Talk:Toronto/Archive 2

message: I am not new to research/analysis but am new to WikiWhatevers and cannot believe this mess.  This page needs organizing, sources have to be included for anything and everything or the page is completely worthless.  Why would anyone just take someone's word for something, like "over 5.6 million people (2005)"?  Where did that come from?  Where did "US $305 billion gross domestic product, CDN $360 billion" come from and if anything in USD is going to be posted then what exchange rate was used?  But where did it come from, where are the sources for all of these allegations and which fiscal year is the alleged CDN$360 billion from?  Most economies tend to be in millions of dollars and is it real GDP (based on what year in prices and chained or not) or current "dollars"/prices?
:01-Toronto Division: 629.91 square km
:02-Peel Regional Municipality: 1,241.99 km²
:04-York Regional Municipality: 1,761.64 km²
:05-Durham Regional Municipality: 2,523.48 km²
:11-Halton Regional Municipality: 967.04 km²
:TOTAL: 7,124.06 square kilometers
Source: Statistics Canada - http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/popdwell/Table-CSD-PS2.cfm
Not 7,000 square km but 7,124.06.  "Close enough," wild guesses that are not backed up by reliable sources amount to nothing; not that I consider StatsCON to be reliable but unless someone knows of a private surveyor's organization to verify the above then it's the best we've got.
But where is anyone getting updated "gross domestic product" information from for a bunch of municipalities (the "GTA thing")?  No fiscal year is even stated, let alone whether it's nominal/real   GDP in the usual 1997 "dollars" (prices), and is it chained from 1997 or not?  Or did someone actually find current dollars at current prices for a GDP in the Canadas?  And if anything in USD is going to be stated then post the exchange rate.
And which NAICS industries make up what in "the GTA" in economic output with percentages?  www.2ontario.com has tons of stats, but not for the municipality of Toronto or the "GTA."
The most basic things to get together do not exist, with any credibility at all on the Greater Toronto Area page, which has to have the populations, population densities, unemployment rates, average household incomes, GDPs and in what NAICS industries, per municipality, as the very start of a template to mean anything.
It's not even mentioned that the municipality of Toronto out-populates all four "provinces" of the Atlantic Canadas and all three territories combined, or Manitoba + Saskatchewan + PEI + all three territories combined (with 154,905 in irrelevant residents of the municipality of Toronto leftover and the resident population is irrelevant due to how many commuters, business travelers, tourists and other visitors on average last fiscal year?).
The bizarre messes around taxation, the "Ontario" feds steal all municipal property taxes that the "municipality" of Toronto zones as commercial/industrial, "Ontario" Social Services, "Ontario" Housing do exist, but not in Toronto they don't and whatever 20% of the expenses of the "Ontario" feds happen to be to pay for "Ontario" Social Services, "Ontario" Housing, ODSP is taken right out of Toronto's (municipality of, unless otherwise is stated for this purpose) residential property taxes, which amounted to 37% of our MUNICIPAL residential property taxes last fiscal year, which resulted in another TTC fare hike to try to cover those expenses that nothing covers, quite unlike any other sane city in the world, let alone an alleged city-region, where they actually keep their municipal taxes and get shares of state/provincial and federal taxes to pay for things that municipal taxes were never designed to pay for: like public transit (the TTC's web site used to claim that the TTC was the 2nd largest public transit system in North America behind only NYC, in ridership, but not anymore, it lost ... Google +"vital signs" +toronto, 1,316,000 riders between 2001 and 2003, while service was cut and fares had increased 27 per cent since 1997, almost twice the rate of inflation -- due to the confederate feds stealing $22 billion a year on average (not returning its fair share to the "Ontario" feds) ever since they got their own budget deficit paid off in fiscal 1997-98 and half of that deficit has been run on the "municipality" of Toronto by the "Ontario" feds.
Why are we paying "provincial" or confederate ("federal") taxes in Toronto?  A whole $90 million and change was sent back to Toronto via the "new deal for cities and communities" (due to the Stampede Town Hick Party; it was supposed to be "the new deal for CITIES" given that they're the economic backbones of the Canadas; but nothing puts up with what Toronto does; probably anywhere on the planet in any alleged "democracy") while $11 THOUSAND million was stolen by the "Ontario" (which Ontario?) and confederate feds in return for a whole $90 million and change of our own revenues back.
So what if it's going up to $100+ million next fiscal year?  Another $1.1 BILLION will be stolen and wow, we get the decimal point back.
I'm just barely getting warmed up but will leave it at that for now.  It's a mess, the Toronto page and the "GTA" page (what GTA?  What say does Toronto City Hall have over the "T" in GTA?) other than the usual of blowing sunshine up arses for no apparent reason instead of dealing with reality?
S-Ranger
S-Ranger 03:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early discussion 

