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.
Hello, thank you for listing the Toronto Rush in this article. They just ended the season undefeated 18-0 and won the 2013 AUDL Championships. Could you please list this in the "championships won" column? Thank you Audra454 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone ELI5 this for me? Given the presence of reputable sources providing statistical data in support of the statement that "Toronto is the fourth most populous city in North America", I don't understand why several sentences of confused hedging are required to acknowledge this only "unofficially". Eunomiac (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Request for the including of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) population on side table
I believe that the population of the GGH should be included in the table to the left. I believe this to only be fair as CSA's are included on most American cities pages and with this included, would be an appropriate way for people to determine the surrounding areas population as the GTA is too tiny in area for an appropriate comparison to most American metropolitan areas. 70.27.100.154 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. This is an article on Toronto, not the GTA and not the Golden Horseshoe or Greater Golden Horseshoe. Do we then include the population of southern Ontario, Ontario, Canada, North America, Earth, etc.? Giving something to compare to some American method of measuring is not relevant to a Canadian article and we should stop the scope of the article at the scope of the article, which is Toronto. We already have the CMA which is the Canadian larger area of measurement, the US CSA is irrelevant here and we don't change articles to conform to some standard in a foreign country. Should we change US articles to include how France measures it's metropolitan areas? No, so why have US stuff in a Canadian article? Canterbury Tailtalk18:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this phraseology not redundant? "largest" is obviously not in reference to Toronto's geographic size. So it seems like the same thing is being said twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.20.60 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
NOT REDUNDANT - Toronto is the largest in the geographic sense and also the most populous. There was nothing wrong in saying that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit request - references to "history" and First Nations
Is it appropriate to say, "The history of Toronto began in the late 18th century when the British Crown purchased its land from the Mississaugas of the New Credit"? The Royal Ontario Museum collections have artifacts found in present day Toronto that date back 7000 years. (One piece dates back 10,000 years, though it is not clear it originated in the area.) http://www.rom.on.ca/en/education/online-activities/found-in-toronto-the-prehistory-of-our-city. The Mississaugas of the New Credit and other First Nations were on site long before the Europeans arrived. The French built Fort Rouillé in 1751, hence before the Toronto Purchase in 1787.
Similarly, further on it the article, it is stated: "When Europeans first arrived at the site of present-day Toronto, the vicinity was inhabited by the Iroquois people,[11] who by then had displaced the Wyandot people people that had occupied the region for centuries before c. 1500.[12]" Is the presence of the Iroquois and Wyandot only secondary to the arrival of the Europeans?
There is a better way of phrasing these sentences and organizing the information in the article that honours those who have lived for millennia in the place that is today Toronto, rather than implying, even if unintentionally, that European settlement somehow takes precedence over the presence of aboriginal peoples or that they are not part of the place's history.
May I suggest the photos on this article be spiced up a bit. There are tons of amazing photos of Toronto in the Commons just waiting for a place on this article. Space could be opened up if we remove:
1 of the 2 photos from inside Rogers Centre.
1 of the 2 photos of the city taken from the top of the CN Tower.
1 of the 2 photos taken of City Hall from across the pool.
the terrible picture of the blurred lights on highway 401
A few suggestions of new pictures to add would be:
What? Since when has this been part of wiki inclusion criteria? Why would you want images other than the best available? I suggest doing what looks good. Be bold.Rawlangs (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed: Be bold. Those are golden pictures; just edit them in, summarize your reasons, and let other people argue why you're wrong should they deign to undo them. Eunomiac (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
City vs. Single-tier municipality (city)
Someone has changed the info box to from City to Single-tier municipality (city). I think this is a poor edit and may confuse readers. Whether or not the city is single-tier or not can be described in the article. It has no place in the info box. The editor cited WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes for his edit which does not justify this addition at all. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes rationalizes usage of all three infobox parameters. The tier municipal status is a different issue altogether. I will open a discussion about this at the Ontario WikiProject later today as this has implications beyond this article. I'll return here to notify once it has been initiated. Hwy43 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Neither a National Historic Site of Canada or part of the Ontario Heritage Act, Casa Loma has struggled to attain a purpose throughout its existence.[1] Likewise, the Ontario Legislative Building is not recognized on a Provincial or National level for Heritage or Historical preeminence. It is also perhaps redundant, given the political nature of City Hall which is featured.
The Toronto-Dominion Centre is acclaimed, award-winning architecture which holds special significance in the modernization of Toronto.[2][3] Designed by one of the great architects of the 20th century. Designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.[4] Was the first existing building in the Greater Toronto Area to receive the NAIOP REX Green Award for sustainability.[5]
Union Station is a major social hub and city focal point, a National Historic Site of Canada,[6] and a Heritage Railway Station.[7] As such, it should take priority over the two examples of pre-World War infrastructure which have been removed from this example. Nonc01 (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Your suggestion of improving the collage is a good one. However, I believe that suggesting that the Ontario Legislative Building not be included because it is neither a NHSC nor designated under OHA (neither of which are indicia of overall importance), kind of completely misses the point of why it was included in the collage in the first place. I have no issue with replacing images (esp. of Casa Loma), but the images you propose aren't great photographs. Frankly, I'd stick with the Queen's Park image at this point if only because it's a better photo (and, importance-wise, the seat of the provincial government carries its own with TD Centre and Union Station, although it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges). I think we should worry less about historic designations, and focus more on good quality images reflecting iconic Toronto scenes. The collage should really contain outstanding photographs, and I agree that in this respect it could use improvement. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The Ontario Legislative Building has noting to do with the City its self. The article Ontario would be a better place for it (as mentioned in the past). The TD center has 21,000 people working in the complex, making it the largest in Canada so without dough its important to the city. -- Moxy (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That's like saying Parliament Hill has nothing to do with Ottawa, the National Assembly building has nothing to do with Quebec City, the B.C. Parliament Buildings have nothing to do with Victoria, the U.S. Capitol has nothing to do with Washington D.C., etc. etc. (check out the montages in those articles). The Ontario Legislative Building is the symbol of Toronto's status as the provincial capital, a fact referenced in the first sentence of this article. To suggest that the Ontario Legislative Building has noting to do with the City itself is just strange.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything in the numerous prior discussions about montages suggesting that the image of the OLB would be better placed in the Ontario article (just the opposite actually - it always seemed to be in the running for inclusion in the montage). In any event, relevance to Ontario and relevance to Toronto aren't mutually exclusive. We have photos of Parliament Hill in the Canada and Ottawa articles, and I don't think there has ever been a "better place" debate over at those two articles.
I never said the TD Centre wasn't important.
