Talk:Toronto/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Infobox picture

User:Bakersdozen77 recently changed the longstanding photo of Toronto seen from Tommy Thompson park to a night shot. It is a nice shot of the lights of Toronto but I believe that the day shot showing the actual buildings as well as seeing the waterfront is better. It was appropriate for Bakersdozen77 to change the photo but once Canterbury Tail reverted with the edit summary reason "Personally I think the previous one was better. Has a longer view of the skyline and clearly shows the Rogers Centre, whereas the night shot does not. It should be in a skyline shot.", the appropriate response following is to take it to the talk page to gain a consensus to change it from the status quo (WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a night shot of Toronto's skyline is great. I uploaded 3 of my photos but I narrowed it down to these two. I think one of them should be used for the article. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)



In my personal opinion yes night shots make for nicer photographs. However I personally believe a daytime shot where you can clearly see the buildings and detail, plus a depth of field, makes for a better picture from an encyclopaedic perspective. I will of course go with consensus, but we're not going for art here but function. Canterbury Tail talk 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
They're nice I agree and perhaps there is a place for them within the article but the infobox should have the daytime, waterfront photo that is somewhat iconic of Toronto. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Any plans on making a collage infobox picture for the Toronto aritcle (like in New York, London, Chicago, etc)? MTLskyline (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There was a montage made but it was decided that it better belonged within the article and that the infobox should have the iconic picture from the waterfront. It does not seem to have been added to the article though or maybe it was removed. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The night shots look nice, but they are not ideal as an introduction to the article. The most important criteria for the lead picture should be clarity and accuracy. Although night shots are more romantic, there is a reason why most city articles on Wikipedia begin with a daytime skyline: daytime pictures illustrates the city in the most honest and straightforward manner, free of distortions from fancy nighttime lighting schemes. If a nighttime shot must be used though, Image:Torontoniteshot3.jpg is much better than Image:Torontoniteshot2.jpg. Also, there is another daytime picture that might be considered: Image:Toronto skyline and waterfront.jpg. (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to suggest that perhaps the night shots can be inserted in the article body as panoramas? They are very good-looking pictures and it would be nice to have them used somewhere. Are there wider versions available? (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of choices available from commons:Category:Skyline of Toronto but I agree that the daytime, waterfront shot is best. Perhaps we should more clearly link to the commons gallery of images? There is a link at the bottom amongst the sister projects template. I'm reluctant to recommend even a small gallery of images on this article but it could be tried. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Though night images look better, the infobox should use the daytime image, since daytime images illustrate the article in general better than nighttime images. Nighttime images belong in the body of the article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of thoughts:

* The infobox image seems to be a moving target, subject to constant editing. Regardless of what consensus is reached here, someone will inevitably put a new image in the infobox about a week from now, and we may be having this discussion again. Once we figure out what image is the consensus choice, could we please insert in the wikicode an invisible comment along the lines of <!-- Please seek consensus on the talk page before replacing the infobox image -->, or something to that effect? There is something to be said for WP:BOLD, but in this case the constant images changes back and forth are more disruptive than anything else.

*I agree with DoubleBlue's reluctance -- galleries are a bad idea. Not only are they discouraged by WP:IUP, but they are typically only worthwhile when they can demonstrate a point better than words (e.g. in an article on an artist, a gallery can be quite effective in showing the evolution over time of that artist's style). I'm not sure that a gallery of skyline shots, or of any other Toronto pics for that matter, has much encyclopedic value -- a more prominent Commons link would be better, and would provide the reader with a better selection of images. Moreover, galleries tend to attract crap, as many editors feel entitled to cram them full of their holiday pics, and the galleries end up becoming random collections of shots -- and we all know that Wikipedia is not a media repository.

*On a more general note, if anyone happens to stumble across any non-fair use Toronto images on Wikipedia that have been uploaded locally, could you please take the time to upload them to the Commons (this tool makes it easy), and ensure that the image is properly categorized over at the Commons? The use of the {{ncd}} template will then allow for the replacement of the local version by the Commons version. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, to all in this discussion, i have a great idea for the infobox picture although im new to wikipedia and i stand as an autoconfirmed user, but before you even read this further check out the infobox pics of New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. THAT IS WHAT I WANT TORONTO's INFOBOX PIC TO BE LIKE and i think all of the editors of this article should agree with me. A city so magnificent and so vast deserves a montage like that of new york city and los angeles and i have people at skyscrapercity that have agreed with me that this picture should be used. But first, i must admit that i created this montage with other people's picture and i put it together using the paint program on microsoft. HOWEVER I DO HAVE THE WEB SITES AND AUTHORS OF THOSE PICS meaning that it should not be considered a copyright violation. So here is the pic of the proposed new infobox pic:Image:Torontopichk8.png--Simthirsty3play (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We've previously discussed the possibility of using a montage for the infobox. The idea was rejected for a few reasons; you can read about it in this page's archive. Mindmatrix 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Putting aside the montage issue for a moment, that particular montage is problematic because the CN Tower and Financial District images appear to be copyright violations (the fact that you know the authors and sites does not change that, unless you have written authorization to use the images under the Wikimedia terms of use). Further, it would be better to use an image of City Hall that does not have hoarding in Nathan Phillips Square (see Image:Toronto City Hall night view.jpg for a larger view of the image you used in the montage). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't yell (that is, don't use ALL-CAPS). Moreover, please read the discussion to which I referred earlier; the proposal to use a montage has already been rejected. If you want to use one, please find consensus for it, and you'll have to provide a strong rationale for it. We already have plenty of photos in the article that suitable demonstrate the city. Mindmatrix 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that there are conflicting ideas here. I personally would love a montage for the Toronto article, and I'm not sure why its being rejected. I made a perfectly suitable one for the article and it was taken down. FINE, but the problem is that when you only leave a skyline picture instead of a montage, people think less of the article, seriously. Just about all the great large global cities of the world have a montage, and by Toronto not having one makes it look like it is not on the same level as those cities. Remember, this is also a article perception problem. If people here are going to make the argument that the article already has sufficient pictures to demonstrate the city, well just take a look at all the cities with montages, they all have just as many pictures that demonstrated the city, just as Toronto. Why is the Toronto article any different than the Chicago article or Melbourne article? Heck, Melbourne is just a Beta World city is 2 million less people than Toronto, and it has a montage. And if people here are going to be suborn about this, than can we at least find another picture that is ACTUALLY NICE? Sure the one we have is okay, but I'm sure we could use a better quality picture to showcase Toronto. Just take a look at the Sydney infobox picture, its beautiful and high quality, unlike Toronto's. This is a problem and there are clearly 2 choices: 1: Make a montage and make this an equal article to other great cities on the same level or 2: At least find a better picture of the skyline, I have seen plenty that look better, take a look at Sydney's and you'll see why the one we have is incomparable. This issue needs to be resolved, make it happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bainto (talkcontribs) 16:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care either way (montage or no montage), but the consensus was not to use a montage, so I'm not sure repeating the same old arguments is going to help (saying stuff like "make it happen" certainly won't). I think you should also keep in mind that the montage you created contained copyright violations and in some respects, a poor selection of photos (i.e images of construction hoarding). If you want to pursue the montage option, perhaps assess the interest of like-minded editors and collaborate on a great quality montage - you could even ask others for input on what images to use. I suspect that approach might work better than the current browbeating approach you've adopted. As for a better skyline, instead of issuing orders, perhaps you could help find a better one and propose it here. If it's a better image, I am sure people will be delighted to use it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, speaking to me like that doesn't make you any better either. I will say what I want, I haven't directed any comments at anybody in particular and I haven't said anything offensive. Chill. And the reason why I say "make it happen" is because this article is edited by so many people, that no edits or changes seem to stay because some people decide that they wanna change it. It is extremely difficult to get anything done with this article, its ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bainto (talkcontribs) 04:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fair to point out to you, as I have, that the tone you have taken isn't doing you any favours, and continuing to say things like "I will say what I want" and "chill" is accomplishing nothing and simply ensuring that you won't accomplish any of your objectives. We work by consensus around here, and the sooner that you are able to show some respect to your fellow editors, the easier you will find things (and the fewer lectures you will receive). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Generally Wikipedia is moving away from the montage images. There are many cities that don't have them, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai etc. It's mainly the US cities that have montages. They've been discussed before, and the inclusion discussions in a montage cause more trouble than they're worth. Also in montages, in order to fit within the limitations of size in an infobox column, it usually results in the images being so small that they're difficult to see and recognise this reducing their effectiveness. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


I TOOK A LOT OF MY TIME IN CREATING THIS NEW TORONTO COLLAGE INFOBOX PICTURE, IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU COULD USE IT! <a target='_blank' href=''><img src='' border='0'/></a> {[unsigned|Danielgirotto}}

From Canterbury Tail from above: "Generally Wikipedia is moving away from the montage images. There are many cities that don't have them, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai etc. It's mainly the US cities that have montages. They've been discussed before, and the inclusion discussions in a montage cause more trouble than they're worth. Also in montages, in order to fit within the limitations of size in an infobox column, it usually results in the images being so small that they're difficult to see and recognise this reducing their effectiveness." Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 05:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thats not true. Those are very selective cities that didn't 7 months ago. Essentially every global city in the world has a montage. I listed them further down in another discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a couple of comments:

1. The montage created by Danielgirotto is actually pretty good. Having said that, I suspect it is made up of copyrighted images found on the web. I'm not sure that we can ever agree to use a montage unless we have proof that the constituent images are freely licensed (in which case they should all be uploaded to the Commons).