message: A few mentions of the French language in Toronto striked me as purely POV. I have removed "Only 1.4% of city residents claim French (Canada's other official language) as their mother tongue." as it is as relevant as a mention that only 1.4% of Quebec City's population claim the English language as their mother tongue in an article about the latter city. Furthemore I have edited the mention of ESL, specifically "These students come primarily from Latin America, East Asia and German-speaking Europe with surprisingly few coming from nearby French Canada."  Present-day Germans and Swiss are not emigrating to Canada in significant numbers. Moreover, people from Quebec would likely be attending French-language schools.
---
I understand what you say about why you removed "Only 1.4% of city residents claim French (Canada's other official language) as their mother tongue." from the article. I disagree with your argument, however.
For readers outside of Canada, I would think that the French fact of Quebec City comes as little surprise. But because of Canada's reputation as being a bilingual, French-English country, many assume that Toronto has a large French component as well. (I have personally met foreign visitors actually in Toronto who, having seen French language on highway signs and government-run liquor stores, along with French channels on their hotel TV sets, still had this assumption.)
I think it would be an interesting point to many unfamiliar with Toronto, or Canada in general, to re-include this information.--Harry 19:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French-language in Toronto 

message: How can I write this page in Another Language?
*Your question is not clear, but I'll try to help. Start by going to the  List of Wikipedias. Select the Wikipedia for the language into which you want to translate this. Enter "Toronto" into the search box in that Wikipedia to see if there is already an article. it may be called "Toronto, Canada". If there is already an article, which is likely for Wikipedias in widely-spoken languages, you can edit that article to incorporate information from this one. If there is no article, you will have to create a new article, and then you can post whatever you have written in that language. Good luck. If you have further questions, you can post them here or on my talk page. Ground Zero | t 19:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I write this page in Another Language? 

message: Some of the material on this page could safely be moved to sub pages. We have main articles for a number of sections, but material on the Toronto page continues to duplicate the material in these specialized articles. (my terminology may not be entirely correct here)-Dhodges 17:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree!  I started to do this with Demographics of Toronto way back when, but have since been subsumed. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sub pages 

message: I believe there is a mistake in the first paragraph regarding the internal link to "Cultural capital." When Toronto is referred to as “one of Canada’s Cultural Capitals” it means that the city is a centre of some specific activity; in this case, culture. It’s like saying that New York is the financial capital of the world. 
However, "Cultural capital" links to an article on Pierre Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital, where the word “capital” clearly means wealth, assets or advantage. Bourdieu is talking about cultural capital as opposed to human capital or money. 
I would suggest that the link be removed.--OldCommentator 03:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that wasn't correct. I removed the link. - Randwicked Alex B 03:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cultural capital?

message: Are there any sources for the list of twin cities? I can't find any evidence for such a relationship between Toronto and Sydney, for example. JPD (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Fixed the Twinnings today using offical language (Partners and Friendships) and provided link to the source!  It is funny...it took 3 emails back and forth to the city before they stopped sending me the link to Wikipedia!!!  I finally got them to understand that I was trying to check on the accuracy of Wiki!  Man...that list WAS wrong!  KsprayDad 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! That previous list was really bothering me. Skeezix1000 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twinnings 

message: Someone recently made a change suggesting Toronto is the 6th-largest city in North America, but then cited in the summary information about metropolitan areas. As far as cities are concerned, only Mexico City, New York, LA, and Chicago, in that order, have larger populations than Toronto; hence, Toronto is the 5th-most populous city in North America. If you want to cite info about San Francisco-Oakland or Washington-Baltimore, than compare them to the correpsonding metropolitan area (Greater Toronto Area or Golden Horseshoe). Mindmatrix 21:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population comparison

message: I think a divided Ontario is a good idea. What does anyone else think? Dhastings 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think any such talk should be taken to some web discussion forum/blog where it belongs.  If/when it becomes fact then it will be appropriate to discuss here and document on the main article with proper verification. But I would/should add that if a verifiable source is discussing it, that I'm not aware of (Toronto Board of Trade, Ontario Chamber of Commerce, something that means something and can do it too and it will be done and much more than that) that the source should be documented here because if such changes are finally, finally coming then it's noteworthy to add to the Ontario article on "down."  Or rather. the Toronto article on down to the rest of the Ontarios. --S-Ranger 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Leaving aside, for the moment, that the talk pages of Wikipedia articles aren't really the place for proposing alternate models of governance, these suggested boundaries don't make much sense. Nipissing and Manitoulin are more naturally allied to Northern Ontario than to Central or Western Ontario (and while it would certainly be more debatable, a case could be made that Parry Sound is, too); Simcoe, York and Durham are more naturally allied to Toronto than to Peterborough; Oxford and Perth would be more naturally governed from London than Owen Sound, and Brant, Wellington and Waterloo Region would make more sense in either Southwestern or the Golden Horseshoe. If such a thing were really up for debate, I'd go for either a two-province (Northern, Southern) or a four-province model (yellow + green = Western, blue + grey = Central, Eastern, Northern) with a more logical boundary division than this. But it's a moot point; this would only be an appropriate discussion to have here if the idea of dividing Ontario up into smaller provinces was actually under consideration by one or more levels of government. Bearcat 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Ontario 

message: I am considering a move to Toronto from (sister city) Portland, Oregon.  I read a lot about traffic problems and public transport in Toronto, but I'm still wondering if I can just ride my bike to work & errands like I do here.  Seems like it might deserve a mention.  --Shafferl 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cycling as transport? 