It's arguments such as these ("my iconic building is more important/relevant/prettier than your iconic building") why a number of contributors resisted having a montage in the first place. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Only Parliament Hill and White House would be relevant as its there cities main attractions. Legislative Buildings are not why people visit cities. Its all about context not where its located. -- Moxy (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? What special exemptions from facts am I making? You are saying I'm pushing OR, yet I'm not the one saying that the Ontario Legislative Building is irrelevant to Toronto, that nobody in the world visits legislatures and that tourist-appeal is the main criterion here. Interestingly, Johnny below makes essentially the same point I did about the OLB, but I'm ignoring facts and your response to him is "fair point". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
They are making entirely different points about the same subject. Moxy is discussing its menial social relevance as a destination to visit. Your opinion is obviously fine as per ratification process, but when you repeatedly claim (OR) as grounds to dismiss documentation, or for that matter to reinvent the purpose of the collage as visual art above content, rather than a balance between the two... forgive me if I find it tedious. Nonc01 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why you are so offended. What entirely different points is Johnny making from me? What documentation did I dismiss? When did I say visual content trumps content? I said that we should be using the best photos possible, but obviously they'd be of important sites and landmarks or iconic scenes. I'm sorry that you find that tedious, but I am entitled to express an opinion.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Historic designations and iconic status are interrelated, though. Technical errors to a photograph should be the main basis for image criticism, although I can get into your subjective concerns. I ultimately went with the two images I did because the subject is isolated and well exposed, has basic human perspective (not aerial, etc.), and achieve a high amount of visual information without appearing indistinct or cluttered on the minimized scale which it would be displayed at. That graphic element is important. I would argue that the Scarborough Bluffs image, which I'm all for keeping, is actually worse due to manipulation. I would also suggest the Queens Park image has framing issues, as over half the image is sky and flag poles are usually an awkward addition, no different in this case. Less effective on small scale. Nonc01 (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - they are interrelated, but they are certainly not a sole indicia of importance. The fact that the OLB is not designated has more to do with an uninterested provincial government (which only relatively recently amended the OHA to enable provincial designations, and the feds will not designate provincially-owned sites as NHSCs unless the province in question invites them to do so) than anything else. In any event, I would suggest a lot technical issues are of limited importance at this scale. Your comments about your choice of the two images are well taken - thanks for the explanation. I do agree that the Queen's Park image has framing issues, but I still think at this scale and in this context it's still better than that image of the TD Centre with the grey sky. Content wise I don't seem to think there are a lot of "musts", other than perhaps an image of the skyline, and I think TD Centre and Union Station are as iconic as a number of other things. I just think we should have excellent photos, and we should find the photos first and worry less about which sites have the most blue ribbons. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you are too hung up on the idea that this should be a photography exhibition, but Wikipedia isn't Flickr, it's about content. I actually have a personal interest in photography, but artistry may not elevate it could even detract from the montage as I allude to above. I am not only about the accolades of the proposed, but it is the best way to rationalize this proposal and give it some objectivity. I didn't even get into their more prominent social impact and status, which is another objective argument that could support this. Nonc01 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm hardly hung up. I just don't think that we should use dull images because of the subject's importance. We have lots of important landmarks and subjects in Toronto, and 100,000+ photos on the Commons of Toronto. We don't need to settle. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
But you clearly are given the responses. You seem to think I didn't look, when really we just have a difference of taste. I believe the task calls for images striped down to their basics with a reliance on composition, so as to let the subject speak for itself. You want bells and whistles. Find something you like better of TD or Union Station if you really want so we can consider it. Nonc01 (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I never said that you didn't look, and I never said that I wanted "bells and whistles". I am not sure why I would be required to go looking for images of the TD Centre or Union Station. This is your proposal. If given the choice, I'd get rid of the montage all together. But you made a suggestion, and I am entitled to say, whether you agree with or not, that the proposed photos are dull (the existing Casa Loma image is equally dull). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You are not required to do anything, of course. But when you equate 100,000 Toronto commons images as being able to easily upgrade my selections, when I have researched and you haven't, is loosely presumptuous to put it kindly. There are maybe a few dozen of the TD Centre and Union Station, which I deliberated on. Most were not appropriate quality (composition, subject visibility and prominence). Indeed, you have made your opinion vaguely clear over and over again. Nonc01 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm an admin at the Commons and have worked extensively on Commons:Category:Toronto, so please do not presume that everyone else's knowledge is less than yours. I never ever said that you had not looked at the Commons, so I'm puzzled as to why you keep raising this an issue. You also appear to be missing the point I was trying to make, and I apologize if I was unclear: there are a lot of valid subjects for the montage, it doesn't have to be the TD Centre, Union Station or the OLB (above I said that I think the only "must" was likely a photo of the skyline), and heritage designations are not the only criterion of importance. If there are only a few dozen of the TD Centre and Union Station, my view is that we should consider looking at better photos of other landmarks rather than insisting on these specific landmarks. And if you don't think my opinion on the photos you have proposed is informative, please ask for clarification if that's the case, rather than just name-calling by telling me my opinions are vague and tedious (and, therefore, I suppose invalid). When you explained why you chose those two photos, I actually thanked you for the explanation, but in turn you chosen for some reason to not be particularly nice because I have a different opinion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe heritage designations are the only criteria of importance either, that said, it is of major significance and one of the only ways to create this proposal and compare with a degree of impartiality. They are also among the busiest places in the city, this combination of accolades and high human traffic is telling. What else should we consider criteria? It could be a number of details depending on the circumstance, certainly. I would actually like to hear more location ideas as per my reply to Johnny, but as you mention it's not your position to contribute unless compelled. I hope you are compelled at some point. Nonc01 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. That's not what I said either. You'll find that it's easier to have this sort of discussion if you hold back a bit on the sarcasm and don't assume the worst in people. Honestly, you've been so nasty I'm reluctant to offer any suggestions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
What a cop-out. My reply was not sarcastic. You make generalizations, assumptions, and criticisms and won't back them up with any substance. I asked what else you would consider criteria as you suggested and in response you refuse, whine and play victim while smearing insults. As an admin, your general lack of content in discourse and passive-aggressive desire for confrontation laughable. I weep for Wikipedia. Your self-righteous (OR) and pettiness belongs on YouTube. Defecate as much as you want here, I couldn't care less at this point. Nonc01 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Skeezix1000 has conveyed preference of no collage or the skyline as the only essential image. I can agree with this. I feel the skyline unto itself would be an upgrade over the current display and simultaneously eliminate the questionable pictorial elements which is part of my original concern. That would be my counter-proposal. San Francisco has also done this. Some of the many candidates for collage would perhaps be better served, eventually, as content additions to the main article or related articles. Nonc01 (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I like the new collage. However, the Ontario Legislative Building has to be there, even if it would expand the image. After all, that building (figuratively, not literally, as the Ontario Legislative Assembly can take place in any provincially-designated building that is for holding legislative assemblies) is what makes Toronto the capital of Ontario. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)03:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair point, Johnny. What I could do is rework another panel into the current example with Ontario Legislative Building as the only addition, making three panels of two; seven images total as per New York City. Eight images could work as well at no additional length. If anyone desires one more place to be considered (to make eight), I suggest recommending it and we could brainstorm. There is certainly a lot of infrastructure or locations that is worthy of this discussion. I am satisfied with either scenario, let me know your preferences. Nonc01 (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Demographic numbers make no sense.
So of all the groups, the only Black group is Jamaican (3.2%) But in the racial breakdown, it says the city is 8.5% Black. What gives?
In the 2011 Canadian census, the most common ethnic origins in the city of Toronto were as follows:
Perhaps it is because Jamaicans are the largest Black group; the other groups are probably very small. Likewise, Filipinos are the only specific ethnic group listed for Southeast Asians. Toronto's Trinidadian and Thai populations are probably too insignificant to be listed for example. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)02:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Besides, Latin American is not a race but a cultural group, which in any case should be included in the "Ethnic origin" table if it is 2.8% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calin99 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
John Tory's inauguration would be on December 2, 2014 actually. Rob Ford's last day as mayor would be December 1, 2014. Remember that mayors don't automatically become mayor on election day, especially given that time is needed to clean out the previous administration's office. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)00:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I have clarified this in the infobox for the convenience of readers, and it is not obvious that a politician elected as mayor would not become mayor on election night, but a few weeks later. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)02:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to change the skyline photo of Toronto? I think the angle and even the weather in the picture is a poor representation of Toronto especially considering there are such amazing views on google images of Toronto either during the day or night taken from the best place to take pictures of the skyline (Toronto Islands) you look at the profile pictures of other major cities and its their best pictures, this photo does Toronto no justice whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.224.154 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Our responsibility when it comes to images is not to do the subject any particular level of "justice", as such, nor to satisfy your personal tastes as to whether any given photo does so or not. We can only use photos that we have on Wikipedia, and we can only have photos on Wikipedia that were either taken by a Wikipedian, or licensed by their photographer for reuse under a Creative Commons or GFDL license. So we can't just grab any random photo off the web that satisfies your personal aesthetic preferences — we have to limit ourselves to photos that actually satisfy certain specific copyright conditions to become usable on here. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the sports section. It lists multiple amateur and semi-professional league's as "major sports leagues". Major sports leagues are defined as the NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA and sometimes the CFL and MLS, never is a tier 2 women's amateur soccer league or an amateur women's serior hockey league considered a "major league". It just sounds silly and would confuse a reader who might think some amateur soccer team is a major pro team like the Maple Leafs or Raptors. It's just wrong.
