Talk:Toronto/Archive 3

message: The Demographics section of the City of Toronto mainspace article has changed quite a lot since this section was started (thanks to whomever(s) cleaned it up). The English, Irish, Scottish, etc., table (copied/pasted from the Demographics section of the previous mainspace article, above) is gone along with its Toronto CMA source that has no data regarding English (other than around languages spoken, not population) Irish, Scottish, etc., so if the table was moved  () should replace the source that was cited under that table; or the proper source if there is one.
Thanks for the link, Mindmatrix. I already knew it and have it in a spreadsheet (but others may not and, as usual, the totals at the top are incorrect; sum the numbers in the Total responses column and it's 3,389,010, which is well over the 2001 Census population of the Toronto CSD - 2,481,494, even though the footnote explains it (multiple responses), the alleged total responses are the usual 2,456,805, which leaves the usual 2,481,494 (2001 Census population of the Toronto CSD) minus 2,456,805 (the usual totals StatsCan't, part of the hundreds of reasons it is called what it is, and/or StatsCon) = 24,689 population unaccounted.
For proper percentages, the proper totals have to be used and everything has to be accounted for: not as "dictation" to others but regarding myself and for the consideration of others.
Whenever I'm working with numbers, $24,689.00 isn't missing, 24,689 (or 0.000000000001) isn't missing unless I (or in this case StatsCan't, which is never a surprise) screwed up.
And in the mainspace article, unless otherwise is clearly specified, everything is for the Toronto CSD (municipality of type City of Toronto as stated at the top of the page along with the City of Toronto flag and seal; not all of the municipalities of the Toronto CMA or GTA) so if any percentages are going to be put in parenthesis after each ethnic origin label (in descending order, sorted by the Total responses column) then Unaccounted 24,689 has to be included as a data row (in any spreadsheet) or none of the percentages are based on the full Toronto CSD Census 2001 population and the same goes for religion or anything else based on whatever population group(s) in the Toronto CSD; if any numbers are going to be added to the labels at all, and it's no problem: it'll just make it longer.
I would ask that anyone interested in helping, or trying/understanding, please open the Toronto article in another browser tab or window and click on Demographics from the table of contents to be able to follow along with the context of what still needs work.
Even with the proper table (Toronto Census Subdivision/CSD/municipality, City; not Toronto CMA) for "Languages spoken most often at work", this is not what is stated in the second-last paragraph of the mainspace Demographics section:
"While English is the predominant language spoken by Torontonians, Statistics Canada reports that other language groups are significant, including Chinese, Portuguese, Tamil, Persian, Spanish, Punjabi and Italian. Italian is second to English in languages used at work. [2]
It's sort of stated but comes across as disinformation to me for a few reasons:
*"English is the predominant language spoken by Torontonians at work" should be stated, not languages spoken by residents in general, which is what is presently stated.  And if one looks at the proper source (for that table; Census Subdivisions (Municipalities) not Census Metropolitan Areas), here, Toronto, C for City not CMA., Chinese (n.o.s.) (no/none other specified as in Chinese is no more of a language than "Canadian" is, so Cantonese and Mandarin have to be added to Chinese (n.o.s.) is clearly the language spoken most often at work, behind English.
*Language(s) spoken most often at work says nothing about the City of Toronto due to the millions of commuters, business travelers, tourists and other visitors (speak to anyone to buy anything in the City of Toronto, from anywhere on the planet, and it is business).
*Does it even belong in the Demographics section?  Language(s) spoken most often at work has more to do with the labor force/economic data, or economic stats.  If there were no Economics section in the mainspace article, mix and match; but when the article is organized, this information (if it's of any worth at all on the mainspace page), I think should be in the Economics section for City of Toronto.
*And if anyone clicks on the footnote (in the mainspace article) it is quite plain to see Toronto CMA at the top of the table at the source.  The proper source for Language(s) spoken most often at work for the Toronto CSD/municipality/city is here.
The table Mindmatrix pointed out (the proper one; Ethnic origins for City of Toronto, which means Toronto residents and is what is measured with regard to "most multicultural" because it has to do with the residents of the City of Toronto, not the millions of commuters, etc., who happen to work in or do any business in the City of Toronto), unfortunately has 93 data rows.