2.I don't think the debate over how many other city articles use montages gets us anywhere, because each side can produce a list of examples that supports their case. There has never been consensus to use a montage in this article. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that to date I don't think a really good montage has ever been produced. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If people all submitted a nice picture or two, highlighting some aspect of the city, I'm sure we could pull together an awesome montage. I don't think there's a need for a 'montage vs. skyline' argument. Each photo nominated should be looked at on an individual basis. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
That might be a more useful approach than the endless "New York City has one, so this article should too/Paris doesn't have one, so this article should not either" debate. As you know, it might be more complicated than simply asking people to contribute nice pictures, because it's how the images are integrated into the montage, and how they work together, that is key, but it could be a good start. Or asking people to name the 5 or 6 key elements that they believe should be represented in such a montage. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
With a list of potential pictures, we can at least piece together a montage from the pictures that do work well, and which illustrate the diversity of the city when combined. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The same editor has supported the new infobox picture recently, and now he wants to replace that new picture with a montage... The montage issue has been discussed many times before and there is already a firm consensus not to use one. Let's not create a forced choice between new montages when there's no desire for a montage in the first place. Despite attempts to bring it up again, it's clear that this discussion is already settled. Jphillips23 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
One does not a consensus make. WP:Consensus#Consensus_can_change, please give it a read. Just because I supported changing that terrible picture to at least something better does not exclude me from the ability to support a montage. There is, and there will be no pro-montage/anti-montage debate here. If anything, there will be the construction of a few montages to place up for vote. This would also be an opportunity for the pitbulls that seem to hover on this article to come here and actually submit something besides a complaint. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Then please first obtain an actual consensus to use a montage instead of a infobox picture. This and the last few discussions have all settled with the same consensus not to use a montage, and you are the one who's always pushing for a montage and restarting the endless debate. You can't just force a vote between your montages when you don't get the consensus in favour. Instead, how about actually presenting some good reasons for why a montage is even needed? Until then, nobody except you seem to be complaining about the infobox, and restarting a settled issue is quite tiresome. Jphillips23 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You're the only one complaining. We are contemplating the idea and how to go about it. No, there is no need to have a discussion first on whether or not to use a montage, only a discussion on whether to change infobox pic A to infobox pic B - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to have a montage. Personally, in my opinion, I don't believe they're of any use. The montages generally consist of images that end up too small in the infobox to be clearly visible. As a result the reader needs to click on it to see what it is. If you can't tell what it is from the thumbnail, especially in an infobox, then it shouldn't be there. A simple skyline shows the city, choosing images in a montage then becomes a political battleground of what deserves to be included and what doesn't. Canterbury Tail talk 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the user having to click the image to see one twice as large? Thats the case with half the infobox images on the site! The point of the infobox is to have something that represents the subject. Yes, the current photo does that better than the last, but a skyline just does not represent what Toronto is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

While Miami's foreign-born population consists mostly of Cubans and other Latin Americans, no single nationality or culture dominates

What is this suppose to mean? Latin America has so many different ethnicities, cultures, and nationalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talkcontribs) 11:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's saying that while in most cities, one or two races of foreign-born immigrants dominate the minority ethnicities, Toronto is cosmopolitan. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, when this was first added, there was some discussion, and the fact was that Miami's foreign-born population is largely Cuban, and no ethnic group/nationality dominates in the same way in Toronto. It appears someone has since added the reference to other Latin Americans, and I don't know if that is backed up by the facts and/or consistent with the message the sentence was trying to convey. That's my memory of it, at least, for what it's worth. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


I really like the montages of cities and because Toronto is a major city and the largest city in Canada I think there should be one. Could someone please make a montage of Toronto. I think it would look really nice. (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been a prior discussion around this; many users really dislike the montages, finding them cluttered and intrusive, so there wasn't a consensus for doing so. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
We had a long discussion regarding this; montages are unanimously rejected. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Official name of the City

Should the French name of the city be added to the official names area in the metrobox? As City of Toronto Act, 1997, in Part II, Section 2 states:

On January On January 1, 1998, the inhabitants of the urban area are constituted as a body corporate under the name of "City of Toronto" in English and "cité de Toronto" in French.

The City of Toronto Act, 2006 (the one which replaced the 1997 act) is called Loi de 2006 sur la cité de Toronto. The city is also covered under the French Language Services Act. -- Reevent (talk) 00:33, 06 February 2010 (UTC)

If Toronto were spelled differently in French, then this might be warranted the way it is at (Greater/Grand) Sudbury. But if the only difference in French is the use of "cité" (which is French for "city") instead of "city", then there's no real value in adding it. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Bring back the Don"?

I'm aware it's not vandalism, but the name strongly sounds like it. A clarification like "issues concerning the Don River and its watershed" might make it less likely to be inadvertently removed as "vandalism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sslaxx (talkcontribs) 14:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Skyline Image

I hate to "stir the pot" but the infobox image still needs to be changed. There were many opposed to the current one before the discussion was archived. I think the current image is of poor colour and angle. I proposed the standard Lake view image Toronto is well known for. (There are hundreds out there to choose from)The current image could be placed in the body. Unless I am incorrect and the majority would like to keep the current image ? Po' buster (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The lake view image is what they show on the news, that's the only reason it's "standard". As for the previous opposition, it was from two users who were sockpuppets of one another.
The reason the lakeview was opposed was because it only shows the waterfront, and it doesn't establish the context of Lake Ontario well, nor show the islands. What Toronto needs is less editors that are like the stubborn grandparents that refuse to accept change, so that like almost every other global city out there, we can have a montage of culturally significant images, rather than a picture of our concrete jungle. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I don't know if I'd go as far as to call others "stubborn grandparents", lol. I see you've edited the current image and might take it personally. I (and others) meant no harm in saying it was terrible and should be changed. I 100% agree with the montage idea. Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, etc, etc, etc. all have montages. A montage would be appropriate for Toronto as it has many "faces" and points of interests. Po' buster (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't take the photo, I just made it less dark. I supported it, however, because I find the harbour-front view bland, uninspiring, and uninformative in comparison. As for a montage; most users oppose it using the exact same reasoning as those who support it. I think with the recently donated images, a few example could be cooked up at the least. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have seen the archived montage discussion. I say you throw on a montage and see what happens. Unless it's hideous which I'm sure it wouldn't be, I'll support it. I would like to see the "lake view" image which you find boring, and bland, as the main image in the collage tho. As most people picture this image when they think of Toronto. Maybe alongside more photo's it wouldn't look so bland. Po' buster (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If you've seen the discussion then you'll know consensus was against it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "consensus" against it... Are you one of the "stubborn grandparents" floydian speaks of ? lol. What are your issues with a montage ? Just curious. Po' buster (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Please comments on articles, not on other users. Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Once again, "What are your issues with a montage ? Just curious" .Po' buster (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Clearly stated in the archived discussions that you've read. So no reason for me to state them again. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
LOL, ok grumps/gramps, i'll go look. You were right Floydian. Po' buster (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone considered replacing the single skyline image with a montage, as on the [New York City] page? It would allow us to present a more complete picture of Toronto at the top of the page. Perhaps including elements like: the financial district, a BMO stadium crowd, Caribana parade, High Park, etc. Would hit viewers with a better visual impression of Toronto right off the bat.

Seventh Biggest Stock Exchange

According to the linked page, Toronto has the 8th largest stock exchange, not the seventh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSkepper (talkcontribs) 18:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrected it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It may also be good to clarify that 'biggest' is by market value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanly (talkcontribs) 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarified it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fourth largest City

Toronto is not the 5 largest city in North America, it is the fourth. According to : , and Someone please change this, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowface (talkcontribs) 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You might be missing Mexico City, which is the largest city in North America. The second URL provided only lists US and Canada. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Montreal1993, 12 April 2010


I have some good information please read it it the population of 2010 while you wait 2011 satistics for 2010 the polutaio is 6,2 million I hope it good

Montreal1993 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but census figures are used, even if recent unofficial figures exist per WP:WikiProject Canadian communities. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Montage


Hello everyone. The biggest cities' pages use montages like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, London. I think in this page a montage has to be used. Because a big city like Toronto can't be consisting of only one picture. I advise this. I tried to introduse Toronto my best. I hope you like and agree. And if you want a picture to add or delete, please tell me. Have a good day.  The Emirr Disscussion 12:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the archives, there are a lot of discussions about this. Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The general consensus by 5 or so regular editors is to not even bother looking at montages. Good luck, I've tried beating that horse. I've posted your proposal up, so people actually see the image instead of the M word. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
By all means discuss it, but just be aware it has been discussed before on many occasions and shot down for various reasons. If you can add something new to the conversation then go ahead. However the argument of X has it so Toronto should have it isn't really an argument point.
Also it should be noted that many large world class cities don't have montages, if you're using that argument. Madrid, Paris, Hong Kong, Syndey, Prague, Shanghai, Cairo, Beijing, Vancouver, I could go on. Canterbury Tail talk 18:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I was the editor that originally proposed a montage image for the New York City article and that was changed with broad support. Considering Toronto is a large city, a montage would appropriately represent not just one of the many faces of Toronto. TheSuave 14:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't look at it as montage vs. traditional photograph, I look at it as here is another possibly candidate for the infobox. I don't believe either side can justify not using a new image with "I don't like it" or "I like it". Bring a better reason to the table than arguing the fact that its a montage rather than whether its an improvement or not over the current picture. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Floydian. We should be looking to have the best infobox image, regardless of whether it is a single image or montage. The problem with past montage proposals was that most of them were craptastic. This one is significantly better, although it doesn't completely do it for me (too much CN Tower? Isn't there a better image of the new AGO? Isn't there something more representative than HTO Beach?). Frankly, I would prefer the single image at the top of the montage. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks good, but it needs much fewer images of the CN Tower, and possibly incorporate the Royal Ontario Museum, the Prince Edward Viaduct, and the Ontario Legislature. Yes, please remove the image of HTO Beach, since it is nowhere as notable or representative of the city. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Toronto Stock Exchange, the world's eighth largest in terms of market value, is headquartered in the city, along with most of Canada's corporations."

The quote "along with most of Canada's corporations" is false. Toronto's share of headquarters of Canada's top 500 corporate headquarters is 35.2% (less than half). It is correct to say that it has the, "highest amount of corporate headquarters in Canada for a major city." Fraser Institute Report Another way to say this would be the "along with the most Canadian corporate headquarters of a major Canadian city." I would recommend including the attached link as a reference.

Can someone edit this as I am locked out...

As an aside, Calgary has the highest amount of corporate headquarters per capita, and it's share of top corporate headquarters has been increasing over the last two decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radley77 (talkcontribs) 21:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Montage II

The new version.