24.78.236.191 (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Done - Despite nothing being done I've closed it as such as that section would require more than one editor and no doubt in the next 3 years It'll get done, If you want it rewrote I suggest you A. Do it yourself, and B. Add it below my reply, Other than that I can't do much else I'm afraid, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk)04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Please add new nickname to Toronto
"The 6" has become the most used nickname as of recently, since Raptors Ambassador DRAKE has suggested its use.
I think that a date should be added in the description of the panorama photo in the cityscape section (it appears to have been taken around 2003-2005). This is because so much has changed since that photo was taken. People might be fooled into thinking Toronto is smaller than it actually is at present. The skyline has grown by about 33% since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.29.106 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the year should be added, assuming we know it, for much the same reasons you've provided. And we should consider removing a panorama that is too out-of-date. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
As others have mentioned it is time to change the panorama photo on this montage. The other pictures are fine as is. Let us start the search for a qualifiable and current photo, I am happy to change it. Krazytea(talk)15:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Sister, twin, partnership, and friendship cities revisited
According to the Toronto International Alliance Program, the city has four partnership cities and five friendship cities. According to Sister Cities International, Chicago is Toronto's only has sister city (see this directory entry). According to this, São Paulo considers Toronto a twin city, and according to this, Lisbon has been a twin city since the 1980s. I think Lisbon can be removed from the list, as this is not an official sister/twin city relationship (it is a "cooperation agreement" of some sort). Although the São Paulo sister partnership has a ref from São Paulo, Toronto doesn't seem to recognize it, and neither does Sister Cities International, so I think this should be excluded too.
Additionally, I think we should rename the section to "partnerships" or some such, as only one of the nine cities listed at the International Alliance Program is actually a sister city. (Both of the excluded entries can be mentioned in sister cities of Toronto, which should probably be renamed.)
Create a subpage for FAQs with regards to editing this article
It would be good to create a subpage that is linked to this talk page. It would be linked from a hatnote here in the talk page.
In the FAQ, there would be a list of commonly asked questions, such as Toronto's population ranking, when a new person becomes mayor, etc. Why? There are many people who are new to editing Wikipedia and some things that are obvious to veterans may be completely new to others.
For example, with regards to Toronto's population ranking, it would be stated that the article officially uses the 2011 census but it can mention unofficial estimates as well. With regards to new people becoming mayor, it is a common error that a new mayor's inauguration day is the day after the municipal election in late October (in reality, a new mayor's inauguration day is in early December). Thank you. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)02:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
None of these are issues that are unique to Toronto — they're universal issues that apply to all cities, and are both already covered in subsections of WP:CANSTYLE. So there's really no need for a special page to reiterate the same stuff in a Toronto-specific context, when we already have one that covers those very issues more universally. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
In addition to the comments from Bearcat, the other issue is that someone editing the article isn't going to see the FAQ until the edit is reverted and the user pointed to the talk page. What's needed is a message in the editing screen, and given the (lack of) success for such messages on other pages (a good example is List of bands from Canada), I don't think such a message would have an effect. We could, however, link WP:CANSTYLE at the top of this page, though it may get lost in the jumble of other headers. Mindmatrix12:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Toronto is said to be the 5th largest city in north america in the article with 2.6... million. Chicago's article says it is 2.7 million. So, isn't Chicago 5th and Toronto 6th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.118.7 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"Developed in the early 1900s, Little Italy is one of the city's oldest extant ethnic neighbourhoods.
Well Little was never "developed" it happened as with all ethnic groups. Also little Italy as you see it today is not the same little italy...it wasn't even really called Little Italy ...until it was made over in the mid 1990s, when the bulk of the Italians that lived there since the 60's moved to Maple. Little Italy is a marketed BIA and not a living community of Italians....like how no Indians live on "Gerrard" or what they call little India now.Starbwoy (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually the term Inner suburb has only been in use in Toronto since mid 2007 or later, and what is written here is totally wrong. I checked the term and areas listed under New York (as I also know New York). The term doesn't exactly match Toronto because most of low population population explosion which didn't happen until the mid 1950s unlike older cities. the inner suburbs of toronto are the cities and boroughs that used to make up Metro toronto. The outer suburbs are the cities and towns that rim the Former Metro toronto.
Inner suburb
North york, Scarborough, East York, York, Etobicoke
There is no official definition of these terms - the meaning is usually contextual. In some contexts, your view would make sense. But this is an article about the City of Toronto, not the GTA, and the text in question is distinguishing the early bedroom suburbs that largely developed pre-WWII from the suburbs whose growth was primarily post-WWII. That's a logical use of the terms, and one I have seen used. Given there is no official definition, I wouldn't be so quick to label any interpretation "totally wrong". Having said that, we should perhaps consider using different terminology, so as not to cause confusion with different contexts. As one final note, unclear how usage of the terms in NYC is relevant.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The third line of the entry currently reads: "The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is the most populous metropolitan area in Canada, with 5,583,064 people living in the census metropolitan area as of 2011."
Because the preceding line notes that the city is the fourth most populous city in North America, the line should be edited to read: "The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is the most populous metropolitan area in Canada and the eighth largest in North America, with 5,583,064 people living in the census metropolitan area as of 2011."
Because Canada, the United States, and Mexico each have drastically different definitions of what a 'metropolitan area' is, I don't think that including the fact that Toronto is the "eight largest metropolitan area in North America" is warranted in this article. For city population, the definition is universal in that it is the total population within city limits. In Canada, the area that is considered a 'metropolitan area' for statistical purposes is much smaller than what would be considered a metropolitan area in the United States.
From Wikipedia : "Unlike the United States, the methodology used by Statistics Canada does not allow for CMA-CMA mergers into larger statistical areas as the US does to form Combined Statistical Areas. If such an approach was utilized, Statistics Canada has stated that Toronto, Oshawa and Hamilton could be merged into a single CSA. Statistics Canada has described the Greater Golden Horseshoe as the country's largest urban area."
For example, the Chicago Metropolitan area for statistical purposes covers an area of (10,856 sq mi) 28,120 km2, while the Toronto metropolitan area for statistical purposes covers an area of just 2,750.65 sq mi (7,124.15 km2). If defined by U.S. methodology, the Golden Horseshoe would be included in the Toronto metropolitan area and would cover an area of 31,561.57 km2 (12,185.99 sq mi) and have a population of 8,759,312.
I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have made some major changes in the climate section since much of it is completely unsourced. It was one of the main reasons that this article was delisted as a good article. It's been there for a couple of years although it hasn't been fixed in terms of adding in the required citations to back up these claims. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I will add back the 2001-2012 averages as they are relevant in reflecting the latest temp. data available from a reliable source (Environment Canada.)
In regards to it being synthesis, etc. it is not, as the averages for each relevant period are listed in the raw data (on the bottom, where it says Avg.). None of this requires any manual calculations, as the output numbers are all in the database.
To verify, one can simply extract the .CSVs for each year and check (no calculations or additional assumptions required.)