Even in sentence format, with percentages in parenthesis after each label (or not, which doesn't say much -- but it's easy to just state "See source for more information, while also getting the verifiability in); even if I cut the total responses off at 10,000+ persons (in Total responses column, it's still 47 data rows, even converted to this, with a little diversion first, to figure out which number to base the percentages on:
___
                                Total    % of Total
Ethnic Origins                responses   responses ...
___________________________________________________ 
Total population (StatsCan)   2,456,805    71.97    ...
Total - 2001 Census pop.      2,481,494
Actual total responses        3,413,699   100.00    ...
  Total - Unaccounted            24,689     0.72    ...
  Canadian                      373,540    10.94    ...
  ...
...
Make sense to anyone?  If you get the actual table up, all you'll see is "Total population 2,456,805" at the top.  That number is worthless because the 2001 Census population of the Toronto CSD/City of Toronto was/is 2,481,494 at many other Statistics Canada sources.  But if you sum the numbers in the "Total responses" column, that total is 3,413,699 -- due to multiple responses (see footnote 2 at the source).
It's rather important (to me) to use "the proper" total, and an accurate total, or no percentage will be accurate and it's either Total - 2001 Census population or the Actual total responses -- not the number at the top of the table.
Regardless of what is used as the total to create the percentages, this is the proper order and it's a bit long (and the percentages are based on "Actual total responses" but that can be changed in 5 seconds -- to Total - 2001 Census population, not the number at the top from StatsCan):
Ethnic origins - 2001 Census - Toronto (City)
Canadian (10.94%), English (10.13%), Chinese (8.02%), Scottish (6.80%), Irish (6.53%), Italian (5.43%), East Indian (4.89%), Jewish (2.97%), French (2.94%), German (2.87%), Portuguese (2.79%), Filipino (2.64%), Jamaican (2.59%), Polish (2.32%), Greek (1.64%), Ukrainian (1.61%), Spanish (1.18%), Russian (1.16%), Sri Lankan (1.00%), Dutch (Netherlands) (0.90%), Korean (0.88%), Vietnamese (0.88%), Tamil (0.78%), Iranian (0.77%), Hungarian (Magyar) (0.77%), Unaccounted (0.72%)*, Pakistani (0.68%), West Indian (0.67%), Guyanese (0.66%), African (Black), n.i.e. (0.66%), Welsh (0.60%), South Asian, n.i.e. (0.55%), North American Indian (0.54%), Romanian (0.52%), Trinidadian/Tobagonian (0.51%), Somali (0.47%), American (USA) (0.47%), Black (0.44%), British, n.i.e. (0.44%), Japanese (0.39%), Serbian (0.38%), Macedonian (0.38%), Croatian (0.36%), Latin/Central/South American, n.i.e. (0.32%), Afghan (0.31%), Austrian (0.31%), Arab, n.i.e. (0.30%), Lebanese (0.29%).
If it's cut at 20,000 respondents in the Total responses column:
Ethnic origins - 2001 Census - Toronto (City)
Canadian (10.94%), English (10.13%), Chinese (8.02%), Scottish (6.80%), Irish (6.53%), Italian (5.43%), East Indian (4.89%), Jewish (2.97%), French (2.94%), German (2.87%), Portuguese (2.79%), Filipino (2.64%), Jamaican (2.59%), Polish (2.32%), Greek (1.64%), Ukrainian (1.61%), Spanish (1.18%), Russian (1.16%), Sri Lankan (1.00%), Dutch (Netherlands) (0.90%), Korean (0.88%), Vietnamese (0.88%), Tamil (0.78%), Iranian (0.77%), Hungarian (Magyar) (0.77%), Unaccounted (0.72%)*, Pakistani (0.68%), West Indian (0.67%), Guyanese (0.66%), African (Black), n.i.e. (0.66%), Welsh (0.60%).
* Total responses column total at source ([Statistics Canada, Ethnic Origins, Toronto (City/CSD)) is 2,456,805.  The 2001 Census population of the City of Toronto is 2,481,494 leaving 24,689 (0.72% of the actual total responses; see source for details) unaccounted for.
Or even cut at 40,000 responses:
Ethnic origins - 2001 Census - Toronto (City)
Canadian (10.94%), English (10.13%), Chinese (8.02%), Scottish (6.80%), Irish (6.53%), Italian (5.43%), East Indian (4.89%), Jewish (2.97%), French (2.94%), German (2.87%), Portuguese (2.79%), Filipino (2.64%), Jamaican (2.59%), Polish (2.32%), Greek (1.64%), Ukrainian (1.61%), Spanish (1.18%).
Where does is get arbitrarily cut and why?  There are only tenths of a percentage (or less, with more data included) in difference, but if everyone wants the real, sort of multicultural ethnicity of the City of Toronto, there are 67 ethnic groups with 5,000 or more in population (total responses anyway).  Lots of CSDs in the Ontarios and Canadas don't even have 5,000 people.  [No, it is not "condescending", "center of the universe" anything -- just simple reality. ;-)]
The full list from the source Mindmatrix provided above, with the percentages based on the actual 2001 Census population of the City of Toronto, is:
