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.
@Leventio and Johnny Au: Adding International relations/sister cities as the heading or expanding International relations and adding Sister cities as a sub heading would also work. (I'm assuming the name already is International relations if it's not, then I mean the title it currently is) — BrandonXLF(t@lk)(ping back)21:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming its titled International relations as Toronto uses the term Partner Cities and Friendship Cities (the two are sorta different in that the former is more economically oriented than the latter) instead of just Sister city. That said, sister cities is the more widely used term for city articles (not to mention the name for Toronto's article is Sister cities of Toronto). Honestly, I'm sorta okay with either or, if anyone felt inclined to swap it for sister cities, I wouldn't be against the change. Leventio (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. There is a bit of a disconnect between Sister cities and what Toronto calls them, but since Sister cities is the normal naming of this stuff I don't see an issue, they're just subtypes. Canterbury Tailtalk12:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree. The vast majority of sources that use The Six as a nickname are primarily for marketing to the smartphone generation. I would like to see a serious academic use of The Six as a nickname, especially by those who are not in the field of marketing. We don't hear much of the use of "The Five" as a nickname of New York City for example, despite NYC being made up of five boroughs; "The Five Boroughs" is a nickname of NYC, while any use of "The Five" (without the Boroughs part) to refer to NYC would also primarily be used for the same purposes as calling Toronto "The Six." Johnny Au(talk/contributions)14:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@Johnny Au: True, but you don't have any big artist endorsing "The Five". Although "The Six" is used for marketing, it's still a nickname used by many people. Just because it's newer and became popular for different reasons doesn't mean it's not a nickname. — BrandonXLF(t@lk)(ping back)21:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, (at least to me) this is one of those wait and see moments. I mean, I don't see the harm in leaving it off for now (since it is brought up in the Name of Toronto). If the Six has a lasting impact, a reliable/academic article on its usage will eventually surface (not to mention the time will give us a better gauge on the issue). Leventio (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Of those sources above only the Globe and Mail approaches a reliable source and it's more talking about Drake and his fans rather than any widespread use. Urban Dictionary is most definitely not a reliable source and the Toronto Sun one is far from a serious article and is solely relating it to Drake. Really needs more reliable sources and some sign of permanence. One of the articles even calls it out for that. Canterbury Tailtalk16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The Six would also be more likely to be included if it lasts at least a decade without Drake's further intervention to ensure that it isn't a fad nickname. Not many people nowadays, living or otherwise, call Toronto the Queen City after all. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)12:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Ha, even BlogTo, the biggest proponents of trying to make The Six some kind of nickname is now admitting no one calls it that. New article (ignore the date in the URL, the fabulous editors at BlogTo have messed up again). Canterbury Tailtalk13:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh hells yes. However in this case they were the main ones trying to lead the charge on The Six nickname, and even they have now given up. Canterbury Tailtalk12:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There needs to be an update to the government description because the Ontario government changed the number of city council seats from 47 to 25 in September 2018 for the October 17, 2018 election.
The election is still several weeks away, and the current 44-incumbent council is still in place as of today. It'll get updated when the 25-member council actually gets sworn in, but as of today there's no information in that section that's wrong yet. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify for other potential editors, the change to 25 seats will take place after the swearing-in ceremonies on December 1, 2018, not immediately after the election results are known. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)02:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Proposed removal of the "(single-tier)" from settlement_type parameter
Toronto's status as a single-tier municipality, as defined by the Ontario provincial government, does not appear to fit the settlement_type parameter in the articles infobox. There is nothing specific about population, area, density, or geography that makes Toronto or any other municipality a "single-tier" municipality, it is only a legal term created by the province. Furthermore, when there are townships that are also classified as "single-tier", like Brethour, Ontario that has a population of less than 100, it becomes a completely meaningless distinction. I propose retaining "Provincial capital city" to keep in line with the other regional capitals, while removing the meaningless "single-tier" status and moving it into the articles text. -- TrailBlzr (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Suggesting to any interested editors to discuss this at the link provided above by TrailBlzr so as to keep the discussion in one location. Hwy43 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change this paragraph in Toronto:Culture:Sports:
Toronto is represented in six major league sports, with teams in the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, Canadian Football League, Major League Soccer and Canadian Women's Hockey League. It was formerly represented in a seventh, the USL W-League, until that announced on November 6, 2015 that it would cease operation ahead of 2016 season.[122][123]
to this:
Toronto is represented in five major league sports, with teams in the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, Canadian Football League and Major League Soccer.
It was formerly represented in a sixth, the Canadian Women's Hockey League which announced on March 31, 2019 that it would cease operations on May 1, 2019. [*] And prior to that it was also represented in a seventh, the USL W-League, until that announced on November 6, 2015 that it would cease operation ahead of 2016 season.[122][123]
You mistyped my name above, but I still noticed this. Honestly I think e-sports are as valid as regular sports in general, so that doesn't bother me in any way. However the question here is are they really notable enough to be mentioned on the main Toronto city page. Toronto has lots of small sports teams that are more successful than Toronto Defiant, and with more history, that are not mentioned on the article. And Toronto Defiant are only a year old. What are other city articles doing with regards to this sort of team? I think we should just treat them as any other sports team and go from there. At this point the team has no notable players, hasn't won anything, has existed only a year and is only 6 people, so I'm kinda dubious in all honesty. If this were a traditional sports team of 6 people, no notable players, hadn't won any competitions or had a lot of investment, would we include them? Attempts to add these teams to city articles of Dallas, Los Angeles and others have been remove as non-notable. However willing to be persuaded. Canterbury Tailtalk01:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for misspelling your name, Canterbury Tail. As much as I am all for including e-sports teams, I agree that there are numerous more notable small Toronto-based professional sports teams (such as the Intercounty Baseball League's Toronto Maple Leafs (not to be confused with the more famous hockey Leafs)) than the Defiant and with a history much longer than video games in general. There are not many reliable sources for the Defiant, as most are either sourced from the Defiant themselves, their opponents, or from Blizzard Entertainment (which makes the Overwatch game that the Defiant play) and those three all constitute primary sources (and the individual players themselves aren't notable). There is a very good reason why the main Dallas and the Los Angeles articles (and a few others) have mentions of their respective Overwatch League teams removed. By the way, can the Toronto Defiant be added to Sports in Toronto and/or List of sports teams in Toronto instead? Johnny Au(talk/contributions)01:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
So... I helped someone add the Toronto Arrows onto the list of sports teams. But taking into account of the last discussion on esports, and the hidden note on niche sports teams (I removed it though, cause it was in relation to a defunct team), do we have a criteria for entry into that list? Leventio (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
That is a good question. The points I made in the previous section still stand, regardless if it is played on a field, played on a court, played on a rink, played in a pool, played on gymnastics equipment, played on a tabletop, played on a computer, or played on a video game console. @Canterbury Tail: What do you think? Johnny Au(talk/contributions)12:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Same comments as above. Is the team notable enough that an international audience would find it interesting to have them mentioned on a general article about Toronto? Looks like a pretty new minor competition league and team to me, so not convinced it should be on the main Toronto page. Not of close to the same level as the likes of the Toronto Wolfpack. Canterbury Tailtalk21:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Probably shoulda put this in the original post as well, but should we also move Toronto Eagles, and Toronto Rush to the Sports in Toronto article? Cause (in addition to Arrows), these were the other two teams that made me ask this question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leventio (talk • contribs)
Maybe we should draw a hard line for inclusion, such as only professional sports teams or the like. There is a lot of non-notable and non-professional sports teams in Toronto. Canterbury Tailtalk14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change coordinates of Toronto to its city center. Currently is set as 43°44′30″N 79°22′24″W and should be 43°39′12″N 79°23′0″W.