Finally, plenty of good/starred articles use this approach (having raw data with stated averages) for climate data, including London, Washington DC, etc.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This discussion has broad consequences for many cities and future articles; it needs it's own discussion. Can someone competent initiate it please!
In the first paragraph of the lead section, I have an issue with the addition of the sentence that reads "Toronto is rated as Canada's second greenest city by most City Indexes with a Green Score of 135". While the statement appears to be true and has references to back it up, it seems to me that the statement would be better placed in a different part of the article, and not in the first paragraph of the lead section (or in the lead section at all). I reverted this edit after it was made, however it has since been added again. Perhaps there should be a new section of the article to expand on the green rating and other environmental information about Toronto, or is the lead section the correct place to put this type of statement? JPark99 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The lead section is definitely inappropriate as far as I am concerned. An environmental ranking published by a non-profit foundation is not a defining characteristic of the City of Toronto warranting mention in a four-paragraph summary on the article's contents. It should not be in the lead, and it has yet to be determined if rankings from GreenScore.ca are encyclopedic for inclusion within any city article. Please see my latest comments to the editor in question at a related discussion, and more importantly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic?, which the editor in question also placed a comment on after the discussion being inactive for a year (triggered by JPark99's revert). While we are at it, the last sentence in the last paragraph of the lead section also has to go. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, note that Magnolia677 has reverted five of the same contributions at different city articles. It appears as of right now three of us are of the same mind that this is either not appropriate for the lead, not encyclopedic, or both. Hwy43 (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Magnolia677, Hwy43, JPark99 your concerns have merit, however recent developments from the UNFCCC and the signing in Paris and UN signing, have left the public uninformed as to how much change has occurred inside Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments. These scores are looked at and taken seriously by all three levels of Government plus UNFCCC, WWF, ICLEI, and many other agencies worldwide. Please see my latest comments in communities discussion as they broaden the scope of this discussion Mkevlar(talk) 13:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Mkevlar, as you know, the issue that I originally brought up wasn't with the information that you were adding to this article, but was with the placement of the statement. However, there appears to be more to this as there are several other articles that are involved. I look forward to further discussions about this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#How should Indexes and Indicators be used?. Also, I agree with you Hwy43 the last sentence in the last paragraph of the lead section should be removed. JPark99 (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Problematic population ranking
The article currently reads that Toronto is the fourth-largest city in North America (behind NYC, LA, Mexico City), with 2,615,000 residents. Chicago had more residents than this in the official 2010 Census (2,695,598) and continues to have more residents with subsequent estimates (2,722,389 last year).
How does Toronto rank higher than Chicago? By all estimates, the city of Chicago is larger, which would make Toronto the fifth-largest in North America. Can somebody explain why editors appear to be protective of this incorrect "fourth place" ranking?"
Nevermind, I think I can answer my own question. The Toronto ranking is being pulled from another list that is using a more recent estimate instead. The problem here, then, is that the article keeps citing the 2011 estimate for its population figure. We simply need to change the sentence so that we are not saying 2,615,000 people is the "fourth-highest." The whole population field also needs to point to the 2014 estimates instead.
Our rule on Wikipedia is that the Canada 2011 Census remains the most important population figure until such time as the 2016 Canada Census is released. Intercensal estimates may be cited, if properly sourced, as supplementary data to the five-year census number, but may never simply replace the 2011/2016 data outright. This is because the 2011/2016 censuses are the only figures that are comprehensively broken down for precise demographic detail, as well as the only figures that exist comprehensively for all Canadian cities and towns (as opposed to existing only for a specific and defined set of the major cities, as intercensal updates do.) So a 2014 or 2015 number may be added to the article as additional "update since 2011" data — but the 2011 figure may not be completely disappeared from the article or the infobox until the results of the 2016 census are released. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
i agree the population sentence is at best, confusing. we should not be stating the official population figure from 2011 and then stating a ranking that was not true at the time. i'm going to break it into two sentences to make it clearer. that way, the official population figure will be clearly stated and the more recent estimates and ranking will also be present. sound fair? Randella (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I was of the understanding that Toronto's claim to being the fourth-largest city in North America relied upon Mexico being considered "Central America" as opposed to "North America." Chicago is clearly larger than Toronto by metro population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.199.153 (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I just did a quick read over the article but I have not checked the sources in detail.
Uncited paragraphs and lack of sufficient inline citations. This is the big issue. Certain paragraphs and sentences in the history, topography, neighbourhoods, Old Toronto, Suburbs, Industrial, Public Spaces, Tourism, Education, Airports, Road System are problematic. This would fail criteria 2.
Neutrality is okay so that is not an issue. I don't see any bias.
I do not think there is any problems regarding the images.
The lead section needs a bit of tweaking. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, but in this article it mentions all sorts of things by way of background that are not in the body of the text. See Manual of Style/Lead section. For instance certain citations such "is the most populous city in Canada", "the most populous metropolitan area in Canada" are used only once. My suggestion would be to incorporate these statements somewhere within the article so that the lead section just summarizes this.
I think that is all I have found. I hope this helps. At the same, try putting this article to Peer review to obtain comments from other users. As well, a request for copyediting from the Guild of Copy Editors is good as they will copyedit the article shortly after nomination without waiting for long. These 2 really helped me when I promoted one of my articles to GA. Ssbbplayer (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I found today two mistakes today and did not take time to really read the article. (york garrison, capital of UC from 1793) I think it needs a fair amount of work. Nowhere near enough citations. Alaney2k (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
As a result of ongoing climate change, studies sanctioned by the City of Toronto predict the climate to shift to the humid subtropical (Köppen: Cfa) category sometime between the years 2020-2030.[82]
However, from following that link and doing a search for the terms "subtropical", "2020", and "2030", I couldn't find any results that support the claim given. Maybe I'm just not seeing things...can someone point out the information in the PDF that supports this? I've also googled this claim, which I think would be pretty noteworthy and published in a number of places, but I couldn't find anything other than this article.
I covered this in my reply on my talk page, but I'll paste it here too.
The projections for the climate of Toronto in the official report, for the period ranging from 2020 to 2030 (depends on the model used, as the report looks at several) and beyond, show temperature points & overall climate patterns that would fall under the Cfa classification (I used "humid subtropical" as that is the term applied to the category in Koppen's classification & in Trewartha). The estimated coldest months' averages are above 0C and the warmest month averages above +22C. I am unable to insert screenshots into Wiki, but you can find the temperature estimates at the end of the report, under the various "temperature summary" headings.
As this is the only officially sanctioned study of its type (at least in Toronto) this information is not that widespread, especially on Google.
Also, just to clarify, it's not an "article", it is an official and most recent study on the impacts of climate change, organized by the city of Toronto, and this is the conclusion/report hosted on the government of Toronto - toronto.ca portal.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
What one study predicts that the climate might become 20 years from now is not suitable content for a Wikipedia article at this time. The climate section of the article should appropriately restrict itself to what's true today; it should not contain speculation about what might become true in the future. Any number of things could happen over the next 20 years to change the course of things: some unexpected development could tip us back into a new ice age; climate control policies could become more effective at preventing the prediction from coming true; everything could go to pot and make the progression of climate change even worse. Neither is it the question of climate change uniquely specific to Toronto — it affects the entire world, not just Yonge and Bloor, and so predictions about what's going to happen to temperatures in Toronto are not special. If and when Toronto does shift into a subtropical climate zone, we'll note and source that properly when it happens, but predictions that it may happen in the future aren't inherently noteworthy in this context.