Hello everyone. It's me again:) Dear Skeezix1000 and Johnny Au wanted some changes. I'm sorry because of it's late. But I changed them all. I hope you enjoy. I again advise it to be used on the top of the infobox. I hope you agree. Have a good day.  The Emirr Disscussion 19:42, 06 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the old montage had way too many pictures of the CN tower, but I think we could still improve this one. I was thinking that we could use a montage that includes pictures of Yonge-Dundas Square and the Toronto Eaton Centre. I also think we should include the really nice picture of the Toronto Financial District at night. Personally I think those pictures with the the skyline picture at the top and the Toronto city hall picture would make a great montage. Nations United (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the ROM should be replaced with the AGO (maybe that fisheye evening photo in the Commons) because the AGO's facade doesn't have the imperfect cladding. Maybe even the OCAD tabletop, which really captures the imagination more. I'd also suggest using Princes' Gate instead of Bloor Viaduct because its a grander structure. It really stands out among North American cities versus the Bloor Viaduct, which in design is more generic than the grand bridges of North America. Also, consider using the iconic Toronto scene of the redbrick Gooderham flatiron building with the modern skyline in the background. A.Roz (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This, of course, is the problem with montages -- you're already getting conflicting advice as to what to include. Personally, I wouldn't agree with including Yonge-Dundas Square, and while the Eaton Centre has more merit, I still think there are better candidates for inclusion. And it's really a matter of opinion (as this all is) as to what contitutes a "grander struture". My one piece of advice is that HDR images should not be included. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
If progress stopped because you can never please everyone, where would we be? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Very true. Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, obviously, but it's not immaterial to point out how consensus can be even harder to achieve with a montage in respect of an issue that was already contentious. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the source images for these? The bridge one just looks unbelievably fake. Also with the skyline image, maybe we should use an up to date one as the tall centre has moved westwards the last couple of years which has changed the skyline quite a bit. Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Today's featured image on the main page of the Commons is one of the Toronto skyline. The Viaduct image looks fake because it is HDR. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Emirr, your efforts are much appreciated. However, it would be great if you uploaded each iteration of the montage as a separate file over at Commons, rather than simply uploading over the previous version -- not only is the latter approach contrary to the practive over at Commons, but it makes it a more difficult to compare your versions (since you've kindly posted them here). Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I just wanna Toronto to have a montage. Just one picture can't present Toronto. There is many skyscraper in Istanbul, Frankfurt too. But Toronto more modern (with building and financial list) than these cities. So how can people see this beatuies thing in Toronto? And, what do you think about the last version? I hope you like:) Have a so good day.  The Emirr Disscussion 19:22, 08 June 2010 (UTC)

Might I make some suggestions in terms of images to use:
Skyline (top image)

Blue skies.jpgToronto skyline toronto islands b.JPGBeautiful day in Toronto.jpg

Rogers Centre / CN Tower

Toronto Skyline.JPGRogers Center and CN Tower.jpg

Casa Loma

Flickr - paul bica - casa loma.jpgCasa Loma from the garden in August 2009.jpg



  • I'm also going to shamelessly self-promote my own Viaduct image, which seems to be equal or superior to the choices available.[1]

Don Valley Parkway (1).jpgEvacuated Highway 401 Color.jpg


Nuit blanche toronto city hall 2009.jpgCathedral Sunset (II).jpgYonge Dundas Square (1).jpg

That last photo of Y&D Square is certainly HDR, but it is the only capture of the square that isn't uselessly noisy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to the most recent version, I suggest that only one photo contain the CN Tower how many great landmarks the city has (the top skyline photo). Casa Loma is a worthy landmark. Also, consider: Princes' Gates decorated for 2008 CNE.jpg

For the Gooderham flatiron building, I suggest: this image which can be uploaded to Wikipedia with its Sharealike license or this image with Attribution 2.0 license. A.Roz (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if this montage can't be used, I'm hoping that a future montage can be modeled based on this.
Hello everyone. It's nice to see the topic of giving Toronto a montage resurfacing. I was wondering if my old image (posted in archive 5 of the talk page) is still good . A new montage should be modeled in that manner (skyline along the top row and six other landmarks spanning two rows below the skyline). Eelam StyleZ (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a nice montage but I think we should create a new one. I do agree that the format you are suggesting is something we should consider to follow. Nations United (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

New version
Thanks. I created another one. Any suggestions about it? Eelam StyleZ (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Try it with this one as the skyline (the current is too haze / dark and gives the false impression of a forested waterfront), and replace the streetcar shot (too crowded) with perhaps this one of the DVP and the bottom-right (AGO?) with this one of Casa Loma. There are many better photos that we can use, don't pick a landmark and try and find a good photo. Try and find a good photo and decide if that is a worthwhile landmark. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't use the image below and to the right labelled New Version. It is such low res it's just ugly. Canterbury Tail talk 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This is true. Don't downsize the photos if at all possible. The montage should be several thousand pixels in width and height. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
That false impression is just the Toronto Islands in front of the Toronto skyline. I also agree with Floydian on the changes to the montage. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately all my skyline shots are from 2008 from the islands, and the skyline has changed considerably. Maybe next time I'm flying I'll try and get a shot from the air from just south of the islands. Could make a good skyline shot as it will show waterfront and a bit more depth to the city than a ground level shot would show. Canterbury Tail talk 02:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I prefer this style of montage than the previous one. I'm fine with the skyline shot, although there are others. I agree with Floydian's suggestion of approach - pick the photo, then decide if its a landmark that merits inclusion. I'm not sure why we would include a shot of the DVP in the montage - it's a fairly unremarkable highway. If we want to highlight the Don Valley, then a photo of the viaduct or the brickworks would be preferable, although I am not sure that the latter is a sufficiently recognizable landmark yet. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
How about instead of the Stock Exchange we have a shot up Yonge Street? After all it is a very famous street. Maybe taken from King or so looking north. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Something like this maybe (although not necessarily that particular shot). Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I put up the stock exchange since it seems to be important in not just Toronto, but all of Canada (infact one of the world's largest). I have some new high resolution images from the G-20 Toronto Press Room website. I'll see if I can work something out with those and the images mentioned above. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, yeah it actually is pretty ugly -- I used Microsoft Paint. But it's just a prototype. Any final version I make will be made with Photoshop. I'll make future ones with Photoshop for better analysis. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, good point, but the photo is of a building that hasn't been home to the stock exchange for decades. It's a design museum/event space. Also - I glanced at the Toronto Press Room site, and unless I missed something (correct me if I have), but those images are not freely licensed (to see the images, one has to agree to an image use statement which says "Please be advised that this material is to be used for destination promotion purposes only. Commercial or for-profit usage is strictly prohibited"). We can't use those images on Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
New Montage

What about this one. All images used can be found in the commons. It's simple but gets the point across. No offense but Dundas square and Younge street really aren't that special, and images of roads and highways are not interesting to many people. Every city has them, ours are nothing special. I included the skyline (obviously), queens park to represent toronto being the capital of ontario, city hall because it's city hall and important to the city, nathan phillips square to represent a city meeting spot and winter in toronto, and little italy to represent Toronto's multiculturalism. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, pictures of roadways, unless its a bridge with stunning architecture or of historical importance, isn't very effective for showing off a city. Maybe Yonge Street can be an exception since it is pretty much significant to Toronto's history and a former Guinness World Record holder. However, Yonge-Dundas Square, I think, is quite important as many people from the media claim it as "the heart of Toronto" or "the heart of Canada" (especially during the G-20 summit news coverage, although they've used the latter term to refer to Bay Street as well). A couple issues with the latest montage above, the skyline appears to take up the entire montage, though the image looks clean. Maybe trimming off Lake Ontario a bit would suffice. Also, there are images of City Hall and the skating rink at Nathan Phillips Square—both are basically part of the same square. The skating rink can be replaced by a different portion of Toronto. Street sign of College Street also doesn't explain much. Queen's Park however isn't such a bad idea. I still think that a TTC streetcar (most popular mode of transportation in TO) and Scarborough Bluffs (something of natural beauty) should be showcased in a montage to have a larger-scale representation of the city. EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, G-20? Riots?

Toronto in June

Is there any reason why the article appears to have zero reference to the G-20 and the riots, or are people just waiting for the dust to settle first. Seriously, I came here expecting to see the "Current event" tag slapped on the article. 500+ arrests, major damage on Yonge Street and elsewhere, tens of thousands of protesters and police -- sounds notable enough to be mentioned. I'm aware the G-20 has its own article, but that doesn't matter -- there should be a section on it in the main article with basic details at least, then a link to the more detailed one. (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lengthy article on both the summit and the protests at 2010 G-20 Toronto summit. In fact, there are discussions on the talk page of that article of breaking off the protests section into its own article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from VisitToronto, 5 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add a link to the Toronto Tourism Board in the external links section. VisitToronto (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

 Declined Looks like a spam link. Please read WP:EL. Your username is also concerning, because it seems promotional. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 23:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
VisitToronto is blocked indefinitely for having a promotional username. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

correction request

The article states that quebec was briefly the capital of canada in 1866;incorrect Kingston, ON was until late 1867, and it was at the Queen's request that the Ottawa be the capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlefishie (talkcontribs) 22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


Just started contributing and not sure of how to go about it but I have some Toronto images viewable at I can upload them to Wikimedia Commons if anyone is interested —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul dexxus (talkcontribs) 19:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a quick look and you have some really beautiful photos. The one thing is that generally images used on Wikipedia (and uploaded to Commons) must be released under an appropriate license. Please see the guidelines at Wikipedia:Image use policy. -- Flyguy649 talk 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I will. Paul dexxus (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Holy crap, those are some gorgeous photos. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL, thanks again - glad you like them! Let me know if you guys want to use any. That's why I want to contribute: I'm quite proud of our city. Paul dexxus (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I personally find the photos of Websters Falls gorgeous! If you change all the copyrights on the flickr photos to Attribution only, then we can help you upload them to commons.
Done. All my Ontario images on flickr are now "Attribution Creative Commons" Paul dexxus (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I have started to upload the Toronto images. Will let you know once done. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you be willing to also change the license for this one? Not sure if you missed it, or you decided against it. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ditto this one. Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The Toronto images are all uploaded, except for the two noted above. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I missed the 2 you mentioned but they're updated now. Thanks for the hard work! Paul dexxus (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for freely licensing those last two. They are all uploaded now, sorted into categories by subject, as well as year (most are in Commons:Category:2008 in Toronto). Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
One quick question: what park is this? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how you did all that but it was fast! The one you're referring to is in BMO Field just west of Direct Energy Center (43°37'57"N, 79°25'07"W). On flickr I took the time to place all images on the map (if I'm not available to give more details). Paul dexxus (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks everyone for helping get these photos onto Commons. I don't have much image experience. And thanks again, Paul for making these available. -- Flyguy649 talk 23:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that it would be better if these images are shown here, instead of clicking on the links to them. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

An up to date skyline shot should be included in the infobox. This one is fairly old.DreamBrother83 (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Montage (cont'd)

Montage #1

Sorry, starting a new thread since the previous one is a bit cluttered. Made a new montage using images found on Wikimedia Commons only. For some reason I couldn't get it to appear as an image here. Some comments would be great, too. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks better, but a few shots don't work well. Could you switch the skyline with this one, and the image of the skyscraper with this one of Casa Loma? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The stock exchange tower is so bland that I wouldn't include it. While the TSX's presence in Toronto is important, the building it's in is unfortunately not very memorable or significant as to make the montage. Also, the City Hall shot has the wooden boards for construction, which I find inappropriate for the montage.
Hmm, true about the stock exchange. That's the best match I could find since the old building can't be used. Thus, the TSX is out of consideration for future montages. I also thought that city hall image was the only best, but didn't notice construction boards. I'll try another one with the suggested images. EelamStyleZ (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Montage #2