Additionally, add relief to all pushpin maps. And add brackets " and " around location in the pushpin maps. Such as Location within Ontario, Location within Canada and Location within North America.
Not done for now: Can you explain or provide a source for why one location is preferable to the other for the coordinates? "Just look at a map" is not a good enough reason, I'm afraid, as "city center" can mean different things to different people and we need a reason the suggestion is better than the current. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)23:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The current co-ordinates seem to be a "geographic" center of Toronto. But, looking at it visually, I think it appears to be too far north. The suggested co-ordinates are Toronto City Hall, which does correspond to normal maps as the center-point of a city. I'm going to take a look at other city articles. Alaney2k (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. There must be a story there as to the choosing of that point. Do you know how they calculated that? Alaney2k (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
According to them, the coordinates provided are "the centre of a feature, except for flowing-water features where coordinates are at the mouth" (under Latitude/Longitude def.). So I guess what they think is the geographic centre. Leventio (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose the following changes to the introduction (which were reverted by today with the suggestion to first discuss them here). I propose to compare Toronto to other cities and metropolitan areas in North America. I also propose to add information related to the Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) annual Global Liveability Ranking, which is published by a well regarded newspaper and does a semi-scientific analysis of multiple factors that are a synthesis of Eduction, Healthcare, Stability, Culture, and Infrastructure. While not perfect, it gives a good indication well a city performs on these metrics. I also suggest to add reference to the U of T and the Toronto General Hospital which are both world-renowned institutions which should be mentioned and can or can not be supported by metrics. In general for Universities the ARWU, QS and Times ranking can be used reliably, I am not sure about hospitals but clearly TG and SickKids have worldwide reputations and should be mentioned in the lead. Also the fact that Toronto is a global financial center could be mentioned.
The diverse population of Toronto reflects its current and historical role as an important destination for immigrants to Canada.[11][12] More than 50 percent of residents belong to a visible minority population group,[13] and over 200 distinct ethnic origins are represented among its inhabitants.[14] While the majority of Torontonians speak English as their primary language, over 160 languages are spoken in the city.[15]
The city is home to the Toronto Stock Exchange, the headquarters of Canada's five largest banks,[27] and the headquarters of many large Canadian and multinational corporations.[28] Its economy is highly diversified with strengths in technology, design, financial services, life sciences, education, arts, fashion, aerospace, environmental innovation, food services, and tourism.[29][30][31] Toronto is home to the University of Toronto, consistently ranked first in Canada and among the top 20 Universities worldwide, and with Toronto General Hospital contains one of the top 10 hospitals in the world.[32]
^Flew, Janine; Humphries, Lynn; Press, Limelight; McPhee, Margaret (2004). The Children's Visual World Atlas. Sydney, Australia: Fog City Press. p. 76. ISBN978-1-74089-317-6.
^Cite error: The named reference sc-geo-profile-to was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The only significant change over the existing version of the article is the inclusion of rankings from two magazines: [1][2]. However, a rough consensus was established here to exclude magazine rankings from Canadian city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion was not as clear-cut as you suggest, there was clear consensus to delete the non-serious rankings such as "best foodie city" and "best city for people with hamsters" or rankings based on reader polls. However, the consensus against other types of rankings is much less established, especially some from the Economist (specifically mentioned as potentially valid) and rankings that are commonly used throughout Wikipedia such as University rankings. Sorry, I did not want to work against existing consensus but to me there is a difference between serious and non-serious rankings. --hroest21:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I mean, speaking just on the individual institution rankings, I honestly can't think of a good reason for the inclusion of individual institutional rankings in the lead of the article on the City of Toronto in its entirety. The entire point of the lead is intended to provide a concise overview of the article's content and sections, providing a quick summary of what it covers in the actual article body. If anything, if we were to expand the lead, work should be made towards providing a summary of said omitted sections from the lead first (something like the city's wider public/health networks, or education system is probably more appropriate) as opposed to inserting the accolades of just one institution as some non-sequitur (considering the larger section itself isn't even introduced).
In my mind, content like that is more appropriately suited in the section found in the article body, as it provides a better space for said content to be properly fleshed out (i.e. methodology of ranking, what are they ranking [opinions of people? bibliometric?]); something that cannot be done in a lead (seeing as how the nature of that whole thing is to be concise). Leventio (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to update Toronto's population statistic. According to the official City of Toronto website, the most current population number is 2,956,024 as of July 2018.