Also, a government report isn't automatically noteworthy just because it exists, if the report itself is your only source for the existence of the report — reliable source media coverage about the report's findings is what it would take to make the report worthy of an encyclopedia's attention. For one thing, government reports don't exactly have a sterling reputation for always being unerringly accurate. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, to be honest, when I first found the report, I wasn't exactly certain of whether I should include it or not. I thought it'd be interesting for the readers to know that there was research done regarding this specific location with very specific projections, regarding the near future (the next 10-20 years from now.)
I'd like to note that I disagree regarding government reports not being noteworthy by themselves. By this definition, nothing would ever count as an RS unless there was media coverage. For example, climate tables themselves are sourced from the government (in this case Environment Canada) and they never/rarely get fully published in the mass media (i.e. newspapers, news sites, etc.)
Things like a country's trade info, health and crime statistics, etc. are all sourced from official government reports, and do not require mass media coverage to be at least mentioned in a Wiki article.
Regarding government report inaccuracy, that can be applied to any forecast ever in existence. That's why they are forecasts, and not actual facts. It has nothing to do with governments being less accurate than the mass media. Usually it is the opposite, as it is the goal of most media outlets to generate profits and to therefore modify/pick their reports to maximize them.
Finally, the main premises of articles like Climate change, Climate change mitigation, Peak oil etc. are based on sources using forecasts, most of which come from government & NGO reports. Good luck convincing that entire paragraphs from them should be deleted based on the fact that they use forecasts.
Regardless, those are just my points of view on these subject.
I have just modified 5 external links on Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The urban history of the city dates back to 1787, when British officials negotiated the Toronto Purchase with the Mississaugas of the New Credit.[26]
Fine. There are links and a reference supporting the 'negotiation' claim. The fact is it was a brutal form of the land dispossession. The Natives did not have the idea of property on land nor they understand the British Crown Law imposed on them. I'd like to propose something like this instead:
The urban history of the city dates back to 1787, when British officials forced the Mississaugas of the New Credit to surrender their native lands.
--A. Perun (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Historical Essays on Upper Canada: New Perspectives by James Keith Johnson and Bruce G. Wilson, McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 1989 - page 34.--A. Perun (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
While I fully agree that the Toronto Purchase agreement was a completely dishonest and unfair form of land dispossession, the current language in the header of this article incorrectly insinuates that the land was taken by force by the British Crown, which is in this case is factually incorrect. There in fact was no armed or unarmed conflict during the negotiations between the Mississaugas of the New Credit and the British Crown, and although the British Crown may or may not have ever intended to honour the agreement, it was made under peaceful conditions. It has been well documented that the Mississaugas believed at the time that the agreement they were entering into with the British Crown was not a purchase that would permanently remove their rights to the land, but instead a rental of the lands for British use in exchange for gifts and presents for an indefinite period of time. The agreement was never honoured, a fact that has been acknowledged by the Government of Canada most recently in 2010.
The Toronto Purchase, as with all treaty and land agreements in Canada, is a complicated agreement that for the most part has not been honoured and remains contested to this day. I think that it is important for people, especially those who are not familiar with the history of Toronto or the history of Canada, to fully understand these complex issues.
I am proposing to change the language to something that includes information regarding the Toronto Purchase, including a link to the separate Toronto Purchase Wikipedia article that contains detailed information about this particular agreement in question :
@JPark99: The sentence is still poor and has problems. For one thing, it was not their native land. The Mississaugas had taken it away from the Iroquois, who had taken it away from the Wyandot (Hurons). European settlement began in the 1790s - after - 1787. Alaney2k (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Something like:
Aboriginal peoples have lived in the area for thousands of years. Toronto itself is situated on the southern terminus of an ancient Aboriginal trail leading north to Lake Simcoe, used by the Wyandot, Iroquois and the Mississauga.[25] Permanent European settlement began in the 1790s, after the broadly disputed Toronto Purchase of 1787, when the Mississaugas surrendered the area to the British Crown.[26]
Much better. The Mississaugas didn't control the land that would later become Toronto since time immemorial (it was actually more recent than commonly believed). Johnny Au(talk/contributions)14:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is this article written like an advertisement? It reads like it's written by an insecure teenager trying to boast about their city. The most, the best, the biggest, widely recognized, prominent, well known, largest... I mean does no one else think this is kind of sad? I know Toronto wants to prove it's a "world class" city, but this is excessive. I'm not suggesting rewording the entire article, but it should be toned down, especially the four lead paragraphs. After all this is an encyclopedia not a tourism ad. 2605:8D80:6E2:46EE:286A:BC79:6F37:4402 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with you that this article is written like an advertisement or tourism article. I and many others have worked and continue to work to improve this article along Wikipedia guidelines, and I feel that the lead of this article is written from a neutral point of view that states facts and information about Toronto backed up with strong references, and does not attempt to compare Toronto to other cities, to promote Toronto as superior to other cities, or to sway opinion. That said, I am interested to know which parts of this article you think are written like an advertisement, and how you would propose to "tone down" the article. Please provide specific examples. JPark99 (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
How about Revision as of 04:03, 27 December 2016 by User:Funnyhat. This edits just reeks of desperation for acknowledgement. Not many cities have such desperate tones in their LEAD PARAGRAPH! 50.100.252.149 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I proposed the lead paragraph be changed to something that doesn't sound so desperately sad, such as:
″Toronto is the capital city of the Canadian province of Ontario, Canada and is located on the northern shore of Lake Ontario. The 2016 census recorded a population of 2,731,571 and a metropolitan population of 5,928,040 making Toronto the largest city in Canada. A global city, Toronto is a centre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural cities in the world.″
I see that small changes were made, the lead still needs some major changes, may I suggest:
Toronto is the capital city of the province of Ontario, Canada. An established(is there a non-established global city?) global city, Toronto is an international(Canadian) centre of business, finance, arts, and culture(Toronto widely criticized for lack of culture) and widely(original research) recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan(not in references) cities in the world. It is the most populous city in Canada, and the centre of the Greater Toronto Area,(absolutely unheard of and irrelevant outside of Ontario) the most populous metropolitan area in Canada. Growing in population, the 2016 census recorded a population of 2,731,571. In 2015, the population was estimated at 2,826,498,(est. irrelevant now that 2016 census released) making Toronto the fourth-largest city in North America based on city limits (behind Los Angeles), while it is the fifth-largest (behind Chicago) if ranked by the size of its metropolitan area(widely debated stat considering CMA's and MSA's are drastically differing. Also this sentence sounds plan sad and desperate)
After looking at comparable city articles like Chicago, it seems that the city leads seem to start with most populous, etc. For whatever reason, this is what the eds have been writing. This includes the ranking versus other cities. It's not great, but I don't think it sounds desperate either. Being in the first paragraph, it is probably too prominent. Cosmopolitan is a bit vague, maybe they were going for liberal, open, etc. I'm not sure about the criticism about culture. That seems subjective. I mean, sure I have heard complaints about culture, living here, but I don't have a sense of how to rank levels of being cultured. There are lots of galleries, live theatres, live entertainment venues, and all sorts of media located in Toronto. The criticism I've read is more of a scolding nature, intending to out some backwardness and lack of confidence in some institutions, without any historical reference. Within my lifetime, Toronto has leaped forward in a lot of areas, so I really don't feel so harsh about it. Alaney2k (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Plant hardiness zone
The article reads According to the classification applied by Natural Resources Canada, Toronto is located in plant hardiness zone 7a, which is true and not true. Toronto has a variety of hardiness zones. The waterfront has a 7a zone, but the hardiness zones actually change somewhat drastically as you head north. In fact the area west of York University has a 5b zone. Resource Canada's classification is too broad and is measured from a single point. To say Toronto has a single hardiness zone is incorrect. The article should read plant hardiness zone 5b to 7a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.95.92 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
It should not be necessary to explain in parenthesis the meaning of diurnal temperature range - that topic has its own wikpedia page so why not link to it and improve the flow of the text?
