centre, it's mostly just Cityplace). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just add that 7 is really interesting because it contains all the traditional skyline elements, but from a completely different angle. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot more in commons:category:Skyline of Toronto. Personally I'm looking at ones that are informative but also artistic. The point of the infobox image isn't to say "Here are our tallest buildings in clear light", its to sum the city up. For that reason I like the third from bottom the best. I think the last shot has by far the best and most revealing angle though, its just kinda... bleh, in terms of the sky and the lighting. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You appear to like the night shots. 5 is the most vibrant. Last time around, there was a lot of resistance to using a night shot (although those comments have yet to surface this time around). Personally, I think encyclopedic value is as important as the quality of the image -- 7 has a better balance of those two qualities, in my opinion, but 5 is fine too. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

7 seems to pack in the most information: lake-side site, harbour, CBD, major landmarks; the only problems with it, to me, are that a) it's got a washed-out 1980s look to it (though I know it was taken about 6 months ago), and b) as a Torontonian, I know this is the "ass-end" of the city. So, that said, 6 has merit in that it presents the "front" of the city, shows major landmarks, waterfront, CBD, and even a Canadian flag. The rest are, I think, either too dark or too narrow in view. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Number 6 appears to be the current consensus. I agree with it, its got some flair, but its very clear and has just the right subject matter. Number 7 can be modified to remove the brightness towards the sky. I disagree with the 'ass end' idea however, as it shows the isalnd and the lake in the background clearly, as well as Y&D square to the left, and the skyline in the centre. Should we change it to number 6 though? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's just it: with the Islands and the lake in the background, we're clearly looking at the "back" of Toronto; the city very much has a "front", and that's the side that faces the lake. (Hence, many buildings - Osgoode Hall, old and new City Hall, the Legislative Assembly Building, Upper Canada College, & etc., have their main facades looking south, most with accompanying axial boulevards running towards the lake.) Nonetheless, though I feel a similar image looking from the opposite direction would be ideal, it's really a minor point. If 7 was selected, I certainly would not object. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it again, 7 has more merit than I earlier listed: it also shows the city's flat terrain, the typical North American rectilinear grid layout, the orientation of that grid vis-à-vis the lake... 6 is compositionally superior, but I uphold my earlier position with more strength: 7 holds the most visual information about Toronto. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good points (the last few posts). I believe I prefer 7, but 6 is good too. Would we want to crop some of the water from 6? Disagree that 7 is ass-backwards, and I'm not sure that the more muted tones are a negative (I kind of like it) but agree with Miesianiacal's points about the visual information. Is anyone good with graphics software that could play around a bit with 7? I checked out the Commons, but Floydian picked the most obvious candidates. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Number 6 should be cropped so the waterline lies on the first horizontal third. Number 7 just needs some slight contrast adjustments. I'll fiddle with them later tonight if someone hasn't taken to the challenge already. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hokey dokey, I've made some modifications to the images. Image 6 is just a crop, image 7 has been scrutinized pretty heavily. I darkened the CN tower significantly, as well as most of the buildings to the right of it. The sky has been given more colour. The whole picture overall has also been darkened and saturated slightly to bring out more colour and less white.

Thoughts? I think this makes 7 much more appealing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Personally, I prefer the original 7 to the modified 7 (it looks more natural). But that's just me. Since we're really just getting into personal subjective preferences at this point, so I would happily defer to others as to which version to use. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so it seems there is a clear consensus with 6 and 7... The question is which one, and which version?

My preference in the second version of picture 6, with the second version of picture 7 a very close second. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the revised #7 on my laptop today, as opposed to my old desktop monitor which I was using the other day (which made the sky look kind of greenish), my thoughts on revised #7 have changed. I'd say, then, that I prefer revised #7, on the basis that it shows more elements of downtown Toronto (and, thus, arguably has more encyclopedic value). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Both #6 and the revised #7 are poor choices--way too dark. The problem with #6 is the sunset distorts the true colours of the buildings and surroundings, while the problem with #7 is again the lighting and also the uncommon northward view. The skyline picture should be taken in natural sunlight in the middle of the day for the best clarity and visual impact. Also, the lakefront skyline is the most recognizable view that identifies Toronto.