I like it, the old one is 6 years out of date. We should update it photos of things like the Toronto sign, UofT, spice things up a bit, but this one looks good. Don't think it's too controversial of a change so I'll go ahead and WP:BEBOLD, along with some other edits I made.WildComet (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I honestly don't think Toronto needs that many images for its montage. The new one looks nice, but 7 images is too many in my opinion. The thing I liked about the other one was that it didn't have that many images and it wasn't too big. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk02:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't really have a preference for which image to remove, but I sorta feel like the bottom right image of the Bluffs should be maintained for now, seeing as how its the only image there thats from outside the old city. Leventio (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with the amount of images, I think 6 is the perfect number visuals wise but have no issues with the 7 we have now. It would be nice to have new photos, however. My main gripe was that the previous montage was maybe 5 years out of date (which I think anyone who has lived in Toronto can tell by the skyline and lack of Toronto sign at City Hall), I'm pretty happy with the new one, it has has an updated skyline, and the layout looks nicer in general, but it would be nice if we could get a version of the City Hall with the Toronto sign, especially since that is becoming a tourist attraction. WildComet (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the current montage is outdated, especially with how rapid Toronto's skyline is developing and the lack of the 3D Toronto sign, which is among the most photographed in the city based on social media posts. Johnny Au(talk/contributions)15:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I just updated the montage, and this time it includes an image of the City Hall with the Toronto sign (the same image suggested by Nkon21). − Allice Hunter(Inbox)16:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I would agree the montage needed updating, I am not sure about the current format or choice of pictures. Personally I find some of them hard to see in the current format or just odd angles. The city hall pic is a bit weird in the montage and the Royal Ontario Museum has the cars in the foreground which is distracting. The Legislative building is really hard to focus on as well with this setup. Just the opinions of an outsider. Krazytea(talk)03:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Image spam in lead
Could we get some people to look at the lead images. Lets try to make the article navigable in mobile view and not a picture book.--Moxy🍁12:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I've been looking at some other cities' montages and I really like how Calgary and Montreal (Montreal being a good article too) has theirs laid out with the two portrait images spacing out the smaller ones - reduces the clutter and is fine on mobile. I wasn't a fan of the old montage - looked more cluttered, even with less photos and was out of date - so I was really glad when someone made a new one with updated photos. I wouldn't complain if y'all wanted to lay it out like those. Maybe switch Price Edward Viaduct for the Humber Bay bridge for the sake of geographic diversity, Casa Loma with the Distillery District (more historically significant, popular attraction). We could cut the ROM (what makes it more notible than the AGO, or Hockey Hall of Fame?) to bring it down to the right number of images for the format. Any ideas on how to include places outside the downtown too? WildComet (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A decent picture of the skyline should definitely be added. They Toronto skyline is very well known, a major symbol of the city. 199.229.220.150 (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Johnny Au: I am currently trying to find the best image of the Toronto Skyline. I'm checking several images on Commons to find an image that fits and looks nice. For me, only the first image should be replaced. − Allice Hunter(Inbox)04:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Skyline in the Montage
Could we get an updated panoramic skyline image in the upper portion of the montage rather than just condos along Harbourfront? I believe we can agree a panoramic view of the skyscrapers and the CN Tower is a more accurate depiction of the city. I also suggest removing the ROM image and replacing it with a panoramic shot of the Bluffs like previously. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the government section, in the last paragraph. The sentence goes The city's revenues include subsidies from the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario<note>(for programs mandated by those governments)</note>, 33% from property tax, 6% from the land transfer tax and the rest from other tax revenues and user fees. I think the <note> in there should be properly formatted. CorrectionW1K2 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I understand a lot of major city's pages usually go by last Federal census, and then a current year estimate. I came across [3] from the City of Toronto's website, citing a July 2018 population of 2,956,024. Is this something that should be included in the article? Or should this be left alone until the 2021 Canadian Census? CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Your request consists only of a vague request to add, update, modify, or improve an image, or is a request to include an image that is hosted on an external site. If you want an image changed, you must identify a specific image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBriTalk02:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
A wide picture of the Toronto skyline would not look that good because the buildings seen from a distance look small compared to the other images. The ideal is to use an image of only a part of the skyline, as in the pages of some other cities. We do not need to update the skyline image annually (especially if the place in the used image has not changed and if we do not have good images on Commons). The current image showing only a few buildings of Toronto is good enough and looks good on the set of images. − Allice Hunter(Inbox)20:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Adding Sources
Hello,
I saw the tags on this page saying several sections needed to have more sources added. I found a few sources for the "Neighbourhoods" section, and added them to the "Old Toronto," "Suburbs" and "Industrial" sections within that. I'm not sure if this is enough to resolve the tags on each section, but I hope it is helpful!
I've added {{citation needed}} tags as required and removed a few superfluous banners (I think one for the whole Neighbourhoods section is more than enough). The reference you added in this edit is a circular reference to a book that is a compilation of Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, looks good. - Floydianτ¢18:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not clear what you're asking us to do, this number is already reported in the infobox. Make your request in the format of "Please change X to Y because of Z." Canterbury Tailtalk12:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Population References are not Stats Can but are instead a publication company. The historic data exists at Stats Can and could be referenced directly.
I recommend replacing references with the source links at stats can TheKevlar 22:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)
I am adding a sustainability section. If anyone wishes to participate or help clean up and streamline other sections there is a discussion at the Canadian Wikipedians noticeboard regarding this project. It is a multi-city effort where we will be doing the same for other cities in Canada. TheKevlar 20:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The latest edit by User:WinnipegMA is factually incorrect and should be reverted. The generally agreed-upon elevation of the Toronto shore is somewhere around 73 to 76 meters, although it's hard to find a single source that says that explicitly:
@Wolfdog: The whole point of Help:IPA/English is to help speakers interpret our transcription according to their own dialect. The flapping of the /nt/ sequence isn't "local", meaning "specific to the Toronto area". It's a common feature of many if not most dialects of NAE. It's probably as "not local" as the cot-caught merger.
The audio accompanying the transcription /ˈtrɒnoʊ,-nə/ represents neither pronunciation. It represents the [təˈɹɒɾ̃oʊ] variant of /təˈrɒntoʊ/. The lack of affrication of the supposed /tr/ onset and the schwa that is there instead between the stop and the approximant is very audible to me. So we need another audio clip. Sol505000 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
And yet Americans and many other Canadians are often ridiculed when they do pronounce the /t/, which they commonly do (see the "10 and 3" source, which I included precisely for this reason). So there may indeed be something unusual at work here. As for the audio, I'd honestly forgotten that was attached; you can feel free to remove it, now that sources have revealed other phonetic features in this pronunciation. Wolfdog (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Apparently /nt/-flapping in Toronto has been lexicalized... in Toronto. This could be comparable with the lexicalized non-rhoticity in the word gangsta, which has evolved from gangster to become a distinct word. Here, the /t/-less pronunciation has just become a local standard. The pronunciation with /nt/, at least in the US, is probably used by well-meaning native speakers of other varieties of NAE who want to sound clear. Which is perfectly understandable, since there's not one single other word in which the orthographic sequence ⟨nt⟩ stands for an underlying /n/. It always stands for /nt/ with optional (probably usual but still phonetic) flapping. Sol505000 (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Sol505000: my edit has little to do with what this discussion is about. You should simply not use the diaphonemic transcription for local realizations, you should rather use it only if the local pronunciation has a different underlying set of phonemes (e.g. /ɑː/ instead of /æ/ and such), which is definitely not the case here. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話）12:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@IvanScrooge98:/VnV/ will automatically be parsed as an alveolar nasal flap in the appropriate environments, so I don't understand your point. It is flapped the same as the other two alveolar stops. I don't think we should be putting any narrow phonetic transcriptions in articles like that. Who's going to be able to read them?
Plus, the recording is clearly wrong, as it has three syllables and onset /r/ (not /tr/) in the stressed syllable. It's not the local pronunciation (at least not "local" as opposed to "non-local"), but rather a generic North American pronunciation (the other one being with a phonetic [nt]) that can be heard in any region (more or less), except in careful speech. Sol505000 (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Where did you get that idea? Are we not supposed to show the difference between the American pronunciation of Maryland as /ˈmɛrᵻlənd/ (pronounced with DRESS even in those regions that have a distinct SQUARE/FACE vowel in "Mary") and the RP pronunciation /ˈmɛərᵻlənd/, which prefers SQUARE? Sources say that the first vowel in Toronto is often deleted in the local variety of English. That's a local pronunciation which I don't think occurs in either GA or RP. No pronunciation dictionary records it. The schwa in the last syllable is even more local and that pronunciation doesn't occur in any standard variety of English (see Rhoticity in English#Goat–comma–letter merger, a section I created yesterday).