Thanks for bringing that up. I agree it improves the flow of the text (based on previous experience with other users mentioning to me about it). I edited the article so that it links to the article and removed the parenthesis. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating a new montage, I am not sure if either is better to be honest. They both have faults. I prefer the old one because it depends on less "artsy" shots. Both montages could probably benefit from another row of photos as some other city pages have done. I will wait for others to way in before commenting further. For comparative reasons, I added the old montage. Krazytea(talk)22:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I reverted to the old collage before noticing this. The old collage had crisper, less artsy shots of more recognizable sites. Also, the top photo in the new collage is blurry and was taken through the window of an airplane. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Top photo is a very professional shot, likely taken from a helicopter. Maybe your screen is dirty. I have added here.
No lets revert to the old one. The new collage contains too much duplication, photos that don't give good views of the landmark in question and the skyline photo is over 9 years old, whereas the old collage was only a few. Also the shot from the islands is much more iconic. Putting the main skyline photo of a 9 year old shot doesn't show downtown which has changed rather dramatically from that shot. The new collage is also too small, the user can't click on it to get a clearer view, which is perhaps why the resulting image is actually feeling a little blurry and soft due to the original photos being reduced in size so much. But yes the new collage is indeed blurry and soft, you only have to compare the images of Queens PArk to see the one in the new collage is far from sharp. Canterbury Tailtalk00:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I also prefer the old collage as well. Clarity (both in terms of image sharpness and having fewer "artistic" shots) is more important, which the old collage has. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)02:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Old one looks crisper, Bizarrely on the new collage all of the images look blurry and yet A) my eyesight is fine and B) The laptop screen is clean as day, But anyway in short I don't see any need to change the collage - Don't fix what isn't broken & all that. –Davey2010Talk03:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Both collages are flawed and outdated, there should be an upgraded one. Here's some other photos that could also be included. Charles lindberg (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The first collage was arrived after a lot of discussion and consultation involving many people, see talk archives. I don't see how it's dated, the only thing that's possibly dated is the skyline image as we have new buildings now, but the rest aren't going to age. Canterbury Tailtalk12:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016 (The Six as a nickname of Toronto)
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add "The Six" as one of the city's known nicknames
The article doesn't really give me the sense that this name would be notable enough to include in an article like this.Air.light (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If an article titled "We The 6: Why the name Drake gave us is here to stay" doesn't give you the sense that "this name would be notable enough to include in an article like this", then you're quite clearly applying a deliberately unattainable standard of significance that almost no nickname for any city could ever actually meet or surpass. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't give me the impression of any widely held significance but rather a personal nickname for the city of a famous musician. The article seemed to be pushing for its acceptance and If people have to be told about something like this, then how widespread is its actual use and therefore notability. Here is another article that seems to counter the opinion of The Globe and Mail article. Air.light (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Certainly the term originates with Drake, but it really has become a thing people really do call Toronto in conversations that have nothing whatsoever to do with discussing Drake's music, and the Globe article explicitly documents some of the ways in which it's expanded into widespread usage beyond Drake alone. I'd be remiss if I didn't also note that the last time somebody called such a plainly verifiable nickname for Toronto into question, it was "T-Dot" — and I do find it awfully curious that the only nicknames anybody ever considers disputable, and considers even reliable sources plainly demonstrating real-world usage to be somehow not evidence of their validity or notability, are the ones that originated specifically within hip hop. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I would say its notable enough—I've seen it used it advertising, etc. That isn't a reliable source, but I would say its worth locating one. 70.53.192.171 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
We could wait for an official use of the term in an official document by city staffers. What I mean by official document, I mean briefing notes and official reports with numerous references and pass WP:RS, not e-mails, flyers, tweets, or even articles from reputable newspapers (and the Globe and Mail would otherwise be reliable enough for other topics). Johnny Au(talk/contributions)23:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Completely anecdotally I'm seeing less references to "The Six" now than I did. It really feels like a number of people want to make it a nickname, and try bandying it about while trying to make it stick, but it just hasn't caught on outside some narrow circles. Canterbury Tailtalk20:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I also don't see anyone over 35 use "The Six" (or variations) on a regular basis outside of advertising, especially outside the context of urban youth culture and sports, particularly basketball. I may be under 35 when I wrote this comment, but I never use the term "The Six" outside of this talk page, the main Toronto article, and the Name of Toronto article. That is just my observation (and original research). I can easily find more reliable sources calling Toronto "centre of the universe" than "The Six" on any given day, and the former is generally not reliable enough to be included in the main Toronto article (as well as it also being the nickname of Times Square in Midtown Manhattan). Johnny Au(talk/contributions)01:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 13 external links on Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FAQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
We need an explanation here—where in the world is "Toronto" pronounced /təˈrɒntə/, and is it a significant enough pronunciation to be highlighted in the lead (even before /təˈrɒnoʊ, ˈtrɒ-/, which is how millions pronounce it)? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!02:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you thinking along the lines that we should note that locals often or mostly say it with a silent "t"? I mean, I live in Toronto and I say it and hear it both ways. For instance, when I hear "Toronto's news" or other possessive, the second T is usually pronounced. Alaney2k (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Alaney2k: Do you understand it now? The lead gives four pronunciations. The second—/təˈrɒntə/—is pronounced "tuh-RON-tuh", which is a pronunciation I've never encountered, and I suspect is rare (if not an outright error). As it stands, it comes in the lead before the pronunciations where the "t" is silent (which are the third and fourth pronunciations). Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!06:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 4 external links on Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FAQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The first paragraph of the lead was recently completely rewritten by User:Saboteurest. Referenced information and text reached by consensus was removed, and as the first paragraph of the lead is a vital part of the article, I have reverted the changes back to the previous text that was there before the rewrite changes. I'm not against the changes, but major changes to the lead are usually discussed here to gain input and suggestions from other editors.
The current lead first paragraph (before the changes by User:Saboteurest reads like this :
That might be true. I agree better wording could be used. But the first version with it's six population statements is terrible. Let's discuss the issues.
Toronto on a global level is quite tiny. Not even in the top 100. But it reads as though Toronto is up there with Tokyo and New York. The wording Most-Populous is used three times in the lead. The revised version cuts this down and flows much better.
The Golden Horseshoe is heavily urbanized? To whom? Much of it looks like what most Asian countries would call the countryside. It contains some of the country's most prosperous farming land.
To say Toronto is an international centre of business is a stretch. Canadian business centre, sure. International centre? Not a chance.
The reference provided does not say Toronto is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world.
Note: Having problems with a poorly written lead and unreferenced statements does not make someone anti-(insert city name). Saboteurest (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
If you feel that I am misrepresenting myself as another user than report me. If not, please keep wild accusations to yourself. Saboteurest (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Note taken, Hwy43, and I apologize for not taking this more seriously earlier in this conversation, especially after his initial response to you. I believe the editor in question is either the suspected sock that you speak of, or just someone out to bulldoze others until he gets his way. As you can see below, I've tried to work with him and am unable to have any sort of dialogue that doesn't end with a negative and condescending remarks or tone. Moving to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution now to begin the process of solving this.JPark99 (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I have major disagreements with User:Saboteurest about the first paragraph of this article. To me, the lead is very well written, and while it is not perfect, I definitely don't see a problem with the population statements in the first paragraph of the lead. All of the current statements are factually true, and are some of the most basic facts about the city. According to official statistics, Toronto is the most populous city in Canada, it's metropolitan area is the most populous in Canada, and Toronto is the fourth most populous city in North America. I can't see any other way of writing that in any article without altering the facts.