Canadian (15.05%), English (13.94%), Chinese (11.04%), Scottish (9.35%), Irish (8.98%), Italian (7.46%), East Indian (6.73%), Jewish (4.09%), French (4.05%), German (3.95%), Portuguese (3.84%), Filipino (3.64%), Jamaican (3.56%), Polish (3.19%), Greek (2.26%), Ukrainian (2.22%), Spanish (1.62%), Russian (1.60%), Sri Lankan (1.37%), Dutch (Netherlands) (1.24%), Korean (1.22%), Vietnamese (1.21%), Tamil (1.07%), Iranian (1.07%), Hungarian (Magyar) (1.06%), Unaccounted (0.99%)*, Pakistani (0.93%), West Indian (0.92%), Guyanese (0.91%), African (Black), n.i.e. (0.91%), Welsh (0.82%), South Asian, n.i.e. (0.75%), North American Indian (0.75%), Romanian (0.72%), Trinidadian/Tobagonian (0.70%), Somali (0.65%), American (USA) (0.65%), Black (0.61%), British, n.i.e. (0.61%), Japanese (0.53%), Serbian (0.53%), Macedonian (0.52%), Croatian (0.49%), Latin/Central/South American, n.i.e. (0.44%), Afghan (0.43%), Austrian (0.43%), Arab, n.i.e. (0.41%), Lebanese (still over 10,000 responses' 0.40%), Armenian (0.34%), Ghanaian (0.32%), Yugoslav, n.i.e. (0.30%), Finnish (0.30%), Ethiopian (0.29%), Czech (0.29%), Maltese (0.28%), Lithuanian (0.27%), Turk (0.27%), Swedish (0.26%), Egyptian (0.25%), Barbadian (0.25%), Danish (0.24%), Punjabi (0.24%), Estonian (0.24%), Chilean (0.24%), Norwegian (0.23%), Slovenian (0.21%), Latvian (0.20%), Swiss (0.20%), Slovak (0.19%), Iraqi (0.19%), Salvadorean (0.17), Bulgarian (0.17%), Mexican (0.16%), Colombian (0.14%), Métis (0.13%), Peruvian (0.12%), European, n.i.e. (0.12%), South African (0.12%), Taiwanese (0.12%), Belgian (0.11%), Australian (0.09%), Bosnian (0.09%), Syrian (0.09%), Czechoslovakian (0.07%), Icelandic (0.06%), Cambodian (0.06%), Acadian (0.05%), Laotian (0.05), Moroccan (0.05%), Scandinavian, n.i.e. (0.04%), Haitian (0.03%), Inuit (0.02%), Algerian (0.01%), Québécois (0.01).
That's only 93 sources.  Hundreds of languages (another topic, but whatever) are spoken on the streets of Toronto and I'd rather use what the source does, the total responses as opposed to percentages.  And it's a bit big but so is multiculturalism in Toronto, it's the best thing about living in Toronto, it's what the whole city is based on but with percentages it doesn't let others know that there are, oh, more people from Lebanon in Toronto than there are in the entire Labrador City (Newfoundland) "census agglomeration" (CA).
This makes more sense and says a lot more: (to me, it's up for debate; no numbers need be included with a source cited)
Canadian (373,540), English (345,895), Chinese, n.o.s. (273,855), Scottish (232,025), Irish (222,880), Italian (185,230), East Indian (167,005), Jewish (101,380), French	(100,470), German (97,945), Portuguese (95,220), etc.
The actual number of total responses, not percentages and the male/female breakdowns are at the source.  No percentages to bother with, so no totals to try to figure out (and explain) -- just the basic numbers stated at the source, crunched.  And this is Toronto; the list should be long, even in summary it is long, which also gives others an idea what "one of the most multicultural cities in the world" means.
And then others can see that there are more people in ethnic groups in Toronto than in their entire 'cities', towns and villages and it whaps readers over the head with multiculturalism: given that it's what everyone who really knows Toronto loves about it.  [Or hates around racists, bigots, etc.]
This is in direct relation to Miami, which does have more people in visible minority groups than Toronto does; but almost totally Hispanic, which doesn't get the "multi" in multicultural across as the above does, which can make it more clear as to why Toronto is one of the most multicultural cities on the planet and possibly end some 'arguments' on this page before they start, which is also why (IMO) it has to be made and kept very clear that this Toronto mainspace article is about one municipality, not any "metro" anything or city region or urban area: just one municipality.  If the former six municipalities of the former Metropolitan Toronto hadn't been dissolved/amalgamated into one municipality then the info-stats on Toronto would be very different, which seems to be where almost all of the confusion re: City of Toronto comes from regarding this (municipality of Toronto) mainspace article is about: even though it still has Toronto CMA sources, which has to be fixed.
And every CSD (Census Subdivision/municipality of whatever type or no type as in unorganized areas, which tend to be First Nations/Aboriginal lands) in the Canadas can be found just using the dropdowns at the top of the source, so it's a reasonable measure of ethnic origin demographics, and municipalities are municipalities (not more than one, but one by each in their municipal articles), which makes it easy for others to compare, in other municipalities, which is why I stress municipality of Toronto so much (not that the mainspace article itself doesn't, right at the top and I didn't do that or amalgamate the former six municipalities of the former Metropolitan Toronto); which avoids confusion and potential "fights" on this page, along with proper verifiability.
Then the 'arguments' (re: "most multicultural") fall to different populations in different municipalities, such as "Toronto may have more residents in total but <whatever municipality> has the highest per capita/percentage of foreign-born population."  Or "Toronto may have less people than <whatever municipality> but it has the highest per capita/percentage of foreign-born population" -- after the 93 ethnic groups are blurred by.  "That's a big list..." then:
