Talk:Toronto/Archive 1

message: moved from Wikipedia talk:Contact us by ESP
Wilkipedia talk
To whom it may concern : 
If the "truth" of the following comment about Toronto (Ontario) - Canada :
(quotation)
Up until the 1970s, Toronto was the second largest city in Canada, after Montreal. Much of the growth in the Toronto area was due to the growing separation movement in Quebec and the election of the Parti Québécois in 1976. The PQ enacted several French-language laws that were unfavourable towards businesses and English-speaking Montrealers. As a result, businesses and English-speaking Montrealers left for Toronto. Due to the Quebec language laws, the majority of Canada's new immigrants now settle in Toronto. 
(End of quotation)
is like the rest of your Encyclopedia, I am wondering how I will trust you again after I read that comment!
The tendancy for Toronto to become larger than Montreal begun long before the PQ won in 1976. Even with most immigrants choosing English rather than French when settling in Montreal before 1976, most of immignants then choosed (and still do)Toronto. Only a small amount of English-speaking people from Montreal left to Toronto after 1976.
Law number 101 making French the official language of Quebec in 1977 did not prevent neither forbid businessmen to make business in English in Quebec, specialy in Montreal. English-speaking population in Quebec is still about 12-15% - as it was before 1976 - and still has its English-speaking radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, hospitals, schools, colleges and universities in a greater proportion than French-speaking population in Canada out of Quebec has itself. English is official too in National Assembly and in Justice courts.
If immigrants have now to study in French in Quebec since 1977, it is true only for the primary school and the secondary school, not for colleges and universities. Moreover : English-speaking immigrants whose parents already studied in English (and many other exceptions) can choose the English-speaking school. 
Sorry to say that, but your comment are unappropriate, too simplistic and tend to represent only that Canadian opinion which oppose (which is understandable)to Quebec views about separation from Canada.
Truly yours, 
 
Michel-Guy HUOT
388, 13e Rue
Québec (Québec)  G1L 2K8
cuir_noir@hotmail.com
:Michel-Guy: this is a wiki. If you disagree with something on Toronto, be bold and edit the page yourself! --ESP 20:05, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Following up on Michel-Guy and Alain's contestations to the 'Montreal to Toroto' exodus statement, I have added in the article a mention that the extent of which the rise of nationalism in Québec has influenced the growth of Toronto is still debated, and provided  as a source (which seems to me pretty much grounded with facts, even though they are probably biased bytheir political agenda). I briefly tried to find on the web some sources which could help settling down this question (how big was the exodus of people from Montreal to Toronto mainly due to Quebec nationalism (and not other factors like the auto industry or whatever), and to which extent this contributed to the growth of Toronto). I didn't; so for now, I think that it is NPOV to mention the dispute. If somebody can find reliable sources which could settle the question in one way or the other, I would be happy to see the article edited to include the conclusion. --Simon Lacoste-Julien 10:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement about Quebec language laws and exodus to Toronto

message: Can someone come up with a source for this? I have not been able to find anything online or in any books that I have that mentions this.
:However, it is much more likely that the term is from the Mohawk word referring to "the place where trees grow over the water", a reference to a specific location at the northern end of what is now Lake Simcoe, then known as Lake Toronto. The portage route up the Humber River eventually leads past this well known landmark. As the portage route grew in use, the name became more widely used and was eventually attached to a French trading fort just inland from Lake Ontario on the Humber.
Darkcore 13:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto's name 

message: Why are we not allowed to mention the anxiety of some of the city's leaders about whether or not Toronto is world class?  Or the fact that it is a Beta city in the GaWC? If we want to include the "world city" information, the information should be complete and accurate.  David Miller was in the Star just last Sunday saying he didn't think Toronto should try to be world class - he believes that it should just be itself. I think a lot of people outside Toronto would say that that is an awfully green and nice beta city. I used to live in Toronto and it's lovely, but it has an unrealistically high self-regard, at least from the perspective of many British, French, Australian and American people I've spoken to.
:Eh, I think in last week's The Mayor (on Pulse 24) he did say Toronto is "world class". (Whether or not I agree with him or not, this is what he said on TV.)—Gniw (Wing) 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "World Class"