@Sol505000: “The transcription system of Help:IPA/English, upon which this template relies, is diaphonemic, i.e. meant to cover multiple major varieties of English at once. If you wish to give a narrow transcription of a pronunciation in a certain variety of English, use {{IPA-endia}} or {{IPA-all}} instead.” Now, you either do the job or I will. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話）12:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me, especially with Maryland. There's a massive difference between a transcription system used in an IPA guide and when to use the corresponding IPA template. Can't you see it? Sol505000 (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Help:IPA/English and {{IPAc-en}}are strictly connected, since one explains the other (it’s literally said in the quotation above!), even more so if the template is the only one used for diaphonemic transcriptions here and the help was conceived to avoid cluttering articles with needless specifications that one can easily find in the guide. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話）12:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What you're suggesting is that one should never preface any IPAc-en transcription with "US", "UK" (or indeed "local") etc. except when dealing with, say, the TRAP-BATH or LOT-CLOTH splits - which is complete nonsense. There's more to phonemic incidence in English than that!
Whether we should retain any local transcription in this particular article is another story. I'd certainly leave the one ending with a schwa, but I'd like to see any confirmation on actual vowel deletion before /r/. The man on the recording I keep removing from the article says either [tɨ̥ˈɹɒɾ̃o̜̽] (with a voiceless schwa and a weakly rounded, centralized monophthongal GOAT) or [tɨ̥ˈɹɒɾ̃ə] (with two schwas, the first one voiceless and the other one final, occurring instead of GOAT). I can't figure out which one it is - but neither features an onset /tr/ (the voiceless postalveolar non-sibilant affricate). Sol505000 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Whether it is nonsense or not, this is not the place to discuss that since that’s how the diaphonemic template is supposed to be used, period. Open a discussion in a more appropriate place. Regarding the audio file, I don’t have an ear refined enough to be able to tell which one of the two vowels occurs at the end. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話）13:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Read the guide more carefully and look how the template is and has been used on Wikipedia. As to whether our /n/ diaphoneme correctly represents a flap in this environment, that's another story. I'd say it most probably does.
Ah, Ruiz Garrido (2011) says that the schwa may or may not be deleted. That works. He also says that the final vowel is a schwa, so [tɨˈɹɒɾ̃ə] (or [ˈt̠ɹ̠̊˔ɒɾ̃ə], with an affricate). Both /təˈrɒn(t)ə/ and /ˈtrɒn(t)ə/ are very clear candidates to include in our article. I oppose removing them. Sol505000 (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I don’t see what in the guide would make me change my mind, maybe you should read it more carefully. I know very well that the template has been used in a variety of ways, but that doesn’t mean it was/is meant to be used like that. I admit that /ˈtrɒntə/ may be included as a possibility though. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話）13:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
And what's wrong with including the trisyllabic /təˈrɒn(t)ə/ as well? Per Stress and vowel reduction in English#Distinctions between reduced and unreduced vowels, both reduced GOAT (the one that further reduces to a schwa in "Toronto") and a full GOAT that cannot be reduced can occur immediately after stress. If you can reliably distinguish between the two (as well as the reduced vs. full KIT, as in "battle it" vs. "battleship"), then you're a special case. I cannot and most of our readers can't. Sol505000 (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
What? How did you end up talking about this? Yes, I also meant /təˈrɒntə/, sorry if I just put one of the two transcriptions; but how does that relate to the reduced final /oʊ/? Actually, what you said seems to oppose the inclusion of the /-ə/ variant. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話）13:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Why shouldn't the variants with a final schwa be included? I just said that the reduced (or full) nature of GOAT cannot be reliably deduced from the fact that it occurs immediately after stress, as shown by the farrow/Pharaoh example. An orthographic ⟨ow⟩ (as in barrow, cockney [ˈbæɹɐ]) is a good indicator of a reduced GOAT (though probably not in all cases), but Toronto is spelled with an ⟨o⟩. Sol505000 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Could someone with a more discerning ear than I confirm the presence of a 't' in the first local pronunciation (locally /təˈrɒntə/ⓘ)? There is simply an n and a schwa. I cannot hear one even optimistically. /təˈrɒnə/. Disclosure: not Canadian. 24.147.31.161 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
All three are phonemic transcriptions. The alveolar nasal flap is transcribed /nt/ here - see Help_talk:IPA/English/Archive_26#Alveolar_nasal_flap_in_NAE. In Help:IPA/English, we don't transcribe flapping at all (including flapping of /r/ in Scottish English Greenock[ˈɡɾinək]), with Seattle transcribed /siˈætəl/ (rather than /siˈædəl/ or /siˈæɾəl/) and Toledo transcribed /təˈliːdoʊ/ (rather than /təˈliːɾoʊ/). In General American English, these are flapped with the same consistency as the /nt/ sequence in local pronunciations of Toronto. Indeed, even the standard pronunciation of Toronto (with a final /oʊ/ and an audible schwa between /t/ and /r/) is normally pronounced with a nasal flap in much of the North America, with [nt] being a spelling pronunciation that doesn't occur in many/most dialects in normal speech. /nt/ is not even the only cluster where /t/ can be elided, Westminster is usually pronounced without the first /t/ even in RP: [ˈwɛsmɪn(t)stə], where it aligns with cockney [ˈwɛsmɪn(t)stɐ~ˈwɛsmɪ̃stɐ]. I think that would be transcribed /ˈwɛstmɪnstər/ per our guide (but it's not, per MOS:LEADPRON), ignoring both the elision of the first /t/ and the possible affrication of the post-nasal /s/ (not to mention the fact that /ˈwɛstmɪnstər/ also stands for an intermediate variant [ˈwɛspⁿmɪn(t)stə] in which the first, morpheme-final /t/ is assimilated to the the place of articulation of the following morpheme-initial /m/. /ˈwɛsmɪnstər/ does not). Sol505000 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi fellow Wikipedian's, I noticed that the Toronto wikipedia page is outdated with information about the current available area codes for telephone numbers as per NANPA, BELL CANADA, GLOBAL NEWS, and Wikipedia articles.
It currently doesn't include 365 and 742 area code, the latter was made available as per October 2021.
Not done, these area codes do not cover Toronto. Toronto has its own set of area codes; 416, 647 & 437. The ones you talk about are for southern Ontario which excludes Toronto. Canterbury Tailtalk16:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, there seems to be a misunderstanding Bell Canada, as well as CRTC (our Communications Regulator) Global News, have reiterated that its for the entire golden horshoe region, which includes toronto.