With the breakdown (all the way down to Québécois, not French) above, all 93 sources but not in a big table, just a blur of "that's a lot of ethnic groups" and then the real percentage of foreign-born population in the Toronto (or any other) CSD/municipality from Statistics Canada - 2001 Census - Toronto (City), scroll down to the Immigration Characteristics table and as usual "Total - all persons" isn't what is stated at the top of the source (Population in 2001: 2,481,494 leaving the usual 24,689 people unaccounted) ... and 697,995 + 516,630 = 1,214,625, ("Immigrated before 1991" + "Immigrated between 1991 and 2001"), not the 1,214,630 StatsCan claimed in (total) Foreign-born population.
1,214,625 * 100 / 2,481,494 = 48.947327698555789 or 48.9% foreign-born population, which is pretty clear: foreign-born, resident population.  Not 'visible minorities' (once that as well is in context) but things like this should have been settled long before any article was allowed to be opened for editing, with templates to keep everything as consistent as possible. :-)  But, it can still happen eventually, which is what I'm having problems with: I want the way the data is present and the order in which it makes the most sense (in the proper categories) to be as well-done as possible, to then possibly establish as a standard for every CSD, CD, CMA, CA, FED, etc., for the Canadas, but with a mind of eventually creating "a" standard template that can be applied to introduce all articles regarding all political jurisdictions (and census geographical areas, etc., even though around that it's different from country to country, but that's for another month or ten down the road.  Other than that I would like to get it done right on this mainspace page, for starters.
Thus, I am "over-thinking" everything because I have a lot more in mind than one article.
If you (meaning whomever is browsing, if anyone) look at the table above, there are lots of other ways to come up with 'visible minority' (simply means "not of white skin" in Toronto, so what will it mean when we whities are a "visible minority"?  And the number at the top of the Visible Minority Status table at the page/source, StatsCan but it can't, above, is wrong) plus the populations in the Aboriginal Population above?
Calgary (and/or Edmonton) has so many reserves in its CMA that if "visible minority status" + "aboriginal population" (which is not foreign-born population) is "the standard" way to measure what truly makes cities "major multicultural" amounts ("whiteys versus 'the rest'"; no offense but it's what "visible minority" means around here, which makes it inconsistent/impossible to use as a standard international measure as to what "multiculturalism" means) to how many answer yes/no to "Were you born in Canada?" (or any other country), "Were your parents born in Canada?".
What is a 2nd generation "Quebecois" supposed to answer to those questions?  Until/unless it ceases to be part of Canada, the answer is OUI/yes to both; which has nothing to do with foreign-born population, the world living in "your city" (the municipality whomever happens to live in; I don't know of anyone who owns a city and everything in it, as in "their city" exclusively) and then you get percentages on those questions and less than one in three people in the City of Toronto will answer yes to either (born in Canada, parents born in Canada).
Aboriginal peoples, least of all, are not "foreign" to Canada or North America (Australia, etc.) because "they" (hopefully "we" someday but I don't mean it like that) were here first so can't be foreigners unless we all are.
It has to do with the second paragraph of the mainspace Demographics section:
"Toronto represents a multicultural mosaic. The 2001 Canadian census indicates that 42.8% of Toronto's population belong to a visible minority group."
It's true if you (whomever) go to the tables above Statistics Canada - 2001 Census - Toronto (City), don't check Statistics Canada's math by adding up what they claim is the total in the Visible Minority Status table, and don't use the real 2001 Census total population to base the percentage on:
1,051,125 * 100 / 2,456,805 = 42.784225854310782 or 42.8%.
But it's actually:
1,051,135 * 100 / 2,481,494 (Population in 2001 stated right at the top of the table and on lots of others as the Toronto CSDs 2001 Census population) = 42.358957950331534 or 42.4%, not the 42.8% claimed on the mainspace article.
But only "foreign-born" population should be considered (with whatever "visible" minorities means in a jurisdiction; and as long as all ethnic groups are named, Canadian, "English" is just what people responded with, it doesn't mean that they were born in England) -- or little areas with 100% Aboriginal population out-do every major city on the planet, if that's "multiculturalism" (visible minorities), which has nothing to do with foreign-born population, being a "worldly", multicultural city at all.
Sorry for the length but I'm trying to figure out a lot more than one section on one article. --S-Ranger 18:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics Section Update 2