message: begin translation:
Alain, I have news for you:
* The language of an artist is not very important 
* There is no country with the name of "English Canada"
This is the second time I have had to take out a reference like that in this article.  The other one was [from] a swine who [complained about]] services available to francophones in Toronto even though they only make up 2% of the population of Toronto.   If you want to discuss the situation between linguistic groups in Canada please go to Yahoo!, where such activities are permitted.  Or, you could do what I said to that swine:  Go talk to your member of parliament about it!
end translation
I must apologize if my attempt at making a concise "scope" comment on the status of Toronto as a cultural capital has been misunderstood as the basis for linguistic debate.  English is not my mother tongue so I am sometimes clumsy with it.  For the last year and a half or so that I have contributed to Wikipedia I have trusted other editors to correct my faults, and I am glad to say that they have done so repeatedly.  So, I cannot be anything else but happy and joyful to receive your comments (even though I have some doubts as to the positive nature of your allusion to a swine or a pig) and revise my scope note accordingly. 
--AlainV 03:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A translation of the above message by "Kelisi"  and my clarification

message: I have just reverted a series of anonymous edits made early on 19 March 2005 (or late 18 March in North America).  The edits were not vandalism, but they included a lot of unsubstantiated factual changes, removal of some substantiated information, and some economic analysis that might qualify as original research.  Some of those changes may have been legitimate factual corrections, but it's hard to track those specifically through so many rapid-fire edits, especially when no sources for the changes were cited.  Perhaps the anonymous user who did that could start with an edit exclusively correcting verifiable factual errors and list the sources here on the discussion page; we could then use that as a baseline for more substantive changes.  The reversion was a tough call, because I believe that these were intended to be legitimate contributions, and I'd encourage the anonymous user to resubmit.  Dpm64 13:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edits on 19 March 2005 

message: Toronto's elevation above sea level varies quite a bit: downtown is close to lake level, while St. Clair Ave. and further north is quite a bit higher because of an east-west ridge running along the city.  According to the Canada Flight Supplement (the official publication used by airlines, etc.) the elevation of Toronto City Centre Airport is 251 ft, or 76.5 m MSL.  The elevation of Toronto/Downsview Airport, on the other hand, is 652 ft, or 198.7 m, and the elevation of Toronto Pearson Airport is 569 ft, or 173.4 m.  I suggest using the elevation of City Centre, since it is adjacent to downtown and at about same elevation; I could also see an argument for using Pearson, because it's the major airport, but that approach will sometimes give very distorted elevations (at North Bay, for example, the airport is on a height of land far above the city).  David 21:54, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
: Not only that, Pearson is not even in Toronto (not even in 416 area code region).  It's in Mississauga.  My only input on this matter would be to say that maybe we could include a range... --GNU<B>4</B>Eva 12:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Belatedly, elevations for Toronto City Hall or the Toronto City Centre Airport should be included (if available), not both.   The purpose of the information is to indicate (generally) how elevated the city of TO is, not its airport or specific landmarks per se.  E Pluribus Anthony 01:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation of Toronto??? 

message: Hey All...
Ok, I'm a wiki newbie. I'd like to start a wiki for Toronto Restaurants linked from the main page. This comes out of a discussion on a related message board called, "Chowhound". It's not a commercial enterprise, just a discussion board for foodies, and the issues we've been having lately involve folks posting the same "I'm visiting Toronto: where should I eat?" queries. We (the active list members) would like to start up a wiki to chart the evolving TO restaurant scene. It's not going to be a commercial thing: check out chowhound to see what we're about.
Anyway, the question is: is it OK to put this in as a sub-site of this Toronto page?
Thanks!
alan
:Articles on well known restaurants or on the Toronto restaurant scene in general would be welcome additions. However, you must be very careful to ensure that any such articles are written with a Neutral Point of View. This means that you could not say that a restaurant is good or bad. At most you could perhaps quote the opinions of prominent food critics. This would make it difficult for the article to answer the "where should I eat?" question. Wikitravel might be a more appropriate location for what you want. Its Toronto article already has a small section on restaurants. - SimonP 22:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
::...and for more on all this, see Talk:Toronto restaurants. Samaritan 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add information on restaurants you like and think others may like to visit them possibly it would be better on Wikitravel. That's where I've been putting that sort of thing, and Wikitravel needs more editors. Ben W Bell 07:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restaurants 