message: Could someone add something about NXNE (North by Northeast).  It's a pretty major industry event but I'm not good at writing these things. --70.30.77.176 04:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on this but I think that events like these are not considered relevant to city articles (there was some other article writing that mentions wikipedia is NOT a travel or events guide). Including something like the NXNE would lower the bar for inclusiveness of a number of events that are even more prominent (Pride, TIFF, etc.) filling up the article into a Special Events for Toronto list. Unless it's something that really entirely defines the city I don't think it should go into the article. --Artificialard 08:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music

message: Someone wrote: "(The non-white population grows by about 1 percent every year - while white population declines by about one percent during the same time)."
Where is the source of that. - —This unsigned comment was added by Galati (talk • contribs) .
*That section needs a clean-up to remove both unsourced claims and to move some stuff that more appropriately belongs in the subarticle.  Skeezix1000 17:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About Statistics

message: While this article says that it is about the City of Toronto, a lot of the economical information as well as other information reflects Toronto's metropolitan area and not the information of the city proper.
Therefore, why not include statistics of the mteropolitan area from StatCan. —This unsigned comment was added by Galati (talk • contribs) .
*Those stats are in the Greater Toronto Area article.  Skeezix1000 17:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And all over the City of Toronto article. --S-Ranger 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About Article

message: According to the University of Toronto website, Toronto is ranked "the safest large city in North America". Does anyone have a citation for this? --DearPrudence 01:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Safest large city in North America"? 

message: The article states: "The TTC is famous for it's renowned 'transfer ticket', on which you can transfer to several buses, trains, and streetcars, paying only once at the start of your trip."
Really?  Isn't this a bit of an exageration?  Famous?  Renowned?  And isn't that what a transfer does on any transit system in just about any city?  Or am I just unaware, and the TTC transfer really is something unique?  --Skeezix1000 18:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unique, not renowned.  What's more, those aren't even different municipalities anymore -- it's all one city, and it's just a standard transfer.  There's nothing special about it whatsoever. Cleduc 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous and renowned transfer tickets

message: Is there a way of knowing what are the poorest neighbourhoods of Toronto? Some have said Parkdale or St James Town, but are they the top 2? How can we mention that they are "poor" neighbourhoods (if they are) while remaining factual? There's also an area part of Queen East that's really shady and poor, full of pawn shops, but I don't know what to call it.--Sonjaaa 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorest neighbourhoods?

message: It would be good if some group effort could be put into building some unity and agreement in the Toronto Neighbourhood pages.  Some of the information ends up being contradictory; for instance, on the Bloor Street page Portugal Village is listed as a community; however, the Portugal Village page says that the community is bound by Bathurst, Dundas, Queen and Trinity Bellwoods Park.  This area doesn't include Bloor, so perhaps it shouldn't be listed as a community on Bloor St.  I decided to start a discussion here, since it seems to me that agreement between the Toronto neighbourhood pages is a general issue.  Perhaps there's another place for this  discussion?--Stetson 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toronto's Neighbourhoods

message: since the team has been formally announced I have added it to the list of local sports teams and removed the comment about a future Toronto expansion by MLS Thetrump 21:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto FC 

message: It's biased that cities like London, Toronto, New York City and Los Angeles get articles with over 14 or 15 sections, while cities such as Paris, Sydney, Tokyo ect. are reduced to a minor 10 or 11?? This really needs to be changed, either making the articles shorter, or make them all equal (which is much more fair). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackp (talk • contribs) .
:Actually, the articles on Paris (55.6 kB, 8162 words) and Sydney (45.1 kB, 6522 words) are larger than the Toronto article (42.4 kB, 5984 words).  It really isn't an issue of how many headings are used.  Although efforts are constantly being made to move information into subarticles (where appropriate), so as to keep the size of the main Toronto article under control (similar to efforts for articles on other cities), each article is different, and a "one solution fits all" approach would not seem practical.  --Skeezix1000 12:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is a little too long! 

message: why were the logos for all Toronto teams removed? Thetrump 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  team logos 

message: Irrelevant! I hope it's okay for me to delete my own edits.  Good work Kelw, absolutely right, the links to the Greater Toronto Area and Golden Horseshoe and south-central Ontario/Golden Horseshoe and southern Ontario (and the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor, which is called the Windsor-Quebec City corridor by Statistics Canada and W-QCC and such by everything else I've ever read, other than maybe VIA Rail; Toronto is a rather important transportation/communications hub in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor)and Ontario and Canada and North America and Earth are all anyone needs: to go check whatever from links on this page, passing mention with no duplication of information, whatever they feel like checking on, if anything, on other pages where the information belongs, due to this being the City of Toronto article (not this talk page but the main article connected to it).
As with all Toronto CMA info-stats on this article, create a Toronto CMA article because all Toronto CMA garbage is going off this, the City of Toronto, article. --S-Ranger 12:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GTA Population

message: Why doesn't www.TorontoForums.ca qualify to be listed? It does allow people (domestic and international) to ask any questions they have, and to discuss local issues. It also has news feed from multiple sources, making it easier to obtain relevant information on a field of interest. - Ben
:It seems to be a fairly small forum with only some 600 members. We also don't generally add links to discussion forums, and they are included at Wikipedia:External links in the "links to normally avoid" section. - SimonP 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forums generally aren't noteworthy; there are simply too many of them. People chatting about things isn't encyclopedic. If you want a link to your site, you should offer something truly compelling - a history of the city and each of its neighbourhoods, or generally information we can't find elsewhere. The Calendar section has lots of potential (as do some other sections), but is under-used right now. Wikipedians will generally dismiss the "forum" compenent of your site, so it is the other information which will determine the value of your site to Wikipedia. Hope this helps... Mindmatrix 15:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Websites

