Talk:Toronto

Please review WP:CANSTYLE before posting here; Toronto is the capital of Ontario and Ottawa is the capital of Canada

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Problematic population ranking

The article currently reads that Toronto is the fourth-largest city in North America (behind NYC, LA, Mexico City), with 2,615,000 residents. Chicago had more residents than this in the official 2010 Census (2,695,598) and continues to have more residents with subsequent estimates (2,722,389 last year).

How does Toronto rank higher than Chicago? By all estimates, the city of Chicago is larger, which would make Toronto the fifth-largest in North America. Can somebody explain why editors appear to be protective of this incorrect "fourth place" ranking?"

Geogrphr (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I can answer my own question. The Toronto ranking is being pulled from another list that is using a more recent estimate instead. The problem here, then, is that the article keeps citing the 2011 estimate for its population figure. We simply need to change the sentence so that we are not saying 2,615,000 people is the "fourth-highest." The whole population field also needs to point to the 2014 estimates instead.

Geogrphr (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Our rule on Wikipedia is that the Canada 2011 Census remains the most important population figure until such time as the 2016 Canada Census is released. Intercensal estimates may be cited, if properly sourced, as supplementary data to the five-year census number, but may never simply replace the 2011/2016 data outright. This is because the 2011/2016 censuses are the only figures that are comprehensively broken down for precise demographic detail, as well as the only figures that exist comprehensively for all Canadian cities and towns (as opposed to existing only for a specific and defined set of the major cities, as intercensal updates do.) So a 2014 or 2015 number may be added to the article as additional "update since 2011" data — but the 2011 figure may not be completely disappeared from the article or the infobox until the results of the 2016 census are released. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Bearcat on this. @Geogrphr: please refer to here: WP:CANSTYLE. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

i agree the population sentence is at best, confusing. we should not be stating the official population figure from 2011 and then stating a ranking that was not true at the time. i'm going to break it into two sentences to make it clearer. that way, the official population figure will be clearly stated and the more recent estimates and ranking will also be present. sound fair? Randella (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Good compromise. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I was of the understanding that Toronto's claim to being the fourth-largest city in North America relied upon Mexico being considered "Central America" as opposed to "North America." Chicago is clearly larger than Toronto by metro population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.199.153 (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The rankings are based on population within city limits and in Anglo-America, as opposed to Latin America; Mexico City is in Latin America. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Renominate this article as GA?

It would be a good time to go over this article, so that it could be renominated as GA. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I just did a quick read over the article but I have not checked the sources in detail.

1. Uncited paragraphs and lack of sufficient inline citations. This is the big issue. Certain paragraphs and sentences in the history, topography, neighbourhoods, Old Toronto, Suburbs, Industrial, Public Spaces, Tourism, Education, Airports, Road System are problematic. This would fail criteria 2.
2. Neutrality is okay so that is not an issue. I don't see any bias.
3. I do not think there is any problems regarding the images.
4. The lead section needs a bit of tweaking. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, but in this article it mentions all sorts of things by way of background that are not in the body of the text. See Manual of Style/Lead section. For instance certain citations such "is the most populous city in Canada", "the most populous metropolitan area in Canada" are used only once. My suggestion would be to incorporate these statements somewhere within the article so that the lead section just summarizes this.

I think that is all I have found. I hope this helps. At the same, try putting this article to Peer review to obtain comments from other users. As well, a request for copyediting from the Guild of Copy Editors is good as they will copyedit the article shortly after nomination without waiting for long. These 2 really helped me when I promoted one of my articles to GA. Ssbbplayer (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Prior to nomination, I recommend removing all arbitrary city ranking trivia, if and where present, per this discussion. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I found today two mistakes today and did not take time to really read the article. (york garrison, capital of UC from 1793) I think it needs a fair amount of work. Nowhere near enough citations. Alaney2k (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks as if it needs much more work to get into GA status. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I have put it up to the Guild of Copy Editors. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It is better now, but not good enough for GA. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Subtropical climate by 2020 or 2030?

The climate section mentions the following:

As a result of ongoing climate change, studies sanctioned by the City of Toronto predict the climate to shift to the humid subtropical (Köppen: Cfa) category sometime between the years 2020-2030.[82]

The citation is as follows:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-55152.pdf

However, from following that link and doing a search for the terms "subtropical", "2020", and "2030", I couldn't find any results that support the claim given. Maybe I'm just not seeing things...can someone point out the information in the PDF that supports this? I've also googled this claim, which I think would be pretty noteworthy and published in a number of places, but I couldn't find anything other than this article.