If I understand correctly, the specific points that (talk) has an issue with are
Toronto is the most populous city in Canada (true)
Toronto is the fourth most populous city in North America after Mexico City, New York City and Los Angeles (true. This statement provides context in relation to Toronto's population as compared with other cities on the continent)
Toronto is the centre of the Greater Toronto Area, the most populous metropolitan area in Canada (true)
Toronto anchors the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily urbanized area with a population of 9.2 million people, or over 26% of the population of Canada (true, and provides context of the population of the area directly surrounding Toronto in relation to the population of Canada as a whole)
Based on the references given in the article, Toronto is rated as a global city according to several independent bodies including the GAWC. I can't see anywhere in the lead that would imply that Toronto is of the same importance as New York or Tokyo. In fact, I don't see New York or Tokyo (or any other city, for that matter) mentioned at all other than in relation to the population of Toronto (and in that example, New York is mentioned as having a larger population than Toronto).
As far as the Golden Horseshoe is concerned, it is a heavily urbanized/industrialized/populated/built-up region. The wording for this can be changed if it must be, however, the average population density of the Golden Horseshoe is 277.53/km2 (718.8/sq mi). No matter what angle a person looks at those statistics from, to suggest that the Golden Horseshoe is not a heavily urbanized/industrialized/populated/built-up region would be a matter of personal opinion, not fact according the references given in the article and all statistical data that is available.
According to the City of Toronto, and all of the other references given in the article as well as all other information that I can find, Toronto is an international centre of business. To suggest otherwise would again be a matter of personal opinion.
I don't have much of an issue over the use of the word "cosmopolitan" in the lead. The reference given in the article (Johansen, Johansen (2014). Cosmopolitanism and Place: Spatial Forms in Contemporary Anglophone Literature. New York City, NY, USA: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 41,42. ISBN 978-1-137-40266-0) speaks of Toronto's policies of social inclusiveness across racial, religious, political, gender, cultural, sexual preference, and language boundaries. The most fitting word that describes the shared morality that is the basis of the culture of Toronto would be "cosmopolitan", which is why I don't have a big issue with it being included in the article as a referenced statement. What is another wording that would be preferable to describe the inclusiveness that Toronto is known for?
I myself am not from Toronto, but I have lived there intermittently over the years. As a person who grew up in a province in Canada other than Ontario, I understand how many people who live outside of the Toronto area may feel a need to belittle Toronto as a means to prevent it from outshining other cities in Canada, which I agree are all equally as important in their own way. That said, I feel that trying to linguistically change factual information (especially in a wikipedia article) in order to appease opinions that one may have about the city is not in the spirit of wikipedia. Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, so as always I am interested to hear from other editors.
I agree. It's not good to write an overly positive or an overly negative lead for Toronto. It needs to be neutral. Remember that this is among the most read articles on Wikipedia. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)15:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I 100% agree. When you read an encyclopedia article it shouldn't sound like it was written by locals boasting about their hometown. Unfortunately the lead of this article in it's current form does just that. Hence my suggested tuning. Saboteurest (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh my, you actually made me laugh out loud. "many people who live outside of the Toronto area may feel a need to belittle Toronto as a means to prevent it from outshining other cities in Canada". Come on, you can't honestly believe that. You clearly have an infatuation with Toronto. It's pretty evident. And that not so sly humble-brag didn't help your cause. Saboteurest (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I definitely find Toronto interesting, but I am not "infatuated" with the city and I stand by my comments. I don't know what part of Canada you live in (or what country you live in), but it is an old saying joked amongst Canadians that hating Toronto is a favourite Canadian pastime. There have even been television documentaries made about the topic (see Let's All Hate Toronto). I'm glad it made you laugh, because I find it pretty ridiculous as well. And to clarify just for you, I don't live in Toronto (or in Ontario), and I'm not from Toronto. JPark99 (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I was born at St.Joseph's hospital and grew up in Parkdale. and as a proud Torotonian I find the lead a bit over the top in self promotion and frankly a bit embarrassing. Reading other city articles across Wikipedia I don't encounter this style of writing anywhere else. Saboteurest (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
As a "proud Torontonian", than I'm sure you were well aware of the widely known anti-Toronto viewpoint that some people have about the city, but that you claimed to not know about before. What city articles are you speaking of that have such radically different writing? I disagree that this article is self promoting. Nowhere in the lead does it state that Toronto is the best, Toronto is the greatest at everything, and nowhere can I see Toronto compared with other cities in any way other than through population statistics. Have you considered that perhaps you may be a proud Torontoinian who holds a little resentment for your own city? It's one thing to be humble, but it's a totally other thing when you choose to ignore relevant and referenced information on a public platform just to make you feel personally comfortable. Everyone is entitled to have their personal opinion about what they think of Toronto, but if someone has an issue with the facts about Toronto, I think there is more than just an editing disagreement at the root of it, and this is not the place to be hashing that out.JPark99 (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I've edited the lead a bit. I moved the cosmopolitan/multicultural sentence to the third paragraph because it goes well with the other info. I have tried to trim out some details that may or may not be that unique, such as the 140 neighbourhoods, or the date of the Toronto Purchase, etc. Also, some terms might have been debatable, such as "heavily urbanized". I would say that could be a relative term, and compared to other large conurbations, it may not be that true. Heavily seems like it was not the appropriate term anyway, 'highly' if true would describe it better. The fourth paragraph seems to be a bit of a grab bag still. Alaney2k (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Good work. I think it's a step in the right direction. I still think using "most-populous" three times in the lead is a bit overkill. It would be nice to combine some together. (Toronto is the most populous city and metropolitan region..) Also using the golden horseshoe stats in the lead is a bit misleading. The G.H. is an arbitrary area used by the province. This is making it seem like it is Toronto's metropolitan area, which we all know it most definitely is not. I think using the CMA as in all other Canadian articles is more accurate. The explanation of the G.H. would be more fitting in a section below, maybe demographics. Again I agree with you on the fourth paragraph. It is basically saying Toronto is the best at everything. Saboteurest (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Nothing has been brought up in these changes (that have been made without reaching a consensus), that benefit the article or stylistically improves it. You've just moved things around, and changed wording to suit a personal viewpoint or opinion. As I pointed out before, there is nothing in the lead of this article that would imply that Toronto is the best at everything. Detailed references are present, and we have already removed all trivial ranking (for example "X city is rated as the best city to be a university student", or "x city is the best city for quality of life" etc etc). I completely disagree with user:Saboteurest, and I disagree with user:Alaney2k for unfortunately making changes without a consensus on this. Lacking any future input from other editors here, I will move forward by starting a conflict resolution case so we will be able to get the opinions of other Wikipedia editors who are not involved with this article. JPark99 (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm open to discussion. That's fine with me. From what I read, there was jargon, some unnecessary detail in the lead which is supposed to be a summary. I put multicultural with the text that the other text on the same topic. Alaney2k (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair point Alaney2k. My disagreement with your edit was due to this argument that has erupted between myself and Saboteurest. I sincerely apologize for involving you in it, and will work through a conflict resolution to resolve it.JPark99 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Whoa! Let's dial this down a bit. User:JPark99 I'm really not sure why you think toning down an article to a less advertising tone is anti-Toronto or that i resent my own city. I understand that you rewrote the lead in December 2015. We are now trying to improve it. The references you claim that we are choosing to ignore to make us feel personally comfortable do not back up your writing. No one is attacking you or being rude to you. However you are attacking us and being quite rude. You can choose to abandon this article or help us improve it, it's your choice. Saboteurest (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You are right Saboteurest, I did rewrite sections of the lead over a long period of time, but it has been changed many times since then with deletions and additions from a wide variety of editors. The main reason I have enjoyed participating as an editor