message: in the "City Issues" section the comment under the picture is labeled as a "Rubbish Bin". However, since this article is about Toronto where it is normally referred to "Garbage Bin" shouldn't it be used instead? --Trump 15:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BB -- k.lee 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  heh, yeah. I recently just started to edit articles so I'm still figuring the process out Trump 13:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  garbage 

message: This might sound like im tempting fate or something, but how come there isnt a bit about the threat of terrorism?
Im just curious cause Canada had been named by Al Qaida as a target. Even an idiot could figure out that Toronto is could be a good target... 
Jak722 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you say that couldn't be say about any other large city in any number of countries? Its certainly not a defining characteristic of the Toronto I know. Yes, some people are fearful of terrorism, the city/provincial/federal police have anti-terrorism planning and training as part of their activities. Al-Qaida may have named Canada but there is no specific threat to Toronto. Dabbler 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So you really believe that this bunch of clowns were a serious terrorist threat? A secret oconspiracy of teenagers and young men led by an openly Islamist ranter, playing paintball in the woods and telling everyone their plans over the Internet. Even CSIS and the RCMP should have been able to catch this bunch. At least we can be grateful that they didn't shoot them out of hand as the British police do.
Um...they had 3 tonnes of explosives and detonators, what exactly are you talking about? Duhon
No, the police alleged that they tried to obtain three tons of fertiliser that could be used as part of an explosive. In my Canada you are considered innocent until proved guilty in court. Dabbler 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: you're innocent in court until proven guilty. In my book, these bastards have already been tried convicted and executed (well not executed, I'm against capital punishment, but you get the point) --Trump 02:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ummm, I just want to remind you guys that I asked this question BEFORE this whole thing happened... I didn't know something like this would really happen... Jak722 22:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism Concerns 

message: This section needs work. There are some ambiguous statements, and sseveral long lists. A separate article exists for this information already, so could we pare it down to a short summary of the most salient points. Anybody have an opinion about which points are most salient? Mindmatrix 20:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article are you referring to?--Thylark 15:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: This might sound like im tempting fate or something, but how come there isnt a bit about the threat of terrorism?
Im just curious cause Canada had been named by Al Qaida as a target. Even an idiot could figure out that Toronto is could be a good target... 
Jak722 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you say that couldn't be say about any other large city in any number of countries? Its certainly not a defining characteristic of the Toronto I know. Yes, some people are fearful of terrorism, the city/provincial/federal police have anti-terrorism planning and training as part of their activities. Al-Qaida may have named Canada but there is no specific threat to Toronto. Dabbler 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So you really believe that this bunch of clowns were a serious terrorist threat? A secret oconspiracy of teenagers and young men led by an openly Islamist ranter, playing paintball in the woods and telling everyone their plans over the Internet. Even CSIS and the RCMP should have been able to catch this bunch. At least we can be grateful that they didn't shoot them out of hand as the British police do.
Um...they had 3 tonnes of explosives and detonators, what exactly are you talking about? Duhon
No, the police alleged that they tried to obtain three tons of fertiliser that could be used as part of an explosive. In my Canada you are considered innocent until proved guilty in court. Dabbler 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: you're innocent in court until proven guilty. In my book, these bastards have already been tried convicted and executed (well not executed, I'm against capital punishment, but you get the point) --Trump 02:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ummm, I just want to remind you guys that I asked this question BEFORE this whole thing happened... I didn't know something like this would really happen... Jak722 22:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism Concerns 

message: Shouldn't attractions be apart of "Culture"? Jackp 06:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attractions? 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "Toronto" means "meeting place" instead of "place where trees stand in the water". It's clearly stated in an atlas I have. (Unless that's wrong.) G.He 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked at Toronto's name? It has a reliable reference (NRC) you can read online. Hope this helps. Mindmatrix 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: Under Demographics. Okay, I think this is starting to get silly now. What defines sizable. It seems like people are coming to the article and adding each and every nationality they can think of someone living in Toronto may originally have been and the list is getting rather large. Just what defines sizable? Would this be better if someone could get hold of some demographic information and just list those that make up 1% or higher of the population rather than listing every single ethnicity that exists in Toronto (as other cities don't list every single ethnicity that exists in their cities). Ben W Bell talk 06:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, this level of detail should probably remain in the Demographics of Toronto article, rather than in the main Toronto article.  --Skeezix1000 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sizable minority groups 

message: I've never heard of an ethnic group called Eastern Europeans. Eastern Europe contains Romania and Hungary, which are not even linguistically related to the rest of Eastern Europe's varied ethnic groups and nations. Even if there happen to be no Hungarians or Romanians in Toronto, jumbling the Polish, the Ukranians, Czechs, Slovaks, Belorussians, etc into one homogenous lump of Eastern Europe is akin to an amalgamation of Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Greek ancestry into Southern Europeans, or equating Tunisians and Nigerians as people of African heritage. Someone with access to the statistics should fix this idiocy. Unigolyn 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, Southern European, and African are actually fairly standard ways of dividing people, as is Eastern European. Not that I disagree that more precision would be nice. - SimonP 01:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the fact that Poles and Czechs typically don't care for being called Eastern Europeans, as they believe themselves to be Central Europeans.  I agree with Unigolyn -- it's not a helpful categorization. --Skeezix1000 11:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europeans? 