Alright, I've uploaded two revised montages. The first one contains the suggested removals and additions by Floydian as well as a new close-up image of City Hall. The second one is slightly different: I've replaced Union Station with a vividly-coloured image of the Prince Edward Viaduct. I also put in a new vividly coloured aerial image of City Hall and a new image of Yonge-Dundas Square at night which also shows Canada's tallest media tower (something the previous one didn't include). Make suggestions and choose your favourite. :) EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I like this revision, but with the image of city hall from revision 2. I think most people were unhappy with using the HDR of the PE Viaduct when it was suggested a while ago, but otherwise I like this one the best so far. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Montage #3

Hmm, that sucks. I thought the image of the viaduct was beautiful. Nonetheless, revision number 3 is on the right. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Montage #5
I hate being critical, since you've put so much work into it, but I agree with UrbanNerd that Yonge Dundas Square is not really so important that it merits inclusion as one of six photos. I have never heard it described as the heart of Toronto, and the current photo used seems like the montage is being used to advertise LG and L'Oreal. Hockey Hall of Fame, Princes Gate, ROM, etc. etc. -- so many more iconic shots that are unique to Toronto (Yonge Dundas Square usually appears in photos as a bunch of billboards that could be anywhere). I'm also not sure on the appropriateness of using HDR shots in an infobox image, but I feel less strongly about that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I see. I'm sort of under the impression that Y&D Square is like Toronto's Times Square - of course not as large, but a commercial location and gathering place. But I do agree about more unique buildings. Hockey Hall of Fame is a good idea. I was wondering if the skyline can be broken separately into an image of downtown like this along with a cropped version of this CN Tower image and the Rogers Centre. If not, I'll create another one with the current skyline image along with images of other landmarks (such as Hockey Hall of Fame, Exhibition Place, etc.) (PS. I'm more than open to criticism about these montages. All for the betterment of the article. :) EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Dundas Square belongs. It's certainly becoming a very relevant place in Toronto. I'd also consider including the AGO (specifically, the evening shots of the exterior used in montages above). It's a nice bit of contemporary Toronto. A.Roz (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Or a shot of the ROM to show the merging of modern and classical architecture. I for one though am not a fan of the HDR photos. Yes they make great photos on their own, but as a display for Toronto they present an unrealistic light to it that isn't appropriate to the infobox. Also I think we should have a shot of a streetcar in there. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I find some HDR shots bad, some good. I definitely have no problem if it's just a sky/land merge to get the best detail out of both, but images like the Viaduct push it a little far. Casa Loma is a good exception I think. I'm not the biggest fan of the Y&D HDR image though. Does a streetcar really represent Toronto, or David Miller? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think streetcars really have anything to do with David Miller, and never understood that argument. They were there long long before him, and will be long after. They are an efficient way of getting around and appear in many tourist books. In fact the Queen route was named as the best tram/streetcar route in the world for tourists due to its length and the sights it goes past to give a good overview of the city. Canterbury Tail talk 17:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to agree about the HDR images - implies some sort of fakeness, although its eye-catching. However, there seems to be a lot of mixed reaction about buildings and monuments. Before I go ahead and make another one, I suggest we vote and choose the best 4-6 places that we can include in the montage. EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the HDR images either. The montage should reflect what the city is really like, not a fantasy city. What about montage #4 ? UrbanNerd (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... Still don't think readers gain anything out of College Street. I also prefer the nighttime shot of City Hall. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, street signs are inappropriate. Significance of College Street is very minimal compared to other streets (King, Queen, Bay, Yonge). EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I put it in there to symbolize Toronto's multiculturalism, and the fact that it has one of the biggest Italian communities outside of Italy. I will replace it. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added it again as montage #5 without the college street sign and the addition of the ROM. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks better, but I think some images should be changed, like the skyline and city hall. Also, some don't agree with having a streetcar in the montage. We need to have a clear consenus on what landmarks/symbols we should use before we upload more and more montages, otherwise Toronto will have the most montages on Wikipedia with none of them actually being used! EelamStyleZ (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok but I don't know if a long drawn out vote is best either. Their will never be a solid consensus. Plus the list below should have some items removed. Distillery District, Don Valley Parkway, Gardiner Expressway, Highway 401, North York Centre, Pearson International Airport, Scarborough Civic Center, Toronto Reference Library, Yorkdale Mall should all be removed. I could not imagine a city montage having an image of a freeway, or an airport! And especially not a shopping mall ! The only reason these could ever be included is if they were world renown like the west edmonton mall, or mall of america. Even LA which is famous for it's freeways and traffic jams wouldn't/doesn't have a freeway picture in their montage. They aren't anything special. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Toronto is more famous for its freeway though, since its assumed to be the busiest in the world. I think it deserves a place in the article, but probably not in the infobox. That's what we have Highway 401 for. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think many outside of Ontario know that the 401 is the busiest, or have ever even heard of it for that matter. Whereas LA is known for Stars, Beaches, Sunsets, and Freeways. Not that it matters to this discussion tho. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, you're entirely right about that. Of course I don't support everything in that list either and I personally wouldn't want highways and roads to be in the montage-they are way too common, but the thing is that they were brought up in previous discussions. I'm not sure how else we could generate a clear consensus because creating more montages appear to create disagreement in one way or another. EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and also I do love the ROM, but it's been voted as one of the top 10 ugliest buildings in the world. Would that make it appropriate? EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Vote your favourite symbol of Toronto

I think it's about time we did something like this. Below is a longlist of symbols/landmarks of Toronto that have been suggested or brought up to be placed in a montage. I think we can all agree on putting in the top 4-6 favourite representations of Toronto. Simply add {{check mark}} beside the 4 items you most want to be on the montage. Remember to only vote once for exactly four landmarks and no cheating whatsoever for better concensus. After about a week or so of leaving this here and having a large enough voter turnout, we can choose the top 4 or 6 choices for the montage. If you feel that there's another better landmark not already listed (except for the CN Tower), you may list that as well and cast your vote for it (in alphabetical order so we know what's listed and what's not). I'll choose my favourites too. EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pick your 4 favourite.
  • Air Canada Centre
  • Art Gallery of Ontario Green tickY Green tickY
  • Canadian Broadcasting Centre
  • Canon Theatre
  • Casa LomaGreen tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
  • Chinatown
  • City HallGreen tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
  • Distillery District
  • Don Valley
  • Don Valley Parkway
  • Downsview Park
  • Fort York
  • Gardiner Expressway Green tickY
  • GO Transit train
  • Gooderham (Flatiron) Building Green tickY Green tickY
  • High Park Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
  • Highway 401
  • Hockey Hall of FameGreen tickY Green tickY
  • King Street
  • Mel Lastman Square
  • Metro Hall
  • Nathan Phillips Square Green tickY
  • North York Centre
  • Ontario Place
  • Ontario Science Centre
  • Pearson International Airport
  • Prince Edward Viaduct Green tickY
  • Princes' Gate/Exhibition Place Green tickY Green tickY
  • Queen Street
  • Queen's Park/Ontario Legislative Building Green tickY Green tickY
  • Rogers Centre
  • Royal Alexandra Theatre
  • Royal Ontario Museum
  • Royal York Hotel
  • Scarborough Civic Centre
  • Scarborough Bluffs Green tickY
  • Toronto Eaton Centre
  • Toronto Reference Library
  • Toronto Stock Exchange
  • Toronto Zoo
  • TTC streetcar Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
  • TTC subway and RT
  • Union Station
  • University of Toronto (or any related building)
  • Yonge Street
  • Yonge-Dundas SquareGreen tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
  • York University
  • Yorkdale Mall
And out of curiousity, please vote if you support a skyline or no skyline?

(Note: Remember that separate images of the CN Tower/Skydome/Financial Center cannot be placed with a skyline image in one montage--should be either.)

There is a significant problem: the Toronto Pearson International Airport is in Mississauga! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it is an important part of Toronto, and of the whole region really. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not an exciting landmark to identify the city with. A.Roz (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets move on

It's been quite a while since the vote was posted and I'm not sure if it's the lack of votes as a reason that we're not finishing this discussion but I really think we should move on. It's time to see which landmarks should definitely be included and ones that should be left out. It looks like Casa Loma and City Hall are a must and there are others that seem popular too. I think we should make one last montage and either have a vote of which is the best out of all of them (which is a lot...) or maybe the new one will automatically be the winner. This discussion has been going on for a LONG time and I think it's time for it to be resolved. Nations United (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

True, its been too long. But we need a final list of landmarks to include. Can anybody name some that we all can agree on? And please, not redundant stuff like street signs and vehicles. The final landmarks should literally be buildings, structures, squares, communities etc. I personally go with the highest voted landmarks from above: skyline, Casaloma, Y&D Square, City Hall, and Princes' Gates. EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You also need to consider that some people have spoken out strongly against Y&D Square. Notwithstanding that some people like it, and voted for it, opinion is split (unlike the others you have listed). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
From the look of it, the only two people can agree on are city hall and Casa Loma. Perhaps resetting the vote and removing anything that got less than two votes? I also don't see any sort of natural landmark - Surely we can find some natural feature to contrast the man-made momunments? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I think there is also an assumption that a skyline shot would be included. And I don't recall any negative comments against any of the other subjects that only got two votes, so I don't think they present any problems. If we had a good photo of the Bluffs, we could include that. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I think shortening the list to landmarks that only got two votes is a good idea. Then, we could have a final vote and see which are the most popular. Although, that may take a long time to see the results. Another option is just making another montage but of course there's going to be at least one person that opposes something about it. I don't mind either idea. I personally am fine with anything except street signs, highways and cars... I find those really pointless. Does anyone else have any other suggestions on how to resolve this? Nations United (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that you people are making a simple thing way to complicated! Just make a damn montage already! If someone doesn't like it, it can always be changed later! Chris66ftw (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No need to rush, there is no deadline for this. Making a montage and then taking it down after some rejections is a waste of effort and time. It will also result in way too many montages for Toronto being uploaded on Wikimedia Commons; at the moment, I think there are almost 10 of them. Also, Y&D Square doesn't have to be final, it can be replaced if someone brings up a better landmark. I'm 100% agreeing on the Scarborough Bluffs as well--natural beauty and representing suburban parts of the city. I also agree with shortlisting the current list of landmarks above to only those that received 1 vote or more. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Y&D Square doesn't need to be in the montage (it's basically a rip-off of Times Square anyway), but how about the streetcar? It's a distinctive icon of the city and it garnered one of the highest votes. Blackjays1 (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Personally, I'm not a big fan of the streetcar. Although it's an iconic part of the city, it just doesn't sit right with me that we're using the limited amounts of pictures in a montage for a streetcar. That's just my opinion. Nations United (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than choosing the images with the most votes, I think it's important to have a diverse set of images. Fox example, we could have one image of something natural (like High Park or the Scarborough Bluffs), one image of an old building (like the legislature or casa loma), one image of something quirky (like the ROM cristal or the flatiron building), one of something iconic (like a streetcar or some cultural artifact), one of a newer building (like city hall or the skydome), and one of something bright (like Yonge-Dundas Square or the nighttime image of the financial district). —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 04:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Some of the landmarks you mentioned actually happen to be the highest voted. Although streetcars are iconic in Toronto, they are redundant overall as many cities have streetcar/tram systems. The CLRVs and ALRVs however are unique models to Toronto's system but unfortunately they will be retiring as Flexity Outlook cars, which are used in many cities, begin service. I don't think an argument of Y&D Square bearing similarity to Times Square is a strong enough argument to justify its exclusion from the final montage — can anyone suggest a more popular public square in Toronto? So far, I think Casa Loma, Hockey Hall of Fame, Scarborough Bluffs, Royal Ontario Museum, and Princes' Gates are worth consdering. Also I think it would be better to get a skyline image that clearly shows the Rogers Centre as well. EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Nathan Phillips Square is a far more iconic public square than the much more recent Y&D Square (not that I would use an image of NPS here, as we already will presumably have an image of city hall). And the rationale for not using streetcar shots applies equally to Y&D square, the photos of which are inevitably of non-descript, not unique to Toronto billboards. Y&D is not unique, and it hasn't been around long enough for us to say that it is symbolic of Toronto. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should first get as many people to contribute to this vote and see what the they think. The four most voted landmarks will be definatly included. Below, Floydian has suggested that city hall and Casa Loma be removed. Both landmarks did get the most votes in the previous vote so removing them does make sense. I am absolutely fine with that but I would like to know what everyone else thinks. Nations United (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Vote your favourite symbol of Toronto 2