The wording Golden Horseshoe is misleading here cause they aren't using it in the traditional sense, but rather how the Canadian Numbering Administration Consortium defines it (where they have the City of Toronto as a separate region from the rest of the Golden Horseshoe. In cases of such ambiguity, going to the source itself is helpful. On CNAC's maps (see here), you can see that the 742 is for the Golden Horseshoe (which excludes Toronto for their purposes). And in the CRTC's decision (see here), it makes it clear it only relieves area codes 289, 365, and 905, and not any of the area codes associated with Toronto. Leventio (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the "20th Century" section of "History", there is a statement "This only delayed the bill's inevitable passage, given the PCO's majority." I suggest "PCO" be spelled out, as I was initially confused with the Privy Council Office or perhaps some other entity I was unfamiliar with, and the article Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario lists "PC" as the abbreviation for that entity, not "PCO" :
If PCO refers to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, can that be spelled out?:
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to insert a skyline panorama photograph that I took this summer of Toronto from the Toronto Islands. It would be awesome if that image was used as one of the main images when Toronto is searched or even added under the 21st century/Architecture section. Feel free to use it on the main page and make it as wide as you would like. Let me know how to proceed. Thank you! (The figure showed up below the written request.) I've contributed quite a few images to the Wiki commons and am happy that my images are used for others to enjoy. SkiEngineer (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Exploring downtown Toronto Canada on Saturday, June 18, 2022. (Photo by Kiffer Creveling)
There's no denying that your photo looks great, but it is best that we first develop a consensus before we add your photo to the main article. Thank you so much for suggesting your great photo though. Here's hoping that you do very well with your photography skills. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I found this article very well-written, well-written enough to become a good article. I saw very few "Citation needed" tags, no (or 1) typos, fresh clarity, and nothing needing retoning, unlike some GAs. I will consider putting it on GAN today. SpyridisioAnnisDiscussion10:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I have removed this tag. While there are a few problems quite quickly apparent from a glance, there are notably multiple cn tags as well as multiple entirely unsourced paragraphs. CMD (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This article will need many improvements before it can be added to GAN. For example, it needs more citations from reliable sources, preferably those that are also recent. Right now, it is B class, the highest class in the quality scales used in all pertinent WikiProjects that doesn't require a thorough review from a Wikipedian not involved with the WikiProjects associated with the topic. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Presumably so. No one will be assuming the powers of the mayoral office between his resignation and the next election, and the city is making it clear that the deputy mayor will not be the "acting mayor" or "interim mayor" (at least according to this). If need be, a footnote could be added with "vacant", that explains how the deputy mayor is assuming a caretaker leadership role during that process. Leventio (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the office of mayor will become vacant and the deputy mayor performs limited functions, but does not take office herself, even in an acting or interim capacity.
I recall when the office of governor general was vacant, we listed it as such in the infobox in the Canada article, even though the chief justice performed the duties. A footnote could certainly be helpful as well. —WildComettalk00:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Since Jennifer McKelvie is named temporary mayor of Toronto, her name should remain in the infobox until the new mayor is sworn in a few days after the byelection (not immediately after the byelection results are known, which is a very common mistake made by anyone not familiar with WikiProject guidelines, which is most Wikipedians). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The "locally [təˈɹɒɾ̃ə] or [ˈtɹɒɾ̃ə]" pronunciation of "Toronto" (with the final schwa)is hugely archaic. Locals have used that pronunciation only facetiously for generations now. Both my parents were born in Toronto, ages 80 and 78, and I've never heard either one of them use this pronunciation in normal conversation, nor any Torontonian in the multiple times I've lived in the city. The article gives the counterfactual impression that this now-rare pronunciation is the "normal" everyday pronunciation that Torontonians actually use. The actual local pronunciation is [təˈɹɒɾ̃oʊ] or [ˈtɹɒɾ̃oʊ], which itself is unremarkable, as it is the standard pronunciation in General Canadian English. 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:BDBB:5E9F:61C9:9347 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
But how obnoxious it is that Wikipedia can have misinformation like this in people's faces for, what, years? Decades? And when someone points it out, the onus is on them to provide a source for something so unremarkable a source is unlikely even to exist. A few years ago and these sources wouldn't have existed. 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:BDBB:5E9F:61C9:9347 (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The David Crystal source is also misrepresented. It gives both "tronno" and "toronna" pronunciations, while noting that the deletion of the second "t" is a normal "feature Canadian shares with US English" "as in twenty, antidote, etc." So that's a source (one already provided) backing up everything I was saying. 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:BDBB:5E9F:61C9:9347 (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
"The10and3" is taking me to "sign up to win a free iPhone!" spam rather than an article that supports any pronunciation of Toronto, and the other two sources aren't proving your point because they're concerned with the second t rather than the o after it. So you really haven't provided any sources that actually prove your claim of archaicity at all, because you haven't shown any sources that say anything at all about how the terminal vowel is or isn't supposed to be pronounced. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bearcat:: I said the 10and3 link was broken, didn't I? Here is a corrected link, which explicitly gives "tronnoh or to-ronnoh" as the only acceptable local pronunciations. The Global News link leads with a video which gives the "oh" pronunciation of the terminal vowel as the correct one.
But you're demonstrating exactly what I was saying. The standard, most common pronunciation of the city by locals follows all the normal pronunciation rules, making it inherently unremarkable. Thus, the sources you're most likely to find are of remarkable pronunciations, such as the rare and archaic [ˈtɹɒɾ̃ə]. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, but Wikipedians are willing to settle for mere sources, regardless of their actual reliability. This leads to Wikipedia articles such as this one spreading misinformation. You appear to be Canadian. Have you been to Toronto? How many Torontonians have you actually heard saying [ˈtɹɒɾ̃ə], rather than [ˈtɹɒɾ̃oʊ]?
Ooh, here's something published by Carleton University, and it's very explicit: "The ... two variants ([təɹɑnːə] and [tʃɹɑnːə]) ... were dispreferred by Torontonians generally". Pretty hard to keep that in the lead with findings like that. Are there any more hoops to jump through?
I never suggested "archaic" be included in the text, but I'm going to retract having called the [ˈtɹɒɾ̃ə] pronunciation archaic. Some comments on Reddit and elsewhere suggest it's a pronunciation found in certain rural areas of Ontario outside the GTA—in other words, a very non-local pronunciation, making the lead doubly incorrect. 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:22A2:38D8:45DC:A518 (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why this is being ignored. I've provided far more than enough sources to fix the problem, and one of the sources in the lead is broken. The broken link was removed from the talk page, but not the article itself! If nobody can be bothered, why not unlock the page and let me do it? 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:50D0:74DF:19D3:657 (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Nobody on Wikipedia has any responsibility to obey your schedule, for starters. This is a volunteer project, not a job where people are assigned tasks by supervisors — so nobody here has any responsibility to jump through any hoops you put up.
Further, you started this discussion providing no sources for your assertion at all, then when challenged to provide sources you started out with sources that didn't support what you were claiming. Then you found sources saying that a lot of people don't like the ǝ pronunciation, which is still not at all the same thing as the ǝ pronunciation somehow failing to exist — the reason people know they don't like it, and the reason anybody would even think to ask people whether they liked it or not, is because it exists.
Wikipedia's job is not to prescribe what pronunciations are seen as "correct", it's to describe the pronunciations that exist. (By the same token, I grew up in Sudbury, and while the proper pronunciation of that is "Sudburry" rhyming with "hurry", there are and always have been people who pronounce it "Sudberry" rhyming with "blueberry" instead. Most Sudburians hate that, but it is still a pronunciation that exists.) Our job, again, is not to dictate rules about what pronunciations people should be using; it's to simply list the pronunciations that actually are seen in the real world regardless of whether they're seen as "correct" ones or not. So the key to getting the ə keys out of the article isn't "show evidence that people don't like it", and would require "show evidence that the ə pronunciation doesn't even exist at all", which you've still failed to do. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bearcat: The Sudbury article makes no claims of "Sudberry" being a "local pronunciation", and the Toronto article makes no claims that the schwa pronunciation merely "exists", but is the "local pronunciation", which is false. It is supported with three inline citations, one of which never gives the schwa pronunciation at all (and is broken), and another (Crystal) gives it as an alternative "Canadian" pronunciation, with no claims of it being a local Toronto pronunciation.