I propose File:Toronto skyline and waterfront.jpg (#8), which is a standard lakefront shot, displaying true colours, taken in midday and very similar to the existing photo, making it much better than any of the choices above. It is beautiful and in high resolution, and shows the most typical Toronto skyline view from the lake. Remember, this is an encyclopedia and we should aim for the clearest and most widely-recognized representation of the Toronto skyline, which is a daytime lakefront view. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The darkness is probably based on your monitor, there's a test on commons somewhere that lets you check that (If you do not know of it I'll try and find it for you. Both photos are more than bright, the original copy of #7 is too bright! The photo you have selected has the city obscured by the islands, giving the impression that there is a kilometre or two of parkland before the city begins. Whether the photo is most recognizable or not does not really matter, as most people outside of Canada will not recognize Toronto. #7 has an angle that shows far more information about the city than a simple front facing skyline does, and the information is what is most important to an encyclopedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll simply disagree with the argument and leave it at that; More buildings is not more information, and it's not useful information if the representation is poor. And there isn't really more information if the pictures themselves are taken at night, at sunset or in bad lighting. I am in favour of a lakefont view that provides by far the most typical representation, which should be the most important factor for an encyclopedia. I don't see how any of the pictures #1-7 are better looking than the current picture, but if a new picture is needed then I am supporting #8. But since there's nothing wrong with the current image to begin with, maybe it's better to leave it alone. Jphillips23 (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Number 6 by far presents a more typical view, is not obscured by the islands, is during the day, and has a Canadian flag to boot. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Jphillips's suggestion that we need to be using a "standard" or "typical" representation of the skyline -- there is no requirement that the infobox image be a postcard cliché. ~~In fact,~~ the fact that it is not the same old lakeview, yet still contains representations or a number of key skyline elements, is one of the primary appeals of #7 in my view. As for the image quality debate among the main contenders, at this point it's just a subjective matter of opinion. If not #7, then I am happy with either 6 or 8. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Given what seems to be a pretty clear consensus, I'm going to try the second #7 and see if it draws any criticism in to the talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(accidentally deleted) I'm fine with that. Canterbury Tail talk 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: After a preview, I'm going to use the unmodified version, slightly cropped. The modified version is indeed too dark at such a small resolution. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a "pretty clear consensus" for #7, given there were only three or so editors that said they liked #6, 7, 8 or all three. And we shouldn't force ourselves into choosing from among the new pictures under the illusion that the current picture even needs to be replaced. Aside from User:Floydian, there isn't really a strong desire for another picture. Jphillips23 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a clear consensus in that the majority have agreed (Only you have outright disagreed to all the choices besides 8). I can see three editors (myself included) who continue to vye for a new picture, and with good reason: The current pic, just as much as your replacement, has the city obscured by trees. There are few to no trees at the foot of the lakefront, and that view is terrible. The arguments for it staying are often rhetoric, such as "it doesn't look good" or its "not the normal angle" (that Torontonian's are used to looking at on the 6 o'clock news). Liking 6 or 7 is shared by most editors, only you support 8 on its own (which is the same photo as the one in the infobox, semantics aside). I chose 7 to try it out in hopes that changing it would bring more discussion into here, and given the arguments in its favour (Remember, WP:NOTAVOTE). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I count you as supporter of #6 and 7, me as supporter of #8 and User:Skeezix1000 stating any of the three are fine. There is no consensus among the three editors no matter how you you count it, and you seem to be steamrolling ahead. Your reasons for replacing it ("that view is terrible") is purely subjective and not shared by other editors. Also, #6, 7 and your other pictures all suffer from poor lighting, which has been mentioned by several other editors here. From this discussion it is clear that you are the only one who is pushing to replace the existing picture.

Per WP:BRD you should have left the existing picture alone after your edit was reverted by User:PhilthyBear the first time, which demonstrates lack of consensus. You should not have engaged in further edit warring after that revert.Jphillips23 (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the picture needs changing and also that #7 is the most suitable replacement. The original pic isn't suitable for the infobox, it's too obscured, #7 gives a much more detailed view of Toronto and just looks better in comparison, the orginal is simply boring. As far as WP:BRD is concerned, I've written User:PhilthyBear off as a disruptive editor so regardless of what he did I think the picture should stay as is (given the now-existant consensus) until agreement changes. RaseaC (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The infobox picture must be changed. The lighting is terrible, the angle is terrible, and the quality resembles a 1970's family photo album. There was no consensus, there was only a long mostly personal conversation in which User:Floydian had a long winded chat with maybe 2 other users and clouded the discussion board with dozens of over sized pictures which made it near impossible to follow the (mostly personal) conversation. When the picture was reverted back to it's original (and quite nice) skyline picture by another user and myself, User:Floydian verbally attacked both of us. He has been reported in the past due to his aggressive personal attacks and dictatorship style attitudes towards editing. He should be banned from further discussions if he continues to behave in this manner. In conclusion the infobox picture should be changed immediately and User:Floydian should not be the "Final say" as this is a democracy not a dictatorship. ScottRios (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There was (and still is) a consensus to keep the picture as is, until that changes, the picture doesn't. Let's not get into all this 'so-in-so did this and I was really upset by it' (you also verbally attacked Floydian and two wrongs don't make a right, so let's forget that whole sorry episode) because aruably you, PhilthyDear and Floydian didn't exactly handle the situation at all well. If you have issues with the picture you have to discuss them (I note this is your first appearance on this discussion despite your apparent interest in the matter), that's how WP works. In response to your 'conclusion': the picture remains as it is as per consensus, Floydian is making an obvious effort to discuss the matter (something you, sadly, are not) and yes, this is not a dictatorship, but nor is it a school playground so let's stop ganging up on eachother and discuss this matter correctly. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

I'm happy to see the example of my verbal abuse against you ScottRios. Otherwise, you're just being disruptive. Wikipedia is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy, and the discussion, which obvious had images in it (which were shown at a size much larger than the infobox specifically for the reason of spotting out bad details), took place over several weeks. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The picture in the infobox has the consensus of the people who choose to discuss it on this page. You disagree with it, doesn't mean we don't have a consensus. A discussion was made over an extended period of time, and a consensus was reached. Even if it was only a handful of people, it was a consensus of editors involved in the discussion.

Also note this discussion which indicates that Floydian was correct in his re-assertation of the image due to consensus. This isn't to say consensus can't change, but you've been Bold, you've been reverted, now is time to bring to the discussion page rather than performing disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 11:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Demographics typo for Jewish population

According to the main Demographics of Toronto article, the Jewish population is 4.2 percent, not 7.0 as this article claims. The source here is the same 2001 census cited in this article -- the 7.0 is therefore a typo. The proper number is 4.2. Can someone with access please make the change? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.120.224 (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks right to me, so I've gone ahead and changed the article. Thanks for your attentive reading! Franamax (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)