message: I'm going to try and fix up the culture section as much as possible over the next while, it just seems really listy. I began with nightlife (not done) and just removed the "nicknames" category as it was neither very relevant and had already been covered in the introduction --Trump 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  culture 

message: In an effort to reduce the length of this already too-long article, I have removed (again) the name of former and minor sports teams. These appear in the List of sports teams in Toronto branch article. The main article cannot include all information about Toronto. (For crying out loud, the list included five Australian rules football teams. Should these really be in the main article about Toronto?) There is probably other information that should be moved to branch articles. Ground Zero | t 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of lists that we could probably do without in the main article that can be move to subarticles -- e.g. important people from Toronto, lists of random nightclubs, etc. --Skeezix1000 18:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, the list of neighbourhoods was getting unwieldy over the last few days, with duplication of the main article. I've been trying to make minor fixes to links, but I didn't know what to do with the size of the list. --Brat32 06:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports teams/article length

message: This article needs to be cleaned up. First of all a few suggestions, 
1. “Other Wiki Sites” doesn’t deserve its own section, it should be added as a sub-section under External Links.
2. Wikipedia isn’t a travel guide nor is it a website of lists of places, and extensive information (it isn’t even information, just lengthy lists) on food, nightlife, points of interest and festivals should be added to Wiki Travel on Toronto.
3. “Important People” doesn’t belong on the page, it should be added under the See Also section. The same with “Parks”, “Media” and “Sport Teams”, although sport teams could be added under “See Also”.
4. Attractions and Culture are to similar to be separate sections….so I was thinking about adding “Attractions” under “Culture”
Also, I think we need a few more pictures, maybe one of the skyline, the paranorma from the CN Tower is excellent, and I was thinking about maybe adding a night view from the same place.  Jackp 10:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack, I understand that you have now been blocked indefinitely, but I still wanted to respond to your suggestions:1) Why?  2) I tend to agree with you for some of the lists (e.g. Points of Interest, Nightlife), but not necessarily others.  Which specific ones concern you?  How would you address your concerns?  There may be some information in those lists that is worth keeping on Wikipedia.3) "Important People" has already been eliminated, replaced by a link to another article.  Same with media, and the sports team chart has since been restricted to major league sports.  I agree with you on the parks list, but the information just shouldn't be deleted.  There may be a way of incorporating some of the key locations under Attractions.4) There is some overlap that could be eliminated.  However, culture and attractions are not the same thing.  The CN Tower and the Scarborough Bluffs are attractions, for example, but wouldn't necessarily fit under culture.  I believe the two categories should remain separate.  Others may agree with you, though.  You should get more feedback and consensus before making that change. --Skeezix1000 17:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: Toronto is a global city, exerting significant regional, national, and international influence ...
Alright, I can see "significant regional and national" influence being the economic and entertainment center of the country, but international? I think that is possibly a major exaggeration. Is Toronto really on the same level as New York, Paris, London, and Tokyo? DragonRouge 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yup, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_city   toronto is 9 point Beta World City, which is just shy of being a full blown Alpha --Trump 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack, use some common sense.  It is listed after San Francisco and Sydney in the Global City article because the list is alphabetical.  As for your suggestion that the section be removed, that is odd coming from someone who is constantly inserting hyperbole into the Sydney article (and corresponding tit-for-tat edits to the articles on other major cities), and has been blocked twice for doing so.  --Skeezix1000 12:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: we've given you definitive proof that Toronto does, in fact, have a strong international influence. What more do you want? --Trump 21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a better idea to keep "significant influence" on the regional and domestic scale, and then simply state that Toronto is a major world city. The way it's currently worded makes it appear as if Toronto has a great deal of global influence. That's simply not true, just as it wouldn't be true to claim that San Francisco or Sydney exert "significant" international influence. Come on. We can also debate as to how neutral the rankings provided above are, since they are only coming from a single source, and it's not exactly the United Nations. Toronto, Sydney, and San Francisco are wonderful cities, but we have to be realistic and try to keep a neutral mind about things. DragonRouge 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  "Sydney exertes significant international and national influence and it has been classified as a "Beta" global city by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network." LOL DragonRouge 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: lol, this guy is such a wanker. Like seriously, who does that? Is he that determined to make Sydney appear to be the greatest city on earth? (don't get me  wrong, I love Sydney...I'm dual Canadian/Aussie) --Trump 16:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence?