message: Thanks much, Ccscott. I was looking at all of those ethnic groups and wanted to wikify them but locating the proper internal links, pipes, double brackets around each; the amount of time was for another ... week.  But you had it done in about 15 seconds it seemed. It's not the proper place to ask, but how did you do it? "Formatting correction" or the like as the edit summary and that was that.  I know I'm missing plenty of editing, um, "tips" around here, because they're all over the place in encyclopedias linked to other encyclopedias instead of a proper Wiki Editors Guide to Everything, Illustrated with Examples in proper technical manual format as PDFs to be printed and bound.  But that's the most amazing editing feat I've seen yet.  Is there some automated tool you used? --S-Ranger 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: Many of the city articles I have read on Wikipedia (and elsewhere; sorry! : )) state the international sister cities of the city in the introduction.
Chicago is a long-time sister city of Toronto (MS-Word DOC: ), Chongqing, China, the former municipality of Scarborough of the former Metro Toronto was, still is listed as a sister city of Indianapolis, Frankfurt, and Milan (PDF: Toronto City Clerk), Sagamihara, Japan (The results of a search on "sister city" at toronto.ca given that every city but Toronto has a document about its Sister City Program and they mention Toronto; as usual, our own governments don't bother with much of anything around Toronto).
It would be nice to have a simple, definitive list from Toronto city hall and I'm sure that it must exist, somewhere, but after over half an hour of searching (far too long for such a simple thing); the above is the best I could come up with and it's a bit unweildy for verification.
Anyone else have any thoughts, or just use what we find, as we find it, and cite the source for each? And if it goes anywhere on the mainspace article, where? It's general information and would be more useful than the nicknames.  : )  IMO. --S-Ranger 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would make a great sub-article. Sister cities of Toronto could include information such as the names of the sister cities, their status (eg: Partnership Cities, Friendship Cities), the year the relationship was established, past sister cities, what criteria Toronto council uses to defines a sister city, etc. I looked for this information about a year ago, and found very little - what you've dug up is the best information I've seen about this so far. To get an idea of other sister pages on Wikipedia, see this google search result. (Heh, you can use that to find info about Toronto sister cities, mostly unsourced though.) Mindmatrix 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or maybe Twin cities of Toronto, which has been around for a while (and which I even edited a few days ago, but somehow completely forgot). Mindmatrix 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind; I've moved it to Sister cities of Toronto to be consistent with similar Wikipedia articles. Mindmatrix 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Cities 