Lets have another vote. I've included the landmarks that got two or more votes. Nations United (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, pick your four favourite landmarks.
  • Art Gallery of Ontario Green tickY
  • Gooderham (Flatiron) Building
  • High Park Green tickYGreen tickY
  • Hockey Hall of Fame Green tickY
  • Prince Edward ViaductGreen tickYGreen tickYGreen tickYGreen tickY
  • Princes' Gate/Exhibition PlaceGreen tickY
  • Queen's Park/Ontario Legislative Building Green tickYGreen tickYGreen tickY
  • Scarborough Bluffs Green tickYGreen tickY
  • TTC streetcar Green tickYGreen tickYNN
  • Yonge-Dundas Square Green tickYN
Can we remove city hall and and Casa Loma since they seem to be for sure? Also, add Scarborough Bluffs as several people have voiced for it. How many votes per person? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I would be fine with removing city hall and Casa Loma. I don't think anyone objects to these pictures but lets make sure everyone agrees before it's removed. I don't think we should add Scarborough Bluffs because it only got one check mark on the previous vote. I only included landmarks that got two or more votes. You may vote for four of the landmarks (as stated above) and you may do this only once. Nations United (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Added landmarks that got one vote too, there aren't too many of them so they can be included for better consensus. On a side note, still not feeling the streetcars... EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Presumably it is still two votes per person. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think we can conclude that city hall is a MUST, considering it always gets the most votes and I haven't heard one person object to it. So, does everyone agree that I can remove it from the list? Nations United (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading all comments and you guys made amazing progress: from a previous debate (long, I'm sure) about having a montage, intelligent arguments on all sides, a lot of work from EelamStyleZ and input from everyone else, and you're very close to deciding on one that will be both great looking and representative. Very impressive! I'm not sure I can help with your decisions, but I can think of 2 other ways I can help: 1. I agree that some of my HDR images are not appropriate for the montage or the article (I started taking pictures for Flickr), but if you want to use any of them I can remake them to be closer to reality. 2. I plan to take some pictures of City Hall - I have a specific perspective in mind that is very traditional and could fit your purpose. If you give me some time, I can also shoot any other subjects you agree on and upload them to Wikimedia Commons to see if you like them better than what's already available. Let me know. Paul dexxus (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Paul. I had one de-HDR request: If you could use the same bridge, but make the sky normal on this image,[2], it would be a great shot for the Viaduct in our otherwise limited selection. I also had one image request: if you could get any shots of the distillery buildings, I think they would make a great addition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure: I don't want to pollute the commons with test pictures so I uploaded a couple of samples for the Viaduct on flickr; I don't want to give you too many technical details about HDR but at high level it's a combination of pictures of the same subject taken at different exposures in order to get more details from over and under exposed areas, so I uploaded some of the best originals used for the initial HDR and the choice is between the second and third one, but the bridge becomes too dark. In the first one (top-left corner) the bridge is fine but the sky is overexposed. I made a new HDR with a less dramatic effect where the sky and bridge have the best details. The links: originals - [3] and new HDR - [4]. I'll upload whichever you like. I'll go by the distillery district next weekend at the latest. Paul dexxus (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed someone removed city hall. I think that's a good move but why not also remove Casa Loma. It was the second most voted on the last vote and the most voted on this one, so how about it? And by the way, does the cross count as a one of our votes or is it on top of the four votes we already are allowed to have? Nations United (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to overstep. I'd be happy with it being removed; I think we are pretty unanimous for its inclusion in a montage. As for the cross, I counted it as one of my choices. Paul, that new HDR looks perfect. My check mark is already on the Prince Edward Viaduct, but that photo bolsters it for me. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay then. I'll remove Casa Loma. Is there anyone else that could contribute to this vote because I think we need more votes before we can decide the landmarks that will be included in the final montage. Nations United (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The new HDR it is. I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons: [5]. Paul dexxus (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to count my vote I'd include Queen's Park / Princes' Gate / Prince Edward Viaduct (not because my photo). I didn't place the checkmarks yet. Paul dexxus (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The new HDR is a beaut Paul, looks great. I just voted for the viaduct and I hope that pic is one of the final selections for the montage. Blackjays1 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that if City Hall is in the montage, then it is pointless to be able to vote for Nathan Phillips Square. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 18:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. City hall by extension will show some of Nathan Phillips Square. It is pointless to include both. I've removed it for now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments up there Paul, and the image of the Viaduct is picture perfect! Very true about Nathan Phillips Square as well, sort of repetitive, which is why I thought Y&D Square was a good representation for a public square. EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I like the picture of the viaduct. It looks much more natural now. One question though, I voted for city hall and Casa Loma and they have both been removed so can I cast my two votes to another two landmarks? (Beside the other two I've chosen before) Oh yea, by the way, how many landmarks are going to be included in the final montage?Nations United (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
According to the previous discussions, it seems that the consensus for the montage was a long skyline photo on the top with four landmarks underneath it. BTW, I voted for the viaduct after the other two were removed, so I don't know if that vote counts either. Blackjays1 (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I added my two other votes. One for the Prince Edward Viaduct and a cross for the TTC streetcar. I really don't think that is a good choice as one of the montage pictures. Nations United (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys, glad you like the new viaduct photo, and thank you Skeezix for updating the categories. Floydian, I finally got a chance to go by the distillery district last night. During the week I can't get there for daytime pics so I added 9 photos I took in the evening (unprocessed): [6]; I don't think you can use any of them but maybe I'll get something better in the weekend; I also added my 3 checkmarks too. Paul dexxus (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Eh, even still they look amazing. Perhaps less in terms of encyclopedic value, but full of "whoa!". I think this photo in particular would be an amazing addition with a bit more brightness.[7] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if everyone agrees with this but I think we are ready to list the final landmarks. Blackjays1 has said that there will be a skyline image on top and four landmarks beneath it. City Hall and Casa Loma have already been chosen as two of the four images and it looks like the Prince Edward Viaduct and the Queen's Park/Ontario Legislative Building will be the last two. Does everyone agree that we can close this part of the discussion and use these landmarks to create the FINAL montage? Nations United (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we should definitely move on. I think those are a great "final four", but at this point we just need to see all of those pictures and how they would look in the montage. Maybe EelamStyleZ can help us make a sample. This [8] is a nice pic of Queen's Park that deserves some consideration. Blackjays1 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Floydian, I brightened the photo you liked and added one more I took yesterday: [9], but I couldn't take any other because they set up tents along the street on the other side and didn't look nice. Let me know if I should upload any of them to the commons. paul (dex) (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I really like the picture of Queen's Park that you found. Although I didn't vote for it, I think that would be a fantastic edition. I'll contact EelamStyleZ and ask him to help us decide on now which photos of the landmarks to use. How about we all find our own versions of the skyline and those four photos? Then we can all put them up and see which ones to use. Nations United (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuing this conversation below the "Final list" section. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Final List of Landmarks

Here is the complete final list of landmarks that will be included in the final montage.

1. Skyline

2. City Hall

3. Casa Loma

4. Queen's Park

5. Prince George Viaduct

6. Scarborough Bluffs

7. Multicultural Image (If possible)

Nations United (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello guys, glad to see this is making good progess. As Nations United listed above (City Hall, Casa Loma, Queens Park and PE Viaduct), those choices seem pretty decent for a montage. Just before we go ahead to make another montage, are there any last minute objections/suggestions/etc.? Some final comments (good or bad) about this proposed final list will be much appreciated. Also, can someone list the links to the final photos that should be used in the montage as well? Thanks! EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, here are my versions of the pictures that I think should be used.
Skyline Image: 1
Casa Loma: 2
City Hall: 3
Prince George Viaduct: 4
Queen's Park: 5