message: if we start listing high schools and elementary schools, this article will quickly become swamped with links to the hunderds of schools in Toronto. there is already a separate list article, List of educational institutions in Toronto. please add to this article any schools you think are missing. This is intended to be an overview of Toronto, not a compendium of all things Toronto. Ground Zero | t 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education section -- listing schools

message: User:72.56.115.178 has been adding his site in numerous articles and I have been deleting them all, the latest being here. He has now added it back again.  I've made some comments on it in User_talk:Brat32#Spam_in_Toronto  I'd rather other people judge the merits of having the site listed, before I delete it again. --Brat32 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links - goodoldtoronto.com

message: I wish to open a discussion regarding the "nightlife" section of the article, which has a few links to websites owned by various nightclubs around the Toronto area, specifically Blvd Room, Guvernment, MINK, Purgatory and Tonic. I really don't believe they should be there since they are mostly spam sights. I mean, if you have links to just a few, why not a link to all? It really seems like advertising for these specific nightclubs' websites. --Euges116 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, once you add one, it's hard to justify stopping others being added. I think if a "nightlife" is notable enough to get it's own Wiki page, we can link to that. eg. The Docks or El Mocambo (and also see [Category:Culture of Toronto]) though a list. --Brat32 03:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nightlife" in the article. 

message: is it possible to add a photo gallery in wikipedia articles? I thought it would be much better to have a gallery of pictures and images rather than some scattered across the entire article... --Jwembley10 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's possible to add a gallery to Wikipedia. Or is it? --SimonQ 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yiou can add a number ofthumbnailed pictures in one location and call it a gallery. See Iraq#View of Iraq for an example. Dabbler 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Picture galleries are quite common for articles with little prose. However, a good article (and Toronto strives to be one) has a balance between prose and images. Overuse of photos in this particulat case can actually lower the quality of the article. There is a linked page at commons (:commons:Toronto, Ontario) with pictures from Toronto, that's the right place to add photos. Only imags relevant to the article content should be included in the article page on wikipedia. --Qyd 20:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo Gallery for toronto? 

message: Whoever is blanking this page, please stop. It is highly annoying and frustrating! --Euges116 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you want them to stop blanking the pages as they should be left intact as a record of discussions. Dabbler 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha! Sorry, my bad... --Euges116 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like Bart Simpson1 removed the content, and it was not restored properly. I'm not sure how to put it back together but I'm putting back what I can. --Brat32 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This page is also being vandalized by User:141.117.2.238 who is pretending to be a nice guy by complaining on User_talk:Bart_simpson1 about blanking. He has a history of vandalizing other articles that I have edited, in retaliation for me removing some of his commercial links from here. --Brat32 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there are four people vandalizing these pages. I see four unique IPs... Maybe mistake tho... don't have my glasses on. --SimonQ 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking, Please Stop. 

message: since the current photo in this section is horribly out of date, I went searching for a new one to use. I found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TorontoOct2005Nasa.jpg courtesy of NASA. However, It shows much less detail of Toronto specifically but more of the Golden Horseshoe in general. To switch or not to switch? --Trump 21:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No switch. It's not as clear, and as you said, is too broad, covers too much area. --Euges116 03:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  okay, but I still think we need to find a better photo --Trump 18:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: you're wondering what the GTA has to do with Toronto? --Trump 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not other than what I've posted about it, just to get the link to the GTA in the intro of Toronto.  This is the City of Toronto page/article/mainspace, not the Greater Toronto Area page. --S-Ranger 13:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think any discussion of Toronto should include a mention of the urban area. In fact, we already have that, though we should trim off the list of municipalities in the exurbs section (I'll do that right after posting this comment). Toronto's effect on the suburbs and exurbs is significant enough that requires this article to have something more than just a link to Greater Toronto Area or Golden Horseshoe. Mindmatrix 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does; mention.  I added a link for Toronto CMA and put it in context.  What more could one need? It's the confusion over the word "metropolitan" (as in Metropolitan Toronto (dissolved), which used to be stated in the mainspace article as "metropolitan Toronto", which is misleading and confusing [and incorrect, IMO] on the City of Toronto page.  I concur that Toronto isn't just Toronto (and added that if Toronto alone is stated, it usually means the GTA or Toronto CMA, not City of Toronto alone), but this is the City of Toronto article and the GTA has a separate article, as should the Toronto CMA.  IMO, to eliminate more arguments about "5th largest municipality..." which used to state city instead of municipality then went straight into "metropolitan Toronto" (CMA population).  Technically, everything stated on the Greater Toronto Area page, including the version based on satellite imagery that includes the Detroit area, Buffalo/Niagara Falls, U.S. area, etc., might as well be on the City of Toronto page if nothing is going to be broken up and explained in proper context for the subject/article at hand. --S-Ranger 21:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new "905 Exurb" Photo? 