message: Firstly, there are so few pictures on the page; secondly, they're generally attrocious.  Can we really not find better non-copyrighted images?
Um...the page is flooded with pictures. It looks like a promotional photo gallery/tourist brochure, rather than a good article.
:I agree there were too many photos. I cut a few of them, and made some tohers a bit smaller. Just because we have multiple good photos of the Toronto skyline, does not mean we need to include all of them in the article. - SimonP 13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attrocious Quality of Pictures 

message: Just a general comment on pictures; the Lake shot of the Toronto skyline in the Demographics section states "View of the skyline from the Toronto Harbour."
Doesn't it look a bit far out (and west) in the Lake to be from the harbour?
I like the shot and the caption/title might be correct.  I've just asked a few people (landlubbers; other than up north) because it looks a bit too far out to have been taken "from the Toronto harbour" and (with no "suggestive" questions/leading 'witnesses') to others as well.
Why not just "Toronto skyline, day" as the alt text (oops, it doesn't have alt text, but apparently it does in wiki-Image... format) and "Toronto skyline" as the text that shows up under the picture?  Or "Toronto skyline from Lake Ontario?" or if it's from Ward Island (?) or whatever the furthest northwest island is with an unobstructed view, from <whatever island>?
If I took a picture of Toronto from the ports, it wouldn't be pretty. And if I were looking at that picture I would wonder why Toronto built its harbor a mile or so offshore as though the picture is taken from a moored freighter or whatever ship docked in "the" singular Toronto harbour.  :-) --S-Ranger 23:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture text

message: Would it be appropriate to include any reference to the City of Toronto Millenium Project in this article? Or better yet? I was seeking information on this and did not find any article, so I thought I'd atleasdt mention it here. The sheer number of eyeball who'll read this alone could work on an article from this. That's the plan anyways. Nastajus 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: City of Toronto Millenium Project