Nations United (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a great selection. The skyline is very beautiful but I'm having some problems viewing the Casa Loma file in IE and Chrome, as if it was removed (I only get the image placeholder with the file name) paul (dex) (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There may be server issues today. That's been happening occasionally to me on the Commons this morning.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
That's weird. I used Firefox and it worked but then I also used Internet Explorer and it also worked for me. Nations United (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent photos, but just a question. The skyline and Casa Loma images appear to be HDR. Although they are eye-catching, wouldn't it make sense to keep all photos non-HDR if that's what we agreed on with the Viaduct image? EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The viaduct is HDR. The manipulation has just been toned down in it. I'd love to see the same done to the Casa Loma image. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we should use HDR, we should use natural range photos for a montage. Also I'm not convinced a photo of the Viaduct is really suitable for a montage. At the end of the day, it's just a bridge, there's nothing particularly special about it. It's not like it's the Golden Gate Bridge or Tower Bridge. Canterbury Tail talk 19:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't really find any other good photos of Casa Loma. That one looked the best to me. I thought the skyline image looked nice but I too wasn't sure if we should use HDR images. The only other skyline image of Toronto that I think would look nice is the sunset one used in previous proposals. The viaduct has already been voted as one of the images to be used so I don't think we can remove it. Although, we could add another picture. The montage doesn't have to be made up of only five pictures. Actually, most montages aren't made up of only five pictures. Nations United (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It was voted on by a few people who took part in a vote. Many don't take part in votes on Wikipedia, myself included, as Wikipedia isn't based on votes, it is based on consensus through discussion and group decision making. Votes are sometime used as straw polls, but they aren't in any way binding. If a poll is used it's solely for the purposes of generating discussion, not making a decision. See WP:VOTE for more info on the use of polls.
I don't think the viaduct is symbolic of the city in any way. Its just a bridge. A vaguely important one, but still just a bridge with no real cultural or symbolic value. It just doesn't speak about the city and what it is or represents. It doesn't tell us anything about the soul of the people living there, the public image or the city's aspirations. Canterbury Tail talk 23:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a straw poll, it's a decision making process. If you choose not to take part, you voice isn't included and you have five or six people who have agreed on things, and you who pops in last second to complain about the choices made. Also, you haven't read the history of the viaduct, it has actually played a rather large role in our history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a note about HDR: I know why many are against it and I find myself not favoring it as much either because a lot of people are abusing it (including me, in the learning process) but it can be considered as just another enhancement like contrast and saturation which can also be overdone, so I think the question is if used in moderation, does it enhance the subject, or detract from it? Referring to photos as "straight out of the camera" it can be interpreted as "left at the discretion of camera manufacturers", or camera limitations / settings. I'm not trying to start a debate about it, I'm just not sure it should be a disqualifying factor as a rule, without any other considerations. paul (dex) (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, then what would you like to propose to replace the viaduct? Nations United (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. We don't have to replace it with anything. See this is why montages are not always accepted on articles, they're very divisive. Maybe something natural to offset all the structures. If with structures we could go ultramodern with the ROM. I know not everyone likes the building, but like it or not it's a very good example of the city's modern and old architecture meeting. Or maybe the Hockey Hall of Fame, an architecturally and culturally significant landmark. Or maybe not of a single building but a street scene that could go full width denoting some of Toronto's cultural diversity, such as one of Little Italy, Little Portugal, Chinatown or the like. Canterbury Tail talk 02:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I personally really do not like the ROM as one of the pictures, but I do like your idea of putting something natural. I also like the idea of the street scene of Little Italy... just not of the street sign. Could you provide links to the pictures you mentioned above that you think would look good? Nations United (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
See, the ROM is divisive, which is why it could make a good choice for an image. It's gained a lot of press and notoriety and has split the city into lovers and haters.
That aside, if we go for Chinatown there are a few that may work.
This one works on several levels. You get a streetcar, a public symbol of Toronto known worldwide, and the Chinatown put in one image with both clearly visible.
this one may be too little street and too much sign, but it gets a point across.
For a more streety view I can't decide between this, or this. Both are showing the street scenes in Chinatown with the bustle and hustle that goes along with it. Is there too much going on for one shot, especially in a montage? I'm not sure. Canterbury Tail talk 10:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Definitely against any photo that shows a streetcar. The last thing Toronto needs itself represented with is its outdated transit system. We'll put a big mugshot of David Miller instead. Howver, in terms of the chinatown shops, the last picture is my favourite. Shows our multiculturalism very blatently. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask why you're so against any photo that shows a streetcar? You may not like David Miller, but he really has nothing to with with the streetcars, there were around long before him, and will be around long after him. Short of a very expensive subway, the streetcars are the most effective way around the city as the buses carry very few people in comparison. Also the streetcars are an internationally recognised symbol of Toronto, they're not a representation of a particular mayor. They are also a good choice because it's not just another building, as there is more to Toronto than a collection of buildings.
Another suggestion could be a shot of Caribana, to get away from buildings again. However that may be giving one festival too much coverage. Canterbury Tail talk 22:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, David Miller is a big proponent for Streetcars, hence the wrath of Transit City. He's from San Francisco, so I suppose he's trying to recreate his hometown, but I digress. There are several reasons. First, they are not attractive. Second, they don't represent Toronto, as several cities have streetcar systems. Third, they're being replaced soon. Fourth, they're symbolic of an inefficient North American transit system. Fifth, most of the shots showing them are crowded by them. Sixth, as Nations United mentioned, as the Viaduct is just a bridge with no real cultural or symbolic value, or a highway is just a road, a streetcar is just a vehicle. We paint ours red. Yay. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
As much as I love Paul's updated photo of the viaduct, I've got to admit that I had doubts about it being in the montage. I like the idea of using the Hockey Hall of Fame or a street scene; Boston's montage [10] is a good example. Using more than five pictures might work too. Blackjays1 (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of the pictures you provided, I like the first one the best. My second choice would be the third one, then the last one. The second one contains only signs and I don't think that looks as good as the others so that is my last choice. By the way, can anyone else provide some replacements for the HDR images? Nations United (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the current HDR photos. There is no need to be informative about these structures in the Toronto article. Leave the natural state pictures for the appropriate articles. The Viaduct is barely noticeable, and is the only way you're going to get ample lighting. Don't pick on HDR, choose a photo you dislike, propose an alternative, and we'll vote on that. As it stands however, I vote a big huge X on changing the choices for the viaduct or Casa Loma. I also disagree about using the hall of fame. Its just a block in a big office tower and there are no significant images that I've come across. Canterbury, if you don't take place in the vote or the discussion, don't expect your opinion to get voiced. There are more than enough voters to establish consensus (which does matter) at this point over the people who choose not to vote. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
See above comments, voting is not a recognised means of establishing consensus on Wikipedia. Majority doesn't rule here. Discussion does, voting doesn't. Canterbury Tail talk 22:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, quite a debate. First off the image of the signs is great but I think it would be a lot better if signs of other languages were also included rather than just Chinese (not being picky or racist, just hoping to show more cultural diversity in Toronto). Also, sorry to mention this late but I also thought the same about the Viaduct, although it was one of the earliest structures built in Toronto and used for a lot of stuff like traffic and subway, it think there are more significant/important structures than that, but I sort of had to agree with it since there was a good looking image for it and that's what got high votes in our poll. I also don't know why people don't see the ROM's "crystal" building being attractive--it has quite a superlative design. I'd personally like it to be in the montage. Casa Loma, Hockey Hall of Fame, and Queen's Park are also excellent Toronto landmarks. Again, I don't think streetcars do any good on a montage; they certainly aren't as popular as San Fansisco's. Also, they have been in use for over 20 years and are only there for the sake of transportation, not historical/nostalgic purposes, thus its barely an icon. Besides, they are going to be retired from service in a few more years so there's absolutely no point putting it in the montage now. And yes, we must build consensus. Pardon me, but I initially thought voting was a good example of building consensus and could help us come to a final solution which is why I started it. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay. We know for sure that everyone agrees that City Hall and Casa Loma are going to be included in the montage. It looks like no one dislikes or is objecting to Queen's Park either so I think that should stay. There is only one image that we need to decide on. From what Ive heard I think we should go with the Chinatown signs but also keep one or two of the HDR images. That way everyone gets a little of what they want. Canterbury Tail gets a part of what he wants, which is to replace the viaduct and it looks like there are others who slightly dislike it as well. Floydian gets a part of what he wants, which is to keep some of the HDR images. I think this is a good compromise. Does everyone agree that this is a good combination of everyone's preferences? Nations United (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I can agree with all of them except with the image of the signs. Is it possible for us to reconsider that one? I think it's better we get in a variety of cultures in one shot rather than an image that shows just one--similar situation as the Little Italy sign from a previous montage. I don't think an image with just one culture would well portray Toronto's multiculturalism. If possible (if one exists that is), an image with signs written in several languages would work better. Other than that, all other images mentioned by Nations United sounds perfect. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree on the variety of cultures idea. I think that will much better portray the city's multiculturalism. I just hope there is a picture that shows this... lets try to find one. By the way, anyone else wants to weigh in on my compromise idea? Nations United (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think all images should identify Toronto instantly. The photo with the signs can easily be mistaken for LA, New York, or any other major city. While multiculturalism plays an important part, it might be very difficult to find an image that will identify Toronto first and also show its cultural variety. Maybe multiculturalism can have a separate subsection under Culture and this image will have the proper context. I consider the Skyline to be the main "signature", and the three mentioned by Nations United that deliver this identity. I voted for the viaduct because besides the historical significance it's distinguishable; so is Princes' Gate. Also, is voting not the best way to settle arguments and debates in reasonable amount of time? How else are discussions ending up establishing consensus? paul (dex) (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Do we have any good images of Pride or Caribana? These are both events that Toronto is renowned for, especially on the North American stage, and are excellent examples of our culture. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's a good pic of Caribana. [11] Here's a good street scene pic of Pride. [12] I would prefer using the Pride photo, because it also shows some old architecture along Church St. I agree with Paul though, we need pictures that are uniquely Toronto and residential scenes such as these [13] [14] might work. Blackjays1 (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into the debate over whether they should be in the montage or not, but I just wanted to say that the streetcars are of tremendous historic importance to Toronto, both in terms of how the system helped direct its growth in the 19th and 20th centuries, but also Toronto's (unusual for North America) decision not to dispense with the streetcars in the mid-20th century. They are iconic of Toronto, and I am not sure that it matters whether Toronto will be getting a new fleet in several years (this montage is not cast in stone, nor do I believe we should be thinking it will last for all time on this article). I think the first photo identified by Canterbury Tail is tremendous. I agree that the voting exercise was merely to tally opinion, and is not determinative. And the Viaduct is similarly historically significant - its construction was a visionary exercise, it opened up Toronto's east end, and it dictated the future route of the subway. There may be reasons not to include the streetcar or viaduct in the montage, but lack of historic importance or notability isn't one of them.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As I've said before, I personally do not think a street car is a good choice at all but if it's included in another picture, with it not being the focal point, then I don't mind. In my opinion, I don't think using a picture of a bunch of people walking on a street in a parade is a good choice for a montage. To me it looks quite ridiculous to have a picture of a crowd of people. If we want to show Toronto's multiculturalism, then we should stick to signs/street views etc. I'm going to find a picture that shows many aspects of multiculturalism and I'll provide a link as soon as I can. Now, it looks like everyone likes Queen's Park as one of the choices so I'm going to add it to the final list. After we get this last image sorted out, we can choose which pictures of those landmarks to use and build the montage. Nations United (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you think a streetcar is a good choice? A couple of people have mentioned their reasons for it, but the only reason I've read against them (and I haven't read every comment on this page to be fair) seem to be politics rather than encyclopaedic reasonings. In order to form a consensus we should have reasons behind the choices and views, not just the opinion that it's good or bad. With no reasons it's just voting which is a principal Wikipedia doesn't endorse, with reasons that can be measured, for good or ill, in the consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 01:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Just like you have said that the Prince Edward Viaduct is just a bridge, I think that this street car is just a street car. Sure it's historical and an iconic part of the city, but it's not nearly as famous as the San Fransisco street car. I just don't think the limited amount of pictures should be used for a streetcar. I still think the best picture is one that shows the multiculturalism of Toronto. Nations United (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Very true, streetcar is just a streetcar--especially Toronto's. Also I believe I have quite an encyclopedic reasoning for why I think it shouldn't be included in my second last message above. Also, I must agree with the Caribana and Pride photos--I don't think a crowd could highlight multiculturalism any more than signs could, maybe it could represent population in general? And if we can't find a good photo, I believe it can best be described in words with a separate section about multiculturalism as Paul described. I sort of believe city montages should just include structures and natural landmarks. Residential areas, like the photos above, are also a good idea. If we can't find any other photos I think we should just stick with the four we chose earlier. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think so too. If we can't find a better picture to replace the viaduct, there isn't much we can do and we'll just have to use it. Although, I really do want to try to find a good picture that shows Toronto's multiculturalism because not only is it better than using the viaduct but it is a huge part of Toronto that should be shown. Nations United (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I tried my best but I couldn't find a good picture that represents many aspects of Toronto's multiculturalism. So, then I tried to find a replacement and I did find a really nice picture of Scarborough Bluffs. Here it is If anyone has found a picture of multiculturalism, please provide a link. Also, tell me what you think about the photo I found. Nations United (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
That one is definitely the best of the choices available. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I still say that it's most important to have diversity of themes in the list, the most popular images are all buildings. There should be at least one image of something natural (like a park, river valley, or the bluffs) and there should be one image of something quirky (like a festival, a parade, a streetcar, a weird building). —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 03:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we picked four out of five images and we have one more to go. We could either, as you suggested, use it for something natural or quirky. As I said before I oppose the street car and strongly oppose a parade because to me it makes no sense to use one of the pictures for a crowd of people. As for a weird building, I think that is a good idea but still I would prefer something natural, like the Bluffs which I provide, I think, the best picture of it. From what I've heard, either a multicultural picture or a natural picture are going to be the choices. I'm fine with both but no one has really found any great pictures showing multiculturalism and I did find this picture of the Bluffs so I'm thinking if we can't find a multiculturalism picture, maybe we should just use that picture or stick with the viaduct. What does everyone think? Nations United (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Bluffs image is so awesome, I'd go for that over the Viaduct, but the Viaduct image is still pretty good too. Maybe fit em both in? By the way, is it possible to know where exactly the Bluffs image was taken (i.e. south of which major intersection)? EelamStyleZ (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To get away from buildings the Bluffs image would be perfect paul (dex) (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The Bluffs and the Viaduct both look very good for the montage. The nearest intersection to the Bluffs is generally Brimley and Kingston. The Viaduct is quite special: there are not many bridges that have suicide barriers, a subway running in the lower deck (the bridge was built long before the subway was built), or once had the second most suicides in the world by jumping off! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That picture of the Bluffs is very nice! I've got a few ideas: 1) Use the Bluffs photo, since the montage could use something natural. 2) Use the Viaduct photo and put the Bluffs photo across the bottom, just like the skyline at the top. 3) A good place for a multicultural photo would be Kensington Market; it's well-known for having a multicultural presence (including many tourists), without looking like it caters to a specific culture (i.e. Chinatown, Little Italy, Little Jamaica, etc). Blackjays1 (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Both the bluffs and the viaduct were favoured by several people. I don't see why one or both shouldn't be included. Kensington might be a good choice for both the culture and the style of the buildings in the area. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that we were going to only use the skyline and four other images but if we can use more that would be great! I really like the idea of using the viaduct and the Bluffs. I'm also glad everyone likes the photo I found. If we can find a good picture of multiculturalism that would be great, but I don't know how we're going to fit it in. It looks like people like the idea of having both the viaduct and the Bluffs so should I add them to the final list? Nations United (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Viaduct and Bluffs I think would be awesome; I'm sure it wouldn't hurt an extra image, just need a little more tweaking done to sizes that's all. And Kingston/Brimley is closest to the actual Bluffers Park, although the cliffs span a much larger region. The place where this image appears to be taken seems farther away from the mainland/cliffs, seeing that there are rocks at the bottom of the image looking like the shore of an island (although I know there aren't any there). I'm an avid explorer of the bluffs and live close by it, so just curious. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to disagree with the Bluffs photo. I think it should be in the montage. Maybe that one can go across the bottom, then we can decide between the viaduct and a multicultural image. I found these Kensington Market photos [15] [16], but surely, someone can find a better one. Blackjays1 (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
That particular shot is taken from the far western end of Bluffer's Park, which is accessed from Kingston and Brimley. The better view from on top though is at the foot of Midland Avenue, or Cathedral Heights (Drive?). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys perhaps this is good news. I was playing with the images agreed with for a montage from above (skyline, Casa Loma, City Hall, Queen's Park, PE Viaduct and Bluffs) and it appears I have room for maybe maximum two more images. Can anyone suggest just two more? EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