Did you read the PDF? You're misreading "disprefer" as "dislike", when the question is "Would you personally say Toronto this way?" The schwa pronunciation was given as the most unlikely pronunciation amongst Torontonians themselves, less likely even than the pronunciation where the final "t" was pronounced, which signified an "out-group" pronunciation to Torontonians.
I've never suggested giving a prescriptive pronunciation—I suggested removing it entirely, as the most common pronunciation amongst Torontonians is inherently unnotable (explicitly per Crystal, one of the citations already in the lead). You also claim my sources don't back up what I'm saying, but I've already pointed out that the Global source (and, it turns out, the Sun source) provide videos to demonstrate the local pronunciation of Toronto. No source has been provided yet to demonstrate the schwa pronunciation as the actual "local pronunciation". The Moreno source gives no source for the claim that it makes in passing that the schwa pronunciation is used by "most of the city's inhabitants", which is flatly contradicted by the Carleton study and all the other sources provided.
"it's to simply list the pronunciations that actually are seen in the real world"—it's not given as a pronunciation "seen in the real world", but as the "local pronunciation", which is misinformation pushed in the readers' faces in the opening sentence of the article. A properly contextualized list of pronunciations might be appropriate elsewhere in the article, but the article cannot make counterfactual claims as to how the locals typically pronounce the name of the city. 115.36.174.114 (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
You're misreading "disprefer" as "dislike" Please provide dictionary citations to support your patently absurd and laughable contention that "disprefer" and "dislike" mean anything different from each other. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bearcat: "disprefer" is a domain-specific term used primarily in linguistics to mean: "To favour or prefer (something) less than the alternatives." Wiktionary has an entry for it, and you can read more about it here and here. Regardless, It would be absurd for "disprefer" to mean "dislike", given that "prefer" doesn't mean "like": "I'd prefer being shot to being hanged" doesn't mean you'd like to be shot.
The article in question is a linguistics article that is clearly using the term in the sense as defined, giving a list of seven pronunciations of "Toronto" and respondents' reactions to them. The article is very clear that the schwa pronunciation is the least likely to be used by a Torontonians—even less likely than pronouncing the second "t", which respondents consider being an "outside-group" pronunciation.
Again, have you read the article (or any of the sources)? You claimed the other sources didn't support the [oʊ] pronunciation either, when they both use videos of evidence of this very pronunciation. You seem more intent on attacking me than on ensuring the accuracy of the article and veracity of its sources. Aren't we supposed to collaborate on ensuring the article reflects the consensus of the most reliable sources? 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:E0C2:4E63:70B1:349F (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
And the difference in meaning between "to favour or prefer something less than the alternatives" and "not liking it as much as the alternative" would be...what, exactly? Semantically, that would be a distinction without a difference, because those phrases don't mean anything markedly different from each other.
Yes, I read every source. There was a point in this discussion in which you tried to stack your argument on sources that were entirely about flapping the t and said nothing whatsoever about the "correct" or "incorrect" wan to pronounce the o. And the videos in both of those links do feature people who are schwa-ing the o rather than ohhhh-ing it, without being told they're wrong about that, and thus don't illustrate the point you think you're trying to make. Bearcat (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The difference, which I've cited already, is given explicitly in the paper: the [ə] is the least likely pronunciation respondents' were likely to use, less likely than pronunciations attributed to "outside groups". You say you've read the sources, but demonstrating you haven't.
"There was a point in this discussion in which you tried to stack your argument on sources that were entirely about flapping the t"—I've demonstrated this assertion as false more than once now. Every source I provided demonstrates the [oʊ] pronunciation. Repeatedly claiming otherwise won't change that fact.
"schwa-ing the o rather than ohhhh-ing it"—they objectively are not. I'll notify WP:Linguistics and get someone knowledgeable and objective to clarify this. Please don't bite them when they join the discussion.
I fail to see how [təˈɹɒno] is any different from the diaphonemic/təˈrɒntoʊ/. It's just a narrow transcription, and /nt/ flapping ([n] is not really how you transcribe it, by the way) is completely unremarkable in North American English. It's the opposite of "local". I've removed it. Sol505000 (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Sol505000: Sure, but isn't /ˈtrɒntoʊ/ just as unremarkable? Compare to "torrential", "tarantula", etc. Like I've stated above and below, the pronunciation of "Toronto" follows all the normal North American pronunciation rules, and thus doesn't really need a "local" pronunciation cluttering up the lead. 218.219.61.6 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Having said that, the sources we have do bend over backwards to point out that non-locals often pronounce the second "t", which doesn't sit well with the locals, so it probably warrants mention somewhere in the article. 218.219.61.6 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the omission of the second "t" when pronouncing Toronto's name, this is not unique to the Toronto area. Atlanta for example is pronounced "Alanna" by locals with both "t"s omitted in speech. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Johnny Au: If you read the discussion, you'll see we've already discussed this, and have a source for it (Crystal 1995). Nevertheless, we have multiple sources telling us that non-locals often pronounce the "t", even when they speak a dialect that normally doesn't. 218.219.61.6 (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Re: this edit: we have sources for both [ˈtɹɒno] and [ˈtʃɹɒno], including the cited Bergin. I use both.
I'm fairly certain the final vowel should be [oʊ], not [oʊ], and the final consonant should be [ɾ̃], not [n].
The lead gives the pronunciation of Toronto as "locally [təˈɹɒɾ̃ə] or [ˈtɹɒɾ̃ə]", but:
The three citations supporting this are problematic:
"The 10 and 3" citation is broken, and the corrected link gives an [oʊ] pronunciation, not [ə].
The David Crystal source gives both [oʊ] and [ə] as possible "Canadian" pronunciations, but does not specify a pronunciation local to Toronto.
The preponderance of evidence is that the [oʊ] is by far most common, and [ə] least common and least acceptable to locals, per [this paper published by Carleton University. [ə] is also most likely a non-local, rural pronunciation (not "archaic", as I at first mistakenly assumed).
Other sources give written and video evidence of [oʊ] as the local pronunciation.
Per the Crystal cite already in the lead, the deletion of the second "t" is a normal "feature Canadian shares with US English" "as in twenty, antidote, etc." This makes it inherently unnotable, thus IPA for it in the lead is unnecessary.
Since the use of each of the sources in the lead is problematic, and the evidence is that the [ə] pronunciation is at best uncommon, the "local pronunciation" and its citations should be deleted entirely, so as not to mislead readers. Pronunciation variants, if included at all, belong in the body of the article, with proper contextualization and citation.