message: I notice that the "this page is in excess of 52 kilobytes long" message is coming up. Should we be moving some sections to sub-pages? --Dhodges 15:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  52 kb + 

message: A user added info regarding the movement to become a province (http://www.provinceoftoronto.com).  Now, most Torontonians have not even heard of such a movement, and this definitely seems like a fringe group -- should this info be here? --GNU<B>4</B>Eva 9 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
:Agreed, one of our more persistent trolls has a fixation on this issue so it appears inappropriately in a number of pages. - SimonP July 9, 2005 01:22 (UTC)
::Didn't this "movement" start after Mel Lastman cracked a joke? --Mista-X 21:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRovince of Toronto 

message: A user removed the phrase, 'unlike other Canadian cities, toronto experiences 4 distinct seasons' (not verbatim).  I think that is a point that should be noted because a) Canada DOES have, not just a number of cities, but regions that do not experience 4 distinct seasons and b) a very big misconception that Toronto is just as cold as the arctic all year round... I remember when I was in Houston, a family was going to Toronto and they were earnestly asking if they should bring their ski equpment.... in June! --GNU<B>4</B>Eva 17:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 distinct seasons 

message: I am a student and I study statistics. I have official statistics about the number of different races in Toronto. Someone keeps changing them putting abserd numbers. I wrote in the article that there 1.2 million Asians in Toronto. Someone changed the numbers that I had making Toronto have over 2 million Asians all together. That does not add up witht he information. I have official Statcan single response infor. Leave it please.
:Provide a link. Marskell 16:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About Toronto Racial Groups

message: why the criticism? WillC 22:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Toronto Unlimited

message: #I was responding to what I thought was a drop of "79 ethnic publications." I see instead it has been moved. Yes, yes demographics should detail the 2.5 in the city itself first and foremost.
#I agree you should have a go at otheruses. That's the right spot to explain the overlapping uses of the term. Along with "centre of the GTA" perhaps add that the GTA itself is often simply referred to as Toronto.
#On what basis are we calling Pearson the fourth largest in N.A.? Simply the area it takes up? It seems a touch misleading, as in terms of passenger volume it doesn't crack the top ten. Marskell 08:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A, B, C 

message: I agree with most of the listed nicknames, but I've never heard The World's Second New York, nor Canada's New York, nor The Big Banana. Are these highly localised uses, specific to one part of Toronto, or is somebody inventing things? Here are the diffs of the additions: The Big Banana, New York. Both were unsourced, anon edits. A google search finds the following:
* Canada's New York - refers to several cities, and is used in phrases like Time Canada's New York office etc; some references are WP or mirrors. Including all these irrelevant hits, there are still only 346 such references. Not widely used, I'd say.
* The World's Second New York - a whopping 9 hits.
* The Big Banana - search narrowed to Toronto, since the term refers to other things too; 694 hits, and I couldn't find any use as Toronto's nickname.
I'm removing the references; if someone wants to re-insert them, please justify it. Mindmatrix 21:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this move. In my view we could also lose "The Economic Engine of Canada" and "The Most Multicultural City on Earth," which are not so much nicknames as statements sometimes made about the city. - SimonP 21:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there; I agree with removing nicknames that aren't prevalent, unsourced, or cannot be corroborated.  I thought about doing so myself, but decided to not rock that boat just yet; that's why I expanded on Ustinov's utterances.  The only one that may be worthy of noting (based on usage), if at all, is Canada's New York, but take your pick.  (FYI: I've never heard this.)  Go to, er, town! :) E Pluribus Anthony 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  While cleaning, I stumbled across a titular book called Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names by Alan Rayburn, and it has a section about TO.  So, that may help in rounding out nicknames for the Big Smoke here.  I'll get back to ya! :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About the nicknames