--Speyeker (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hiya,

I covered this in my reply on my talk page, but I'll paste it here too.

The projections for the climate of Toronto in the official report, for the period ranging from 2020 to 2030 (depends on the model used, as the report looks at several) and beyond, show temperature points & overall climate patterns that would fall under the Cfa classification (I used "humid subtropical" as that is the term applied to the category in Koppen's classification & in Trewartha). The estimated coldest months' averages are above 0C and the warmest month averages above +22C. I am unable to insert screenshots into Wiki, but you can find the temperature estimates at the end of the report, under the various "temperature summary" headings.

As this is the only officially sanctioned study of its type (at least in Toronto) this information is not that widespread, especially on Google.

Hope this makes sense, --Therexbanner (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, it's not an "article", it is an official and most recent study on the impacts of climate change, organized by the city of Toronto, and this is the conclusion/report hosted on the government of Toronto - toronto.ca portal.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying! Speyeker (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What one study predicts that the climate might become 20 years from now is not suitable content for a Wikipedia article at this time. The climate section of the article should appropriately restrict itself to what's true today; it should not contain speculation about what might become true in the future. Any number of things could happen over the next 20 years to change the course of things: some unexpected development could tip us back into a new ice age; climate control policies could become more effective at preventing the prediction from coming true; everything could go to pot and make the progression of climate change even worse. Neither is it the question of climate change uniquely specific to Toronto — it affects the entire world, not just Yonge and Bloor, and so predictions about what's going to happen to temperatures in Toronto are not special. If and when Toronto does shift into a subtropical climate zone, we'll note and source that properly when it happens, but predictions that it may happen in the future aren't inherently noteworthy in this context.

Also, a government report isn't automatically noteworthy just because it exists, if the report itself is your only source for the existence of the report — reliable source media coverage about the report's findings is what it would take to make the report worthy of an encyclopedia's attention. For one thing, government reports don't exactly have a sterling reputation for always being unerringly accurate. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, to be honest, when I first found the report, I wasn't exactly certain of whether I should include it or not. I thought it'd be interesting for the readers to know that there was research done regarding this specific location with very specific projections, regarding the near future (the next 10-20 years from now.)

I'd like to note that I disagree regarding government reports not being noteworthy by themselves. By this definition, nothing would ever count as an RS unless there was media coverage. For example, climate tables themselves are sourced from the government (in this case Environment Canada) and they never/rarely get fully published in the mass media (i.e. newspapers, news sites, etc.)

Things like a country's trade info, health and crime statistics, etc. are all sourced from official government reports, and do not require mass media coverage to be at least mentioned in a Wiki article.

Regarding government report inaccuracy, that can be applied to any forecast ever in existence. That's why they are forecasts, and not actual facts. It has nothing to do with governments being less accurate than the mass media. Usually it is the opposite, as it is the goal of most media outlets to generate profits and to therefore modify/pick their reports to maximize them.

Finally, the main premises of articles like Climate change, Climate change mitigation, Peak oil etc. are based on sources using forecasts, most of which come from government & NGO reports. Good luck convincing that entire paragraphs from them should be deleted based on the fact that they use forecasts.

Regardless, those are just my points of view on these subject.

You can delete the statement, as per the fact that it is a forecast & only comes from one source.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6H7Jql2A9?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fresearch%2Finteractives%2Fglobal-metro-monitor-3 to http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.toronto.ca/budget2006/pdf/2006operatingbackgrounder_revised.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://vancouver.ca/police/Planning/StatsDistrict/2007/20022007AnnualSummary.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Works/gangsandguns.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2002/08/06/c0057.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Why this article is not editable?

In the section Government, I think, the sentence

"However, ... by transferring many executive powers from then-mayor Rob Ford to the deputy mayor Norm Kelly, and itself."

shall be written as

"However, ... by transferring many executive powers from the mayor to the deputy mayor, and itself."--A. Perun (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason it is not editable is because it is semi-protected due to constant vandalism. Read here: WP:SEMIPROTECT. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a small, reasonable change so I added it in. I think you will now be able to edit the page anyways A. Perun. Air.light (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Strange thing -- earlier, the article was not editable to me, now it is!--A. Perun (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You now have at least four edits within the past ten days. You can edit semi-protected articles constructively. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Toronto is semi-protected indefinitely once more, as being downgraded to pending changes for a short while led to the page being vandalized numerous times. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 17:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

More realistic way

I'm reading:

The urban history of the city dates back to 1787, when British officials negotiated the Toronto Purchase with the Mississaugas of the New Credit.[26]