How about an image of an ethnic neighbourhood, preferably one with a streetcar and non-English-language signs. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Eelam, I think only one more should be added. Eight images is pushing it. Let's find a neighbourhood image or multicultural image, then maybe you can upload a sample of the montage in Commons. Blackjays1 (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Blackjays. I think eight images is too much. If we can find a multicultural image, then we can add one more but even with six, I think it would look really great. By the way, I added the viaduct and the Bluffs to the final list. Nations United (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I give up. I can't find a multicultural image that would look nice in the montage. I hope someone else can find one, but I have a feeling it's going to be really hard. Has anyone else found a good possible image to use? Nations United (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Montage #4 (preview)
The image of U of T's University College and the Rogers Centre represent the spots where two more images of interest may be inserted.
Thought it might be helpful if I gave you guys a preview of what the montage with the extra two images would look. This is not official, just a preview, so it's open to any comments/rejections/etc. This montage includes all the images we agreed on, except of course the images of U of T's University College (3rd image down the left side of montage) and Rogers Centre (3rd image down the right side of montage). These two images are there to represent the extra two spots where images can be placed. If it still appears that the montage looks cluttered, of course we can always go back to the original 5 (4 landmarks + skyline). EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
For some reason I don't find it as cluttered as I expected it with 8 images. Each photo stands out quite nicely, but maybe this size helps a lot. What's the final image of the montage supposed to be? Also, can we start a new subsection something like "Final montage previews"? This one is becoming quite long. paul (dex) (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I just looked at Chicago and the size seems very close. Just wanted to say EelamStyleZ, you're doing an awesome job !! paul (dex) (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Paul, it doesn't look nearly as cluttered as I thought, with eight images. However, seven images is still possible. You could move the viaduct photo where the Rogers Centre is (they look the same size), remove the University College photo, and replace the remaining space with a multicultural/neighbourhood photo (I'll try to find one that can fit). The top half looks perfect Eelam! The only thing I would change there is the "black sky" HDR over Casa Loma. Try using this one instead. Blackjays1 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I just found this photo of Yonge Street. There are some signs (including one written in Korean) hanging off of the buildings. The only way to fit that in the remaining space is by cutting it in half, what do you guys think? Blackjays1 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that it doesn't look as cluttered as I originally thought. Although, I still think that seven images or even six images would look better. The multicultural image is good on its own but I just don't see it as a great fit in the montage. Maybe we should just use the six agreed upon. The picture of Casa Loma that Blackjays found is really good and I agree that we should replace it. By the way, I just want to thank EelamStyleZ for all his hard work. Nations United (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What happened to the "Final List" ? There seems to a few images not on the list ... U of T ? Roger Centre ? I know it's not official but we should be sticking to the list. Or the huge debate was pointless. Plus the Rogers Centre is an eye sore. There's no way it should be in the montage. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you read the comments above, you would realize that the Rogers Centre and UofT shots are from an older montage and are simply being used as placeholders until there is agreement as to what to replace them with. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Why replace them ? Remove them ! There is no need for that many images. Only in Toronto would a simple montage decision require a 5 year debate. Just throw 5 non hdr images from the list into a montage ... done. I mean my god, this has far surpassed ridiculous. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If it were that simple, then there wouldn't have been a five year debate. Up until six months ago, a montage was out of the question entirely. I'd rather take the time and come to a consensus that sticks for another five years. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the compliments guys! So I guess we should stick with 6 images (skyline + 4 landmarks + multicultural image)? By the way, I sort of recommend an image of the Rogers Centre if we cannot find an ideal "multiculturalism" image. Rogers Centre has been central to sports in Toronto, as we all know, and a distinct part of the city's skyline. Unfortunately, it can't be seen in the skyline image we are using at the moment. As for the "black sky" I was wondering about that myself; the new Casa Loma image looks more cleaner. Also, is everyone agreeing with the Yonge Street photo suggested by Blackjays? If so, can anyone suggest where to cut the image so that it can fit in its recommended placeholder? By the way UrbanNerd, the world will not end tommorow, so this discussion can go for as long as it wants. Constructive criticism about the montage is much appreciated. EelamStyleZ (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the six images is the skyline + the five images. Seven images would be the skyline + five images + multicultural image. On one hand I agree that this discussion has gone on for a long time but on the other hand I absolutely agree that by getting a conclusion that makes everyone get a little of what they want, it will be much better because then we can stick to this montage for many years. I personally think we should just go with the six images because there isn't a multicultural image that is good enough to add into the montage and eight is little too many pictures. We should make a final montage including the six already agreed upon: Skyline, Casa Loma, City Hall, Scarborough Bluffs, Prince George Viaduct and Queen's Park. If you don't mind Eelamstylez77, could you make this montage (with the new Casa Loma photo)? I think this should be the final version. Thanks again Eelamstylez77! Nations United (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Nations United. I was going to ask Eelamstylez77 for a version with 7 (including Rogers Centre maybe?) and one with 6, but if the first one came out so great it shouldn't be too difficult to find consensus after comparing them. paul (dex) (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems that no one agrees with using the Yonge Street image that I found. Eelam, you can try cutting it (to the right of the Zanzibar sign), if you'd like to see how it would look in the montage. BTW, using Rogers Centre is a bad idea. The dome looks nice, but the rest of the building is an ugly slab of concrete. Don't be surprised if you guys see alot of opposition to that. If worse comes to worse, we should probably just use the original six images. Blackjays1 (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I will be busy until Thursday so I shall make the potential final montage by Friday, this time using only the final images mentioned. EelamStyleZ (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. Thanks for your hard work. We really appreciate it. It looks like we are probably going to conclude this massive discussion by Friday. Nations United (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