message: Okay, I understand that you want the demographics for the city alone and not the greater area.
That is good to hear.  If you read the geography section of the article, it sets Toronto's boundries as roughly the 427 in the west, Steeles Ave in the North and the Rouge River in the east.  Putting up figures representing the Greater Toronto Area, that is including areas outside the boundries of the City would not be consistent with the rest of the article and would be very misleading.Mikeman 19:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics 3

message: Darkcore, I desire clarity when referring to this and that too.  While universally accepted that Pearson airport is largely in Mississauga, however, any map of Hogtown will reveal that a small sliver of it is actually in (what was) Etobicoke.  As the current article now makes this unclear, since it "straddling" the border infers it's merely on the border and outside the city, I think this somehow needs to be edited in to reflect this, but in an exceedingly brief manner.  Thoughts?  Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 14:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of [[LBPIA]] 

message: Was this move at all discussed?  If not, the prior state should be restored.  It seems to fly in the face of a prior discussion/consensus and appears arbitrary, but I can be convinced otherwise.  E Pluribus Anthony
:I agree, and have moved it back. Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa are all at their single names, and Toronto is just as unambiguous. - SimonP 15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  From what I can gather, Answar may disagree with this: it appears that similar moves (or said position) may be true for other city articles.  While there may be basis in Wp policy/guidelines for this, it wasn't discussed, was tagged a 'minor' edit, and seemed odd anyway.  Anyhow, merci! E Pluribus Anthony 15:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been moved again to ... why?  This is irksome.  Unless there's reason to do so, it should be moved back.  E Pluribus Anthony 06:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pending a consensus otherwise, the article has been restored to Toronto. E Pluribus Anthony 08:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a big discussion on this somewhere else on whether or not all cities should be moved to their states/province/county names. There is a lot of resistance, and I think the resistance is winning, to moving the big unambiguous ones. Toronto was one of the ones listed to remain as Toronto and not Toronto, Ontario, as is Montreal, Ottawa etc. Now where is that link? Ben W Bell 08:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  AH here it is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). Not yet resolved. Ben W Bell 08:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this; it's helpful!  Whatever the result of that discussion, nascent users have been moving this article without discussion here or against the consensus otherwise (above) to keep this article at Toronto.  Personally, I believe global cities and other such notable locales (based on online mentions etc.) needn't be moved in Wp in such a manner and disambiged without discussion: e.g., Toronto (Ontario) but Toronto, Ohio.  (I'll comment there, too.)  If there's significant support for moving it, fine; let's discuss there and here again too.  Otherwise, the status quo should hold here.  Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 09:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto > Toronto, Ontario 

message: A new user is trying to add a protest link to Parkdale Tenants Association to the tourism link section. This is fraud and misleads the reader.  Instead, I recommend creating a Parkdale Tenants Association article and linking to it in a "See also" section to make their concerns known. - Tεxτurε 17:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that this is "not about the Parkdale Tenants Association" but the site you link for "slum tourism" says at the very top "Parkdale Tenants Association presents" - Tεxτurε 17:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are providing tourist tours then you are providing links and promoting a business or other such agency. This is against Wikipedia policy. Ben W Bell 17:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So, how about you just create a Parkdale Tenants Association article about the horrible conditions and stop this charade? - Tεxτurε 17:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also be careful with the reversions, Wikipedia has a 3 reverts policy, one which Ae871 is very much in violation of. Ben W Bell 18:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  While new contributions aren't discouraged, this is a POV addition that a consensus of Wikipedians who contirbute to this article do not agree with including here.  As I've suggested, add this information (after garnering consensus) to an article that's more appropriate (e.g., Parkdale, Housing in Toronto, slums) or similar.  E Pluribus Anthony 18:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, the disingenuousness of it all.  I lived in a slumlord's apt. block in Toronto for several years; nice view of the lake and all, but generally, if you've seen one piece of peeling paint, you've seen 'em all.  Go to Home Depot and buy a scraper and a can of paint and leave the Toronto article to those of us who've seen a little bit more of the place.Jok2000 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slum Tourism" 