Fine. There are links and a reference supporting the 'negotiation' claim. The fact is it was a brutal form of the land dispossession. The Natives did not have the idea of property on land nor they understand the British Crown Law imposed on them. I'd like to propose something like this instead:

The urban history of the city dates back to 1787, when British officials forced the Mississaugas of the New Credit to surrender their native lands. --A. Perun (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source to support that wording in this instance? Canterbury Tail talk 14:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Historical Essays on Upper Canada: New Perspectives by James Keith Johnson and Bruce G. Wilson, McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 1989 - page 34.--A. Perun (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What is the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) for this source? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

ISBN 9780886290702 ISBN 0886290708--A. Perun (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You can make the change. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

While I fully agree that the Toronto Purchase agreement was a completely dishonest and unfair form of land dispossession, the current language in the header of this article incorrectly insinuates that the land was taken by force by the British Crown, which is in this case is factually incorrect. There in fact was no armed or unarmed conflict during the negotiations between the Mississaugas of the New Credit and the British Crown, and although the British Crown may or may not have ever intended to honour the agreement, it was made under peaceful conditions. It has been well documented that the Mississaugas believed at the time that the agreement they were entering into with the British Crown was not a purchase that would permanently remove their rights to the land, but instead a rental of the lands for British use in exchange for gifts and presents for an indefinite period of time. The agreement was never honoured, a fact that has been acknowledged by the Government of Canada most recently in 2010. The Toronto Purchase, as with all treaty and land agreements in Canada, is a complicated agreement that for the most part has not been honoured and remains contested to this day. I think that it is important for people, especially those who are not familiar with the history of Toronto or the history of Canada, to fully understand these complex issues.

I am proposing to change the language to something that includes information regarding the Toronto Purchase, including a link to the separate Toronto Purchase wikipedia article that contains detailed information about this particular agreement in question :

The urban history of the city dates back to 1787, when British officials negotiated the broadly disputed Toronto Purchase with the the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation which saw the surrender of their native lands to the British Crown.

JPark99 (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, except that I would propose a minor change to that for stylistic purposes:

The urban history of the city dates back to 1787, when British officials negotiated the broadly disputed Toronto Purchase with the the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation that saw the surrender of their native lands to the British Crown.

Change is bolded. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 04:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This changed wording would benefit the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done : I have made the change. JPark99 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016 (The Six as a nickname of Toronto)

Add "The Six" as one of the city's known nicknames

Samielimam (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There's actually a reliable source for "The Six": http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/we-the-6-why-the-name-drake-gave-us-is-here-to-stay/article25421112/ Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't really give me the sense that this name would be notable enough to include in an article like this.Air.light (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well then, we would have to find another reliable source for the nickname. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If an article titled "We The 6: Why the name Drake gave us is here to stay" doesn't give you the sense that "this name would be notable enough to include in an article like this", then you're quite clearly applying a deliberately unattainable standard of significance that almost no nickname for any city could ever actually meet or surpass. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't give me the impression of any widely held significance but rather a personal nickname for the city of a famous musician. The article seemed to be pushing for its acceptance and If people have to be told about something like this, then how widespread is its actual use and therefore notability. Here is another article that seems to counter the opinion of The Globe and Mail article. Air.light (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly the term originates with Drake, but it really has become a thing people really do call Toronto in conversations that have nothing whatsoever to do with discussing Drake's music, and the Globe article explicitly documents some of the ways in which it's expanded into widespread usage beyond Drake alone. I'd be remiss if I didn't also note that the last time somebody called such a plainly verifiable nickname for Toronto into question, it was "T-Dot" — and I do find it awfully curious that the only nicknames anybody ever considers disputable, and considers even reliable sources plainly demonstrating real-world usage to be somehow not evidence of their validity or notability, are the ones that originated specifically within hip hop. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say its notable enough—I've seen it used it advertising, etc. That isn't a reliable source, but I would say its worth locating one. 70.53.192.171 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