message: Does anybody now what are the "weatherbase" data is based on, or have they not updated it or checked it for accuracy? likely not.  
I can find no Environment Canada averages from Downtown, the Airport (in Mississauga but official weather station for Toronto), Buttonville (in markham but listed by EC as a Toronto station), the Island Airport, etc.  to match those entries, tempatures and precipitation. 
It looks like they have combined numbers from different reporting sites and possibly previous time periods (not 1971-2000 which is currently used for the 30 year climate averages) 
For example the average max. temperature for June is listed as 22C ....but the first three stations I mention have an average June max. of 24C (75F), only the island airport matches at 22 but the average minimum is 13C, not 12C.
I suggest replacing this with a table of Environment Canada data;  http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=ALL&StationName=tor&SearchType=BeginsWith&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=5051&
this is for downtown station near University & Bloor, probably makes the most sense to use it (most visitors spend time downtown, close to ciy hall, etc) or the Airport. You could use both to show differences across the city, ie. more urbanized vs. less so but probably too much information.    
Also, 1C converts to 34F (rounded), not 35F which would be 1.7C. Equasions are; 
           xTempC x 9 /5 + 32 = xtempF  
           yTempF -32 x 5 / 9 = yTempC  
I don't know if this is a bug in wikipedia, or my FF browser, but take a look at the "Weather averages for Toronto" table. it says april average low is 35, even though when i edit the page it says 1 there. but still shows up as 35!!!!
:The table has entries for both Fahrenheit and Celcius. Are you looking at the right one? (I checked, and see 1 for the Celcius entry, 35 for the Fahrenheit, so it appears to be OK. Mindmatrix 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Error was in ; fixed. --Qyd 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my fault. Sorry.  It looks like the correct code now.  Thanks Qyd.  —MJCdetroit 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best one is located here. July average 22.2C (just barely in Dfa), January average -4.7C. CrazyC83 02:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate

message: Someone needs to edit the picture of the Royal Bank Plaze since that is a picture of the Scotia Bank building, the bronze zig zag shape building is Scotia
It's called "Scotia Plaza". I had changed it earlier but now somebody has changed it back. why? Canking 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy/Picture 

message: For those that are wondering, the press release about increased gridlock in the GTA was issued by the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario. There's not much about this organization on the web, so thank goodness the government maintains hansard archives, like this one:
The RCCAO is a newly formed alliance which brings together labour and management representatives from across the residential and civil construction sectors. Our members include companies and workers who build both low-rise and high-rise homes, as well as roads, sewers and water mains, bridges and other infrastructure projects.
Note that I added the emphasis above. Mindmatrix 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: That gridlock press release

message: Please find a substitute for that afwully bad picture that's in the box, upper right of the page. Toronto has such an exquisite skyline, how could somebody have possibly chosen this one to start the article with?!? I know it's not about the pictures, but this only makes the article look bad (and grey). 
Beachlife..
Yes it is quite true. I am going to replace it right now, but tell me what you think of the new pic. http://pixels.dailyphil.ca/images/20060612092955_toronto_skyline.jpg Blackjays 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: OK, so I just found out that this article on Toronto has been named 'good' by Wiki. But I would like to see it achieve featured status. I have never seen a featured article on a Canadian City or Province/Territory, but I may have seen a Canadian featured before. The point is, Canada doesn't get represented enough in Wiki's featured section, so what better article to have represent it than Toronto's. This link clearly outlines what must happen in order for this to be possible...Wikipedia:What is a featured article? If you are in favor of getting this article featured, sign your name after the X and in about 2 months I will show Wiki the results.
Blackjays 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured Article doesn't only mean that it will be showcased on the main page, it is also a quality standard. Articles are nominated for FA status, they go to a round of votes/comments/improvement proposals, and if they pass they are eventually picked for main page. This article still has a few shortcomings, so be prepared to listen to constuctive criticism and improve the article acordingly. If you want to improve the chance of aquiring FA status, put the page through Peer review first. Last but not least, please add new comments at the end of the talk page, not at top. --66.82.9.61 14:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: "As of July 1, 2006, the population is estimated at 2,629,030.[5]" The reference tag is either empty of mis-spelled, anyway, there's no actual referenes attached to it. --66.82.9.61 15:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing references 

message: I'm getting tired of the population number cited in the introduction be switched from the 2001 census value to the most recent estimate and back again every month. I agree that the "official" population in the infobox should be the latest census number, but I can see either number being used in the introductory paragraphs. I really don't care which number is used, but I would like to ask for a consensus so that we stick to one or the other at least until the 2006 census numbers become available in the new year. Please indicate your preference below. Thylark 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory Population: Census or Projection? 