message: I take exception to a claim that I violated 3RR:
:(cur) (last)  14:20, 7 December 2005 Jok2000 m (rv to last version by E. Pluribus Anthony. 3RR vio. by texture & ae871)
I reverted ae871 twice and then chose to compromise by only moving the link to a new section and not removing it.  After that I have only one more edit that removed a duplicate link but retained the new link by ae871.  ae871 has indicated that this compromise is acceptable.  Jok2000, please look at the facts before making allegations. - Tεxτurε 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Formal or not, we should be careful in how we criticize others if we want to maintain some sense of decorum here.  An apology, rather than a snide response, would have helped to defuse this dispute.  HistoryBA 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but don't make him until he reverts those dozen vandals.  That'll make me feel better than the apology will... - Tεxτurε 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While guidelines are clear, let's all remember that consensus, civility, assuming good faith, and maintaining a spirit of co-operation are at the core of Wp.  And yes: annihilate the vandals, too! :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear!  HistoryBA 03:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Should the website/URL Slum Tourism Toronto, presented by the Parkdale Tenants Association, be included in the Toronto article?  State preference below:
*Strong oppose  As stated above, this link in any form/section is POV and doesn't belong in the Toronto article.  This information may be more appropriate in an article about Housing in Toronto, Parkdale, or slums ... if a separate consensus exists to do so.  E Pluribus Anthony 23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As of this date: a supermajority – 7 8 votes against, 1 for – maintains the exclusion of this link from the Toronto article.  Unless there's significant Wp groundswell, (in this instance) this is the only reality that counts; I believe the prior conclusion stands.  Thanks for your participation.  E Pluribus Anthony 04:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Hello again!  If I may be so bold: after a few days (as of 19:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As of this date: a supermajority – 7 8 votes against, 1 for – maintains the exclusion of this link from the Toronto article.  Unless there's significant Wp groundswell, (in this instance) this is the only reality that counts; I believe the prior conclusion stands.  Thanks for your participation.  E Pluribus Anthony 04:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: The article talks of significant numbers of Iranians in Toronto.  Are there enough Iranians to merit mention alongside the Italians, Chinese, and Vietnamese?  HistoryBA 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I raised my eyebrow at that too.  I tried to pare down that section based on the Statistics Canada link/figures provided.  Based on that, no: it probably shouldn't be included.  However, some may beg to differ or use a different rationale (with different numbers) and it can be rewritten anyway; whatever it is, we should be consistent. E Pluribus Anthony 16:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to take it out until someone can make a convincing case for including it.  HistoryBA 16:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It certainly has contributed to yielding "a unique combination of communities and neighbourhoods that are often strikingly different from one another", which seem to be the context. In my neighbourhood you are overwhelmed with Korean and Persian language store signs; I don't know whether this counts Iranians as significant, or Koreans as equally significant, or neither. The inclusion of Iranians, however, seems to me to fit the context.—Gniw (Wing) 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  OK: we should probably limit mentions in this overview article to only verifiably large populations in The Big Smoke.  We can't verify yet, so nix it.  Upon verifying, we can include detail in the Demographics of Toronto article, which needs help: I've only edited it in a limited fashion and as a shunt for excess in the Toronto article. E Pluribus Anthony 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranians 

message: There is an ongoing AfD discussion about this article. People there don't seem to agree on wether this is a notable Toronto chain of restaurants or not. I ask the editors of the Toronto article and inhabitants of Toronto in general to join the discussion here. JoaoRicardo talk  15:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fran's Restaurant, Toronto]]