message: Why is ("must") the totally irrelevant, to everything in the GTA, ridiculous, confederate Toronto CMA be discussed in the City of Toronto and Greater Toronto Area articles as opposed to creating another page for the irrelevant thing, stating its total irrelevance along with a few irrelevant stats about its irrelevance?
All that is needed are three tables, like so:
Greater Toronto Area vs. Toronto [census] metropolitan area, 2001
After each census subdivision (CSD) / municipality name the census division (CD) name is abbreviated as follows:
TD = Toronto Division
PR = Peel Regional Municipality
YR = York Regional Municipality
DR = Durham Regional Municipality
HR = Halton Regional Municipality
SC = Simcoe County
DC = Dufferin County
___________________________________________________________________
                                                 Population
Name                               Type   2001      1996     Change
___________________________________________________________________
Toronto (TD)                         C 2,481,494 2,385,421 A 96,073
Mississauga (PR)                     C   612,925   544,382   68,543
Brampton (PR)                        C   325,428   268,251   57,177
Markham (YR)                         T   208,615   173,383   35,232
Vaughan (YR)                         C   182,022   132,549   49,473
Burlington (HR) * .................. C   150,836   136,976   13,860
Oakville (HR)                        T   144,738   128,405   16,333
Oshawa (DR) * ...................... C   139,051   134,364    4,687
Richmond Hill (YR)                   T   132,030   101,725   30,305
Barrie-unofficial or otherwise (SC)  C   103,710    79,191   24,519
Whitby (DR) * ...................... T    87,413    73,794   13,619
Pickering (DR)                       C    87,139    78,989    8,150
Ajax (DR)                            T    73,753    64,430    9,323
Clarington (DR) * .................. T    69,834    60,615    9,219
Newmarket (YR)                       T    65,788    57,125    8,663
Caledon (PR)                         T    50,595    39,893   10,702
Halton Hills (HR)                    T    48,184    42,390    5,794
Aurora (YR)                          T    40,167    34,857    5,310
Georgina (YR)                        T    39,263    34,777    4,486
Milton (HR)                          T    31,471    32,104     -633
Whitchurch-Stouffville (YR)          T    22,008    19,835    2,173
[New Tecumseth] (SC) **              T    26,141    22,904 A  3,237
[Orangeville] (DC) **                T    25,248    21,498    3,750
[Bradford West Gwillimbury] (SC) **  T    22,228    20,213    2,015
[Whitchurch-Stouffville] (YR) **     T    22,008    19,835    2,173
East Gwillimbury (YR)                T    20,555    19,770      785
Scugog (DR) * ...................... TP   20,173     7,244    1,336
King (YR)                            TP   18,533    18,223      310
Uxbridge (DR)                        TP   17,377    15,882    1,495
Brock (DR) * ....................... TP   12,110    11,705      405
[Mono] (DC) **                       T     6,922     6,552      370
Chippewas of Georgina Island
 First Nation (YR)                   R       273       201       72
Mississaugas of
 Scugog Isand] (DR) * .............. R        51         ¶        ¶
________________________________________________________________________
¶ Incompletely enumerated Indian reserve or Indian settlement. For further information, see the “Special Notes”.
* ... Municipalities with one asterisk and a line of periods are in the version of the Toronto city-region the “Ontario” feds created but are not in the confederate “[census] metropolitan area” ([C]MA) version.
[]** Municipalities in brackets followed by two asterisks are not in the "Greater Toronto Area" the Ontario feds created but are in the confederate version of the Toronto city-region (MA).
Derived from: Statistics Canada - Population, Dwellings and Geography (Index), Census Subdivisions (CSDs) - Municipalities then by CMA and CD (Toronto District, Peel, York, Durham, Halton Regional Municipalities) to get both alleged “official Toronto city-regions”.
If the Greater Toronto Area Association of Municipalities (GTAAM) existed, had ever done anything, had ever released anything to the press or done anything at all on behalf of its version of the “official Toronto city-region” then its version would have been included as well.  But the GTAAM does not exist, does nothing, has never represented anything in its version of the Toronto city-region against the “Ontario” feds or particularly against the Association of Municipalities of “Ontario” (AMO) -- so the GTAAM is of no relevance -- if it even exists other than around what Answers.com, Wikipedia, etc., claim(ed) about its version of Toronto and nothing else.
Date modified (by source): 2002-07-16
Last updated/checked (by me): 2005-02-18
_____
Census Subdivisions (Municipalities) not included in the Toronto [C]MA but included in the GTA
___________________________________________________________________
                                                 Population
Name                               Type   2001      1996     Change
___________________________________________________________________
Burlington (HR) .................... C   150,836   136,976   13,860
Oshawa (DR) ........................ C   139,051   134,364    4,687
Barrie-unofficial or otherwise (SC)  C   103,710    79,191   24,519
Whitby (DR) ........................ T    87,413    73,794   13,619
Clarington (DR) .................... T    69,834    60,615    9,219
Scugog (DR) ........................ TP   20,173     7,244    1,336
Brock (DR) ......................... TP   12,110    11,705      405
Mississaugas of
 Scugog Isand] (DR) ................ R        51         ¶        ¶
___________________________________________________________________
TOTAL                                    583,178   503,889   79,289
___________________________________________________________________
Census Subdivisions (Municipalities) added to the Toronto MA (in exchange for the above) but not included in the GTA
___________________________________________________________________
                                                 Population
Name                               Type   2001      1996     Change
___________________________________________________________________
New Tecumseth (SC) ................. T    26,141    22,904 A  3,237
Orangeville (DC) ................... T    25,248    21,498    3,750
Bradford West Gwillimbury (SC) ..... T    22,228    20,213    2,015
Mono (DC) .......................... T     6,922     6,552      370
___________________________________________________________________
TOTAL                                     80,539    71,167    9,372
___________________________________________________________________
There is no more "metro" or "metropolitan" Toronto.  It was amalgamated by the "Ontario" feds in 1998 as anyone who has read either of the aforesaid articles knows.  So why is there any mention of "metro" or "metropolitan" Toronto on the City of Toronto page, other than as the former Metropolitan Toronto that hasn't existed for over 7 years?
Go ahead and point to the former Metropolitan Toronto's page, but the CMA means nothing to anyone or anything around here (other than perhaps whatever a "New Tecumseth" is, up in nowhere, cottage country in Simcoe County, or little Orangeville. way up and off in Dufferin County, Bradford West Gwillimbury in Simcoe County and "Mono" in Dufferin County -- all 80,529 of "y'all" in the 2001 Census; and due to the 400 (hwy), the Barrie "census agglomeration" (CA), even though it had 103,710 in resident population alone, more than Kingston or Abbotsford, which became CMAs in the 2001 Census, but not Barrie "because it's too close to Toronto," will be included as part of the CMA and GTA before ANY of the little towns/ditches above are even considered -- and should demand to be a CMA, not a CA, lumped in with the likes of the Labrador "City" (two municipalities of type Town), which didn't even have the prerequisite 10,000 in population for CAs in the 2001 Census).
I have contacted the "Ontario" Ministry (praise be to the Church of England; amen) of Finance to ask them what the real and nominal expenditure-based GDPs of the GTA are, and they will not respond.  Perhaps if we all bombard them with e-mails, they will have no choice but to respond, because nothing else can possibly "know" what the real and nominal GDPs of the "GTA thing" they created, are.
The confederates/StatsCon knows: if they can come up with a GDP for the combined census subdivisions (CSDs) (municipalities) in the Toronto CMA, then they can do the same for the CSDs of the greater Toronto area (GTA), but the GTA is none of their business, so they don't.
They (the "Ontario" feds) created the mess, not StatsCON/StatsCan't or the confederates, so it is entirely up to them to provide us with at least the most basic economic information around (which Nunavut and PEI and such get in every StatsCon release, around everything) for the GTA and the City of Toronto (given that it out-populates all four provinces of the Atlantic Canadas combined and all three territories combined; or Saskatchewan and Manitoba and all three territories combined; or the "provinces" of Saskatchewan + Nova Scotia + Newfoundland & Labrador + Prince Edward Island combined); but they never reply.
Of what use (or even common sense) is a GDP, with no type of GDP stated (income-based, expenditure-based, industry-based; there are many ways to measure GDP), no source, no temporal aspect (as in, six business quarters combined, or 8, or "fiscal year(s)" or calendar year(s)?), let alone with no exchange rate, and in US$? : )  It's hilariousy worthless and most certainly is not accurate, even at $0.65 in US$.
Expenditure-based "real" (chained $1997) and nominal ("current prices" for the temporal period that must be stated, averaged out) GDP is needed in Canadian dollars (only; anyone can convert to whatever other currency at will; and unless the Bank of Canada rates are used, then all you end up with is some interest rate differential from another central bank to un-confuse), for both the City of Toronto and the GTA.
The Toronto CMA does not exist, other than around the far than worthless confederates, and it certainly does not belong on the City of Toronto page or Greater Toronto Area page, other than as one link to point to a page that proves its total irrelevance around here. --S-Ranger 01:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City of Toronto is "metropolitan" Toronto CMA since when? 