We could wait for an official use of the term in an official document by city staffers. What I mean by official document, I mean briefing notes and official reports with numerous references and pass WP:RS, not e-mails, flyers, tweets, or even articles from reputable newspapers (and the Globe and Mail would otherwise be reliable enough for other topics). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Completely anecdotally I'm seeing less references to "The Six" now than I did. It really feels like a number of people want to make it a nickname, and try bandying it about while trying to make it stick, but it just hasn't caught on outside some narrow circles. Canterbury Tail talk 20:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I also don't see anyone over 35 use "The Six" (or variations) on a regular basis outside of advertising, especially outside the context of urban youth culture and sports, particularly basketball. I may be under 35 when I wrote this comment, but I never use the term "The Six" outside of this talk page, the main Toronto article, and the Name of Toronto article. That is just my observation (and original research). I can easily find more reliable sources calling Toronto "centre of the universe" than "The Six" on any given day, and the former is generally not reliable enough to be included in the main Toronto article (as well as it also being the nickname of Times Square). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is not to add "The Six" as a nickname of Toronto. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Article written like an advertisement

Why is this article written like an advertisement? It reads like it's written by an insecure teenager trying to boast about their city. The most, the best, the biggest, widely recognized, prominent, well known, largest... I mean does no one else think this is kind of sad? I know Toronto wants to prove it's a "world class" city, but this is excessive. I'm not suggesting rewording the entire article, but it should be toned down, especially the four lead paragraphs. After all this is an encyclopedia not a tourism ad. 2605:8D80:6E2:46EE:286A:BC79:6F37:4402 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you that this article is written like an advertisement or tourism article. I and many others have worked and continue to work to improve this article along wikipedia guidelines, and I feel that the lead of this article is written from a neutral point of view that states facts and information about Toronto backed up with strong references, and does not attempt to compare Toronto to other cities, to promote Toronto as superior to other cities, or to sway opinion. That said, I am interested to know which parts of this article you think are written like an advertisement, and how you would propose to "tone down" the article. Please provide specific examples. JPark99 (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@2605:8D80:6E2:46EE:286A:BC79:6F37:4402: I would like to know specific examples, as currently, it is rather neutral. Once the "advertisement" parts are identified, they can be fixed and perhaps we can nominate it for good article status. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

How about Revision as of 04:03, 27 December 2016 by User:Funnyhat. This edits just reeks of desperation for acknowledgement. Not many cities have such desperate tones in their LEAD PARAGRAPH! 50.100.252.149 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I proposed the lead paragraph be changed to something that doesn't sound so desperately sad, such as:

″Toronto is the capital city of the Canadian province of Ontario, Canada and is located on the northern shore of Lake Ontario. The 2016 census recorded a population of 2,731,571 and a metropolitan population of 5,928,040 making Toronto the largest city in Canada. A global city, Toronto is a centre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural cities in the world.″

Maybe removing the some of the excessive fluff will make this article lead far more encyclopedic. 50.100.252.149 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Canadian province of Ontario, Canada" is not an inspiring improvement in writing. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Small typo, but thanks for missing the entire point. Good one. 50.100.252.149 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that small changes were made, the lead still needs some major changes, may I suggest:

Toronto is the capital city of the province of Ontario, Canada. An established (is there a non-established global city?) global city, Toronto is an international (Canadian) centre of business, finance, arts, and culture (Toronto widely criticized for lack of culture) and widely (original research) recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan (not in references) cities in the world. It is the most populous city in Canada, and the centre of the Greater Toronto Area, (absolutely unheard of and irrelevant outside of Ontario) the most populous metropolitan area in Canada. Growing in population, the 2016 census recorded a population of 2,731,571. In 2015, the population was estimated at 2,826,498, (est. irrelevant now that 2016 census released) making Toronto the fourth-largest city in North America based on city limits (behind Los Angeles), while it is the fifth-largest (behind Chicago) if ranked by the size of its metropolitan area (widely debated stat considering CMA's and MSA's are drastically differing. Also this sentence sounds plan sad and desperate)

A lot of original research and peacock terms still in the lead paragraph 50.100.252.149 (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Plant hardiness zone

The article reads According to the classification applied by Natural Resources Canada, Toronto is located in plant hardiness zone 7a, which is true and not true. Toronto has a variety of hardiness zones. The waterfront has a 7a zone, but the hardiness zones actually change somewhat drastically as you head north. In fact the area west of York University has a 5b zone. Resource Canada's classification is too broad and is measured from a single point. To say Toronto has a single hardiness zone is incorrect. The article should read plant hardiness zone 5b to 7a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.95.92 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. However, we would need further discussion. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Climate - meaning of diurnal temperature range

Climate - meaning of diurnal temperature range

It should not be necessary to explain in parenthesis the meaning of diurnal temperature range - that topic has its own wikpedia page so why not link to it and improve the flow of the text?

Diurnal temperature variation

79.73.193.221 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. I agree it improves the flow of the text (based on previous experience with other users mentioning to me about it). I edited the article so that it links to the article and removed the parenthesis. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)