message: shouldn't there be atleast a mention of Degrassi in the article, probably the media section, since it's one of Canada's biggest shows, and it's filmed, and based in Toronto.--andrew|ellipsed...Speak 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of major Canadian shows are set, shot, or otherwised based around Toronto - we can't just single out one. Radagast 04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but it is one of Canada's biggest shows. Ah well. It's not that important. But you're right I suppose. If you mentioned Degrassi, you'd have to mention the rest. -andrew|ellipsed...Speak 09:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Degrassi

message: Hey, I'm seeing this vandlized bit (italicized):
"The town's settlement formed at the eastern end of the harbour behind the peninsula, near the present-day Parliament Street. Beware jamie the rapest is on the loose!"
I can't find it in the code anywhere.  Can anyone explain where its coming from?
Thanks
ML
:you were looking at an old version of the page - it was vandalized by an IPVandal with that comment at 7:24pm EST and reverted at 7:31pm EST.--Invisifan 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jamie the Rapist 

message: If anyone knows how to recover a page good after it's vandalized, you should probably get on top of that. I was going to try myself, but I didnt want to fuck up the page anymore than it is. Blackjays 04:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Happened?

message: Not for the first (or last) time I know, but can we simply drop the fifth largest bit? In reading around, including on this talk, the best conclusion I can draw is that comparing US and Can metro areas is a crap shoot and I don't see that we need to do it. As it stands, the comparison is unsourced and I doubt we'll find a good cite; I see above that the comparison is supposed to be for the city proper at 2.4 (this is not clear in the wording) but these are always useless comparisons (the City of London has about 10,000 people, after all).  If I'd take my own stab, I'd place T.O. contiguous metro at sixth, bumping the Bay Area ahead of it—but that would just be me. There's a pack of cities round about 5 or 6m that could reasonably be placed behind Chicago. 
I realize there's a bit of chest-thumping involved, but ironically focusing on the numbers probably doesn't do the city justice. Fourth in NA on the Global City list (ahead of Mexico), third largest stock exchange, world's largest free standing phallic symbol, etc. Marskell 07:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey great idea. Marskell 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pop comparisons 

message: In the Visible Minorities of Toronto pie chart, Arabs are classified separately from West Asians. But infact, Arabs are West Asians since all the Arab countries lie within West Asia (also known as Western Asia, or Southwest Asia or Middle East). I think this pie chart should be corrected accordingly and classify Arabs as West Asians or replace the term West Asian with Middle Eastern (and obviously Arabs would be included in that). It is a great pie chart, but I think it would be much better with this mistake corrected. Behnam 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're forgetting North and parts of East Africa. Morrocans, Algerians etc., and Arab-identifying Sudanese etc., are not West Asian. Marskell 09:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Demographics''': A Mistake in the ''Visible Minorities of Toronto'' pie chart 

message: in the mid of the article, right-side, there is a satellite image with words describing it as "A simulated-colour image of Toronto taken by NASA's Landsat 7 satellite, 1985.".
However, the NASA Landsat 7 was launched in 1999, so, either the year is incorrect or the image is not captured by Landsat 7.
:You seem to be correct. I checked the original link and the image is described as from Landsat 7 with no date. I believe there was an ealier picture there before from Landsat 5 in 1985. Anyways I removed the date until somewhen can track down when the current picture was taken. Ccscott 07:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A simulated-colour image of Toronto taken in 1985?! the year seems to be incorrect...