Regardless of whether or not locals say /ˈtrɒntoʊ/ or /ˈtɹɒno]/ or anything else (although I certainly take the anonymous user's point here), I don't believe any "local pronunciation" is worth including in the lead. This so-called local pronunciation is just the regular features of the accent, alongside the regular dropping/combining or syllables that happens whenever a name is said enough times. As Joeyconnick said elsewhere, we don't have "locally New YAWK" — everyone agrees that would be silly. Meanwhile, neither Vancouver nor Calgary have "local pronunciations" included, so it's not clear to me why Toronto should. That said, there is something notable here: that locals drop the second T is sometimes used as a shibboleth, such as in Argo (2012 film). But that ought to be done in the body, not the lead. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I've (re-)added it to the body. It seems that its shibboleth pronunciation is something Torontonians themselves are aware of (and perhaps proud of) at a metalinguistic level. And it certainly doesn't hurt as long as reliable sources also speak to this, which they do. Wolfdog (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, though there's still the issue with [o] vs [oʊ]. We have only one source that supports [o], while all the others give [oʊ]. I can assure you that [o] would stand out to a local. 115.36.157.62 (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
⟨o⟩ doesn't automatically mean it's a monophthong. In North America, the FACE and GOAT vowels are traditionally phonemicized as /e, o/ on the grounds that they are no more diphthongal than /i, u/ (which may be more narrowly [ɪi, ʊu]). And since narrowness is a continuum (see Handbook of the IPA, pp. 28–30), ⟨e, o⟩ are found in allophonic transcriptions as well, where they may be more narrowly [eɪ, oʊ]. Nardog (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Four things:
Then shouldn't that be how to write it throughout Wikipedia?
Until just yesterday, we had both [oʊ] and [o] in the lead of this article.
If we're transcribing ⟨tr⟩ as narrowly as [tʃɹ], does it make sense to transcribe <o> in the same word more broadly?
Many Americans have a habit of parodying Canadian accents with the FACE and GOAT videos as monophthongs (so it sounds like the Minnesota accent you hear in Fargo). This would only reinforce the misconception.
We didn't have [oʊ] and [o]. We had /oʊ/ and [o] (and still do, though not in the lead). Our diaphonemic notation, which is explained in detail in Help:IPA/English, to which all such transcriptions link, is based mainly on the British tradition, where both quality and quantity are captured, which is more familiar to non-linguists (the only dictionaries of English published in North America that use the IPA are bilingual/learner's dictionaries, and even they follow the British tradition). Nardog (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no consistent way to represent phones on Wikipedia, except for the diaphonemic system we've semi-arbitrarily landed on. As for GOAT, the annoying American habit is probably motivated by the fact that many Canadians use a monophthong [o] outside of Ontario. Still, a diphthong like <oʊ> is indeed more common in Ontario itself and is currently used as our WP diaphoneme as well as the phoneme on dialect pages like Canadian English and Standard Canadian English; I'd support it, in order to promote more consistency at a broad phonetic level. Wolfdog (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
A diaphonic system is supposed to be an abstract system to accommodate as wide a variety of dialects as possible. Is that not the opposite of what we're trying to do by giving a "local" pronunciation?
Also, we give [təˈɹɒno] and [ˈtʃɹɒno], while the same sources also give some variation of [ˈtɹɒno]. I can attest that I use all three pronunciaitons, and that doing so is not unusual amongst locals. Shouldn't we either (a) give the whole range of actual, common pronunciations, or (b) leave them out, since our sources tell us there's nothing remarkable about any of them? In other words, is there any reason to mention anything besides the fact that locals consider pronouncing the "t" an out-group sign? (I'd avoid using the term "Shibboleth" to communicate with as broad a readership as possible).
"fact that many Canadians use a monophthong [o] outside of Ontario"—"many" is a stretch. It's restricted to certain rural speakers in the Prairies, and isn't typical of the dialect in those provinces. 218.219.61.6 (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't think many is a stretch. See Charles Boberg's "Variation and change in the phonetics of Canadian English" and various other sources. The monophthong is typical on the Prairies, in all of Ontario except Southern Ontario (to clarify my earlier reference to Ontario), in Atlantic Canada (though probably certain areas in particular like St. John's), in Quebec due to probable French-language reasons, and everywhere in Canada among older speakers.
Also, I thought we've already confirmed our sources do tell us there's something remarkable about the T-elision among Torontonians: the very shibboleth you just mentioned! So, I'd go with your option A. Wolfdog (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
You sound like you're agreeing with B rather than A. Are you sure you meant that?
I can't access "Variation and change in the phonetics of Canadian English", but I strongly suspect you've misread it, as Boberg himself contradicts that in "Regional Phonetic Differentiation in Standard Canadian English":
"a significant individual effect was found for one measure in the front up-gliding set, the F2 of /ey/ (F = 2.641; p = .018), whereby /ey/ was most peripheral on the Prairies (mean F2 = 2263 Hz), with a phonetic quality approaching monophthongal [e:j]: Prairie values were significantly higher than those to the west and east in British Columbia, southern Ontario, Toronto, or the Maritimes, where /ey/ has a more diphthongal quality closer to [εj]."
I don't know what he's counting as "Alberta", but I lived there a couple years, and can attest that those in Calgary, Edmonton, and the mountains pronounce the FACE and GOAT vowels as I do with my GTA accent. It's not hard to find YouTube videos backing this up.
There is such a variety of anons criticizing my sources/logic, in some cases with misrepresentations and confused tangents, I didn't really know how or where to continue the discussion. I'm happy to represent that GOAT vowel as a diphthong. Is there something else you would like answered? Wolfdog (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, all the anons are me. I'm editing from my phone, so the IP address keeps changing.
It's really straightforward:
The sources give three common "local" pronunciations, all of which I can confirm are in use, even by the same speakers. The text either needs to reflect that, or leave them all out, as all three pronunciations are expected NAmEng pronunciations of "Toronto". If they are left out, then something should be said about the pronunciation of the final "t" indicating outsider status.
If the three pronunciations are to be given, then the text needs to ensure that readers aren't left with the impression that the GOAT vowel is pronounced as a monophthong, as many Americans believe most Canadians do. 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:790F:EA27:CC8F:D1DA (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I concur with your basic premises and don't care which of the two ways you go. Just make sure if you use transcriptions, they are sourced, at least at a broad level. Wolfdog (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Enter here the exact wording to replace the second paragraph in the Toponymy section and I'll do it on your behalf. Nardog (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
For population, add the following below City and above Density:
Estimate (2022) 3,025,647
Not done We only use official census data from Statistics Canada, not population estimates, not even from official municipal websites or non-census population estimates from Statistics Canada, per WP:CANPOP. Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 TR Both Classes
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Simranmaan238 (article contribs).
This edit request to Toronto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove Big Smoke Burger from this sentence. It is not a prominent company.