message: In the last sentence of this section (as of the date/time of this edit):
:"The Toronto financial industry is based on Bay Street, the city's equivalent to Wall Street in New York." (bolding for emphasis only)
It seems confusing to me, particularly given the (rebuffed) arguments about Toronto "significant global influence/reach," in the article, called out by a Sydney...ian as crap, but even s/he stated that it should be modified to Toronto having a significant regional or national [economic] influence, but not "global" (and it's not global on any major level; other than with the largest economy on the planet; the U.S., in the largest economic trading bloc on the face of the planet, in commerce, between the U.S. and Canadas; far moreso than the U.S. and the entire EU combined, in trading/economics).
I'm not comparing Bay Street to Wall Street, other than in context (which it's in on this page; it's only Toronto and only the Canadas, not NYC or the U.S.) but is Wall Street "the city's" [New York City's] huge eqivalent to the city's Bay Street in Toronto?  Bay St. operates on an  international level and is the country's equivalent to the U.S.'s Wall Street, not New York City's Wall St., unless geography is being confusingly (to me) mixed with economics/finance (insurance, real estate, marketing, etc).
I don't want to change it because there may be a purpose for stating:
:"The Toronto financial industry is based on Bay Street, the city's equivalent to Wall Street in New York."
...as opposed to:
:"The Toronto financial industry is based on Bay Street, the country's equivalent to Wall Street in New York." (formatting only for emphasis)
The "City of Toronto's" (or even South Ontario's or Windsor-Quebec City corridor's) dollar doesn't exist, let alone trade on the TSX: just the alleged "Canadian" dollar, which should be split into separate economic unions according to everything I've read, and due to the FTA/NAFTA and urban/rural, supply/demand based economies (as in the Windsor-Quebec City coridor and Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island and U.S. can get all the oil and other raw/live and semi-processed resources it wants to out of the Albertas at about 25 cents on our dollar, if we kick the rest into another economic union; which would also allow us to fund the rest of the Canadas at about 25 cents on our dollar, depending on what we did with their shares of the federal debt).  So how is Bay Street the "city's" equivalent to any other country's major exchanges?
Just curious; it doesn't read right to me. S-Ranger 23:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy section (more)