An important bit of info about Toronto and it's architecture is that it was seen as one of the most progressive architectural cities during the 70's, but even generally around the 50's to 80's, especially for examples modernist architecture (many of which have been demolished or are facing demolition). I think this should be added to the 'Architecture' section. LOctopus (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, if you can find some good sources. A.Roz (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
[17] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Toronto's Population

Hey .. just a user I wanted to make a note .. if you add up the populations of Etobicoke, York, North York (old) Toronto, East York and Scarborough -all the former districts of that now make up Toronto .. their populations add up to 2,514,723 .. on the page is says 2,503,281

Just saying it should be fixed -- (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but it depends on what the sources tell you. Check the dates of each population count. The counts from each borough may be more recent than the city population count. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Only census information can be used however. Adding up population figures constitute WP:OR. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Not really, but our accepted policy, as set at WP:CANSTYLE, is to only use official census data for population figures when it exists. Statistical errors happen, and 10,500 is pretty small for such a large city. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

false color image of Roy Thompson Hall

False colour images of places for which there is no obvious need for colour correction do not belong in an encyclopaedia. Could the picture of Roy Thompson Hall be removed until a real one is found to replace it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The real thing

A real one exists. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I replaced the false colour image with the real image and everything is correct. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Big Smoke

Under nicknames, "The Big Smoke" keeps getting removed by one person. Do we keep it there, or do we scrap it? I'm assuming everyone else agrees that it IS a legitimate Toronto nickname (as well as the sources below).

Here are sources:

Is that enough for you, or do you want more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LOctopus (talkcontribs) 00:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Easy little fella. Just because someone in the media coins a phrase and it's picked a few times doesn't make it a "nickname". The Big Smoke is actually a popular nickname for London, UK. Have you actually ever heard someone call Toronto "The Big Smoke" ? It's the same as "The Centre of the Universe". It is term coined by the media, not a nickname. The "Center of the Universe" is a popular nickname for NYC. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
While attending law school in Kingston, before moving to Toronto for the first time, the Torontonians at school routinely referred to the city as the Big Smoke. All the time. Just sayin'.

Having said that, these "nickname" sections are more trouble than they are worth. Too often, people do a Google search and find a handful of examples of the use of a nickname online, and then feel that the nickname is sufficiently sourced (the only thing those examples show is that the term is used a few times online, not that it is a widely-used nickname for a place). We need a guideline or something that requires nicknames to be backed up with sources that state that the nickname in question is, in fact, a widely-used recognized term (as opposed to sources that are simply examples of its usage). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone could blog "Sneakertown, Toronto's new nickname" and if a few sources pick it up. Baam, new nickname. There should be some sort of guideline. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The same can be said about any nickname given to any city. And two cities can share the same nickname, while still being legitimate. Even if media coins a nickname, if it's used, it's still a nickname.

ps. Reading my post again, its sound rude, but that wasn't my intention. - LOctopus (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No. We wouldn't accept an entry simply because there are one or two examples of usage. We'd include it because there are several reliable sources using it, and because there are thousands of examples of its use on the internet. We've removed many entries from Name of Toronto#Nicknames because there was insufficient proof of their widespread usage. Sure, some editors (especially inexperienced ones) may add such entries, but they're not likely to survive in the text for long. By the way, this topic is an excellent candidate for including entries in Wiktionary, which has a process for inclusion of entries and tracking their usage, with a page devoted to citations for usage for each entry. Mindmatrix 14:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The links up there are credible sources from Canadian and Torontonian media who have been established for many years. The Torontoist link even studies the origins of the nickname. - LOctopus (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but my comment was directed at UrbanNerd's statement about Sneakertown. The Big Smoke should certainly be one of the included entries. For the record, the Torontoist article is a poor example of a source. The writer clearly pilfered information from Name of Toronto, particularly the bit about Allan Fotheringham, which I first added to Name of Toronto in this edit, over a month before the Torontoist article was written. (By the way, you don't need to tell me about the veracity of those sources; I'm the one that hid them in the comments of Name of Toronto - I'm assuming that's your source for the links, as they're in the same order I listed them there.) Mindmatrix 14:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I tend to disagree. The big smoke is a "rip off" name, seldom used for Toronto. A nickname should be a name frequently used other than the city's official name. (T-Dot, T.O, Hog town) Not a nickname ripped off from another city used as it's own. Toronto has always been a little bit of a pretentious town, but now ripping off other cities well documented nicknames and assuming them ? I mean come on. Center of the Universe ? Big Smoke ? What's next the City that never sleeps, or Toronto the awesome ? LOL. Where does it end ? UrbanNerd (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
If Canadian culture ascribes "Centre of the Universe" and "The Big Smoke" to Toronto, than who are you to say that it's wrong or a rip-off? I prefer original nicknames for Toronto in this globalized world, but I think you're the one being pretentious if you feel that think that Canadians can't ascribe a fairly simple nickname to one of their own cities. I have never heard any Canadian refer to London as "the Big Smoke"; perhaps it's used with regards to Toronto as many Canadians want to distance themselves from the old colonial power. A.Roz (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Who are you to assume Canadians ascribe Toronto this way ? Who are you to fabricate some radical hypothesis regarding old colonial powers ? Clearly you have missed the entire point and haven’t the simple understanding of what constitutes pretentious. What I’m saying is Canadians don’t “ascribe” Toronto these names. A few bloggers and media outlets did and there stuck on the web forever. If you have never heard London described as the “Big Smoke” or New York described as “The Center of the Universe” than you obviously have not travelled. No one, and I mean ‘’’no one’’’ would describe Toronto in these terms outside of the GTA or the Toronto-Centric Canadian media. I am not bashing Toronto. I have lived in Toronto, I appreciate Toronto. But these ripped off nick names border on embarrassing. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
So is it pretentious and embarrassing that Paris, London, Windsor, and hundreds of other Canadian communities "ripped off" the names of other cities? Or that the fledgling town of New York used the name York (and Amsterdam before that)? Or perhaps you've decided that it's only pretentious when applied to nicknames, or just nicknames with which you disagree? Do you find Methodist Rome and Little York just as pretentious? (These were nickanmes given to the city by its residents too.) You're also wrong about the name being in use by Toronto-centric media, unless you believe papers such as the Calgary Herald are run in Toronto. (Examples: 1, 2, 3; there are many more references at that paper. Search in other papers, it's the same.) Mindmatrix 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow you're really swinging for garbage now Mindmatrix. No it's not pretentious that cities were officially named in honor of the founding Nations hundreds of years ago. It is pretentious to take someone's nickname and apply to yourself however. A nickname is earned, not ripped off. NYC was coined Center of the Universe because Times Square was actually the center of all things going on during that era. The name was applied to Toronto (by Canadian media) as a stab at Toronto's over inflated feeling of self worth. It is not a nickname. The Big Smoke was a common name for London, due to the smog problems of the 1950's. Than one day someone in Toronto thought "Hey we're the big smoke too!" and now people (like you) want to consider it a nick name. Same with "Hollywood North" which was "borrowed" from Vancouver. Now you can continue to make ignorant, baseless comments, and links to stories in the Calgary Herald about nicknames that the Toronto media named itself, or we can get down to deciding what really constitutes a "nickname". UrbanNerd (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
First, the fact that I support inclusion of certain material does not imply I support the concept. This is your prejudice about my beliefs and thoughts that you've created out of thin air, and it is wholly wrong. Second, you stated above No one, and I mean ‘’’no one’’’ would describe Toronto in these terms outside of the GTA or the Toronto-Centric Canadian media. - I provided several examples from one source disproving your claim, and now you change your claim to The name was applied to Toronto (by Canadian media) - your position is clearly inconsistent, and I'm not going to debate against a shifting position. There are many examples of usage of these monikers, in media and by residents, which is sufficient for inclusion here. If you don't like the origin of the term, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the names are in use. (Note that you haven't actually demonstrated the origin of these monikers.) Also, please be a little more civil; referring to other people's comments as "swinging for garbage" and "ignorant, baseless" because you disagree with them is not productive discourse. Finally, we should distinguish between nicknames and sobriquets. (Aside: according to the article, Times Square is referred to as "The Crossroads of the World", not "The Center of the Universe".) Mindmatrix 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I can no longer have this discussion with you. I clearly meant the Calgary newspaper cited a name made up by the Toronto media. You seem to pick at little irrelevant points to try and make my points inconsistent. I cannot believe the inferiority complex here. Toronto is constantly comparing themselves to bigger cities. It's an pretentious and embarrassing. If it's included than so should the city that never sleeps. Bottom line, the name is taken from another city, it was applied to Toronto by it's own media, it's not a name used by the general public, it's not a nickname. Period. I'm done. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Having grown up and lived in North-Western Ontario for many years I can say "The Big Smoke" is certainly a name often heard in Thunder Bay when talking about Toronto. So to say its not used by the general public is a bit off the mark. -DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
lol @ North-Western Ontario. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with UrbanNerd. Furthermore, I think that the Torontonians who are "constantly comparing themselves to bigger cities" should probably think about taking a vacation to New York or Chicago, or even Miami or Pittsburgh for that matter. I think a lot of eyes would be opened and a little humbleness would be induced. At the very least these Wikipedia articles on Canada and its cities would have a more informative tone and less of a promotional one. --Antigrandiose (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Torontonians are very diverse and travel to all those cities. I don't doubt that there's something to learn from Miami or Pittsburgh but to say that a little humbleness would be induced is insulting. Toronto is in an important stage of city-building, so it's logical and wise for the city to compare itself to other cities. It needs to have good ideas of what kind of city it wants to be. It's normal. Montreal styled itself after Paris in previous eras, as did New York. (Where did the Beaux Arts and Art Deco come from, anyway?) While the city is still building itself into an even greater stage of development, Toronto is already the vibrant metropolis of Canada and is probably more relevant to the universe Canadians live in than foreign cities.

When it comes to nicknames, if it's in use, then note it. It's foolish to think that every city's nickname was objectively coined by outsiders. I bet most nicknames are created in the cities themselves. The people of free nations have the freedom to self-fashion and as Torontonians we're ambitious. We didn't get to where we are by accident, though some Quebeckers like to think otherwise. Stop grasping at straws. A.Roz (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:BOOSTERISM is not allowed in Wikipedia, especially on articles pertaining to cities. Before we add nicknames to Toronto, we have to use sources that are well documented, reliable, has been in use for a long time (since neologisms are not allowed), and preferably one that is unique to Toronto. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)