Other prominent Canadian corporations in the Greater Toronto Area include Magna International,[168] Pizza Pizza,[169] Big Smoke Burger,[170] Mr. Sub,[171] Celestica, Manulife, Sun Life Financial,[172] Toyota Canada Inc.,[173] the Hudson's Bay Company, and major hotel companies and operators, such as Four Seasons Hotels and Fairmont Hotels and Resorts.[174][175]
Change this to:
Other prominent Canadian corporations in the Greater Toronto Area include Magna International,[168] Pizza Pizza,[169] Mr. Sub,[171] Celestica, Manulife, Sun Life Financial,[172] Toyota Canada Inc.,[173] the Hudson's Bay Company, and major hotel companies and operators, such as Four Seasons Hotels and Fairmont Hotels and Resorts.[174][175] 142.126.237.219 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The only reason I ask is that they do have some level of prevalence, enough to be enough to warrant an article, and they are headquartered in Toronto. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 00:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
To clarify on the above comment, the OP requested the addition of various companies headquartered in the 905 region rather than in Toronto proper. Companies based in the 905 region are outside the scope of this article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I like my photo and think it suits the article. The background is blurred because of the depth of field when I took the picture. It improves the experience for readers of the article since it shows what winter life is like in Toronto. User:Moxy, why do you dislike the photo? Félix An (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Completely disagree..... can barely see the hill in question. I suggest you get a third opinion. I would suggest that it be removed from Earl Bales Park as well. Not the place for self promotion. If you have an actual image of the park that would be great. We're not here for you show your friends you got a picture here. Moxy🍁 03:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not for self-promotion. Unfortunately, I'm not in Toronto right now, and I won't return until 2026 at the earliest. I'll dig through my archives for a better photo that shows more of the hill, but I'll keep this one until then, as I think it's better than nothing. Félix An (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and remove this from all over the place. Do not re add it without other editors input. I'm sure you're aware there's other better images available as you removed one from the main page and added a beautiful image of yourself.[4]Moxy🍁 03:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Regardless, it is very bad practice to put a photo of yourself in a Wikipedia article not about yourself. Good photos of natural places such as Earl Bales Park should avoid having people in them, especially if it is yourself. Wikipedia is not Instagram after all. Even UrbanToronto strongly discourages photos like this. I strongly recommend that you find a photo of the park not with a specific person in focus, especially yourself, someone you know, or even a photobombed person. The photo that you uploaded only belongs on your user page and nowhere else on Wikipedia. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
As I said I would after closing the ANEW report ill-advisedly opened on this, I am adding my thoughts on this over here.
TL;DR: The image isn't a good fit for this article, at least. And it has an issue that, while easily corrected, could require its deletion. But there are flawed arguments on both sides here.
While Felix is right that it's better to show this in winter than summer, this is not the winter picture we need. Yes, the slope is visible (and the blur is not so serious that we can't see what it is), but Felix himself is the subject. You would be hard-pressed to see this as anything but a picture of Felix. A picture of the ski slope should be a picture of a ski slope, not someone standing in front of it.
Nevertheless, though, there is nothing wrong with having people in this picture. I would expect a picture of a ski slope in the wintertime to show people skiing on the slope. What, otherwise, would be the purpose of having cleared the area and built a lift? To say that it shouldn't have people in it because it's in a "natural area" is again to miss the point. Alpine skiing is intensive-use outdoor recreation that very often requires substantial alterations to the land (like, clear-cutting it); it would be very hard to call the resulting ski slope "natural".
So I really don't have any objections (and neither should we) to a picture of a ski slope including people. Ski slopes are built for people to use. They should be in pictures of ski slopes. I don't even have a problem with Felix being in this image. But if he were to be, he (and probably others) should be shown skiiing, not standing at the top of the slope looking cool.
This leads me to a larger issue that Moxy (did I meet you last fall at WCNA 2023? I vaguely remember your username on a lanyard) brought up. I think it's rather extreme to tell people they can't put pictures of themselves anywhere on Wikipedia save their userpages. Yes, we don't want to be the Instagram of encyclopedias, but to say that any picture of oneself cannot possibly have any encyclopedic value is to take a rather blinkered view IMO.
Firstly and generally, I think we should assume good faith here that Felix was seriously trying to improve the article and not accuse him of promoting himself.
What if an editor has, say, a visible medical condition that would effectively illustrate the article about that condition? Should they not take a picture of it? (I have a rather large scar from a bowel resection 15 years ago on my abdomen. I haven't added a pic of it to the article only because it's rather difficult to take that kind of picture of oneself with a digital SLR). The editor who wrote side grip used two photos of his hands holding guns to show the difference). Should he not have?
And that latter image brings me to the most significant issue here IMO. As is, this image should be deleted from Commons. Felix uploaded it as "own work" but it should be obvious from the first glance that it cannot be his own work, since he's some distance from the camera and both of his hands are visible. Therefore he was not holding the camera used, much less pulling the shutter. Copyright on that image thus (I should think in Canada as much as the U.S.) belongs to whoever actually took the picture ... they are the author of the image, they have the rights to freely license it, not Felix.
If the photographer was someone you know, Felix, you can cure this by getting an email from them saying that they agree to license that image under CC-BY-SA-4.0 and forwarding it to VRT on Commons. Otherwise we would have to delete it. (And in the future, you can solve this problem by paying whoever shoots the picture a token sum like a dollar—that will make it a work for hire and you will own the copyright).
Hi User:Daniel Case, it was my dad (Harry An) who took the photo. But my dad let me use it however I wanted to, since I requested him to take the photo and send it to me with his phone that day when I was skiing. I can assure you that there are no copyright issues. Félix An (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hang on, I'm paying my dad CNY￥5 now so that there are no "ridiculous copyright issues" (it really is just a family photo where nobody cares about copyright LOL). I will show the screenshot of the payment and consent after I am finished. Félix An (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Done! See the screenshot. (Copyright is pretty ridiculous. It sucks that I have to prove this even between family members...) Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. Félix An (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
OK! Just go to Commons VRT per the link I provided and forward that to them (you have to do that yourself as the uploader). Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
On a related note, the photos at the Cycling kit look very handsome, and the uploader was also the model in the photo. Therefore, I reasoned it was okay to include photos that contain yourself in an encyclopedia article if they enhance the reading experience for the reader. Félix An (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
[[:File:JohnnyAu.jpg|thumb|This photo does not belong in Toronto Blue Jays, despite it being of me wearing a Toronto Blue Jays cap and a Toronto Blue Jays t-shirt.]]
Chongqing, China (1986)
Chicago, Illinois, United States (1991)
Frankfurt, Germany (1989)
Lisbon, Portugal
Milan, Italy (2002)
São Paulo, Brazil
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (2006)
Kyiv, Ukraine (1992)
Quito, Ecuador (2006)
Sagamihara, Japan (1991)
Warsaw, Poland (1990)
Not done for now: Can you explain or provide a source for why one location is preferable to the other for the coordinates? "Just look at a map" is not a good enough reason, I'm afraid, as "city center" can mean different things to different people and we need a reason the suggestion is better than the current. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Interstellarity (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Fixed by simply removing the faux tag. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Done as mentioned by Canterbury Tail. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done The entirety of the Greater Toronto Area is part of the Golden Horseshoe, therefore it is redundant. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Simranmaan238 (article contribs).
Resolved
.jpg){kind=link}