on Wikipedia is the collaboration with others, and learning new things as I go about both editing and the topics at hand. I have never claimed to know everything about Toronto, or any article that I have contributed to. I've also asked for opinions, and have been open to those with differences in opinion and also to having what I have written altered or changed completely, not only on this article by any article on Wikipedia that I have contributed to. If you read the first post that I made in this conversation, you will see that I said "I prefer the first version, but am open to changes to it. What are your thoughts? Should this paragraph be rewritten, or do changes need to be made?". In reverting your edit, in which you removed facts unrelated to the writing style, I didn't say that you were wrong. I opened the topic up to discussion with others who are also editing this article. You might notice that this article has been semi-protected (which I had nothing to do with). From what I have seen, that was done to stop frequent vandalism that was taking place on this article. It was mentioned by editor Hwy43 that "The editor in question (referring to you, Sabourturest) is a suspected sock of the anti-Toronto/pro-Ottawa banned UrbanNerd." I did not respond to that comment initially, and instead I unfortunately decided to continue this discussion to work through and collaborate on this editing change, as you and I clearly have very different ideas about many things. I wrote a very detailed response outlining my opinions on why I disagreed with some of the changes that you made, including reasons why I felt the way that I do about the edit. You responded by saying "Oh my, you actually made me laugh out loud. 'many people who live outside of the Toronto area may feel a need to belittle Toronto as a means to prevent it from outshining other cities in Canada.' Come on, you can't honestly believe that. You clearly have an infatuation with Toronto. It's pretty evident. And that not so sly humble-brag didn't help your cause. Saboteurest" That response to me is not from an editor who is interested at all in working together or sharing an alternate opinion about editing this article. It makes assumptions about me as a person, with a disrespectful tone. You'll notice that I responded by further explaining what I meant, and I still stand by what I said. I am open to constructive criticism and disagreement, but am not open to attacks, belittlement, or ultimatums, all of which, in my view, you have displayed during this conversation. I unfortunately let you get the best of me, in that my initial response to your ultimatum was not appropriate and I apologize for that. It was on this talk page very briefly and I quickly removed it as after reading it, I realized that by getting angry I was just further validating the negative tone that this argument has taken. I will not be engaging with you about this further here, and will instead be proceeding from this point by following procedures set out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as I don't see any possibility of coming to any sort of agreement with you. JPark99 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be more concerned in talking about your feelings and how these edits personally affect you then contributing to a resolution. You have acted irrationally, made wild accusations, and personally attacked me. You threw a tantrum and deleted your account claiming that you didn't want to be part of Wikipedia any further then returned almost immediately. With this being said and your recent bizarre behaviour I will respond on the dispute resolution page only. Saboteurest (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Just a note that Saboteurest has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the community-banned UrbanNerd. Perhaps some of the long-term watchers of this and similar pages recall UrbanNerd. If IPs or newly registered users suddenly appear to make edits to the article or talk page similar to those of Saboteurest, please consider listing the IPs or users at User:UrbanNerd. Hwy43 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I simply ask to change the link and link name in the info box from city linked to List of cities in Ontario to Metropolis liked to itself. In the metropolis article it says Toronto is considered a Canadian metropolis as well as in many American comics they consider it a metropolis, it also fits google's given definition of metropolis well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exutic (talk • contribs) 01:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The article should be updated to use the annual population estimates instead of the census numbers. Annual estimates are widely used in the articles on American and international cities. Typically the estimates are more accurate and up-to-date (e.g. in 2020, we can use the 2019 number instead of the 2016 figure). An explanation of the differences can be found at https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/hp/estima
Additionally, it makes more sense to use the Greater Golden Horseshoe population estimate in addition to the GTA estimate. Once again, this is standard practice for other large North American cities. The Chicago article provides both the MSA and CSA for Chicagoland (the equivalent of the Golden Horseshoe).
Lastly, Toronto should have overtaken the Chicago, IL and Washington, DC CSAs in 2017. As such it should be noted it is now the third largest metro area in North America.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowshoeing (talk • contribs)
Standard practice maybe for American cities (I don't know or really care), but definitely not Canadian cities. Johnny Au is correct. WP:CANSTYLE is the consensus. Latest census results prevail and estimates can be added in addition to latest census results only if certain conditions are met as described at CANSTYLE. Hwy43 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This article does not provide sufficient reference to the 'Golden Horseshoe', particularly in the introductory paragraph.
This would more accurately portray the Toronto region and its role in the Canadian economy. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) does not fully represent the magnitude of the Toronto region. The Golden Horseshoe is more similar to to how Metro Areas are calculated in the United States, which is driven by commuting habits.
The Golden Horseshoe encompasses several more contiguous municipalities than the GTA that are within the transportation and commuting networks of Toronto. Urban growth planning and transportation planning in the region is framed in the Golden Horseshoe context, not the GTA.
Problem is it puts too much emphasis on the assumption of Toronto being the driving force in the Golden Horseshoe. While yes it's a huge part of it, there are many other very strong contributors in that area (Hamilton, Mississauga, Kitchener/Waterloo etc.) How the US defines stuff is irrelevant, this is an article onCanada not the US and we shouldn't be trying to compare to US standards. Plus I'm not sure we have these commuting references to support that part. I think it should be briefly mentioned, mainly in order to direct people to the Golden Horseshoe article but not to draw undue emphasis on it or Toronto's role in it, that is what that article is for. Canterbury Tailtalk16:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
To avoid the problem that Canterbury Tail mentions I would simply state that GTA is part of the Golden Horseshoe in a brief mention as Johnny Au states. I wouldn't state it's a "driving" factor, possibly "contributing" factor, or just avoid mention of economics and focus on transportation and community aspects as mentioned by Afpg92. All of this, of course, dependent on RSes, and without putting WP:UNDUE emphasis on the greater region or GTA's role in it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd support just giving it a quick mention in line with what Walter Görlitz suggests.
Also just a quick response to the whole "urban planning and transportation planning is framed in the Golden Horseshoe context, not the GTA," that is dependent on the issue (the Government of Ontario doesn't mandate the use of either terms in its ministries). Large-scale urban planning (namely Places to Grow plan by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs) is framed around the Golden Horseshoe (they don't totally disregard the term GTA though, its just used in conjunction). But given that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs deals with pan-regional planning (i.e. planning around the Oak Ridge Moraine or Greenbelt, which extend beyond the GTA), it makes sense to use Golden Horseshoe as opposed to GTA. As for transportation planning, the Ministry of Transportation uses smaller agglomerations, such as the Greater Toronto Area, or the Niagara Region, and not the Golden Horseshoe (some of their plans even separate the GTA into Western GTA and Northern GTA). Leventio (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I've created a newer montage with images that are more significant (ie. places that are actually talked about in the article.) I would appreciate some feedback before adding it. -DrJenkins365 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know why you replaced the Prince Edward Viaduct with the Princes' Gates and you expanded the City Hall to include Nathan Phillips Square? Johnny Au(talk/contributions)01:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I also prefer the present montage. That said (perhaps a suggestion for the proposer) my issue with the proposed montage has more to do with its dimensions (the image is nearly 1:1, most city montages on here have a more portrait orientation) rather than the images that were selected. Leventio (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Toronto Island
Roy Thomson Hall
OCAD
Scarborough Bluffs
The boardwalk
Pride Parade
Taste of the Danforth
The Raptors
.jpg)
Done - Despite nothing being done I've closed it as such as that section would require more than one editor and no doubt in the next 3 years It'll get done, If you want it rewrote I suggest you A. Do it yourself, and B. Add it below my reply, Other than that I can't do much else I'm afraid, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: A request for a third opinion has been declined since multiple users are involved in this discussion. Users are recommend to pursue dispute resolution or to file a Request for Comment. Nihlus 12:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
