Talk:Baby Point

Canada: Toronto / Communities Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Not done. No consensus. — Aitias // discussion 20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that this article be moved to its original name of Lambton Baby Point. The article is about the official neighbourhood of the City of Toronto, as defined by the City of Toronto at the location here. The area is known as Lambton Baby Point commonly. Please look at the Google Map for Baby Point here. The name Lambton Baby Point is visible. Alaney2k (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Baby Point is the most common name for this area. It is the name used by the Toronto Star, Toronto Neighbourhoods.net, and one of the City of Toronto maps. A media search finds that "Lambton Baby Point" has never been used by the Toronto media. - SimonP (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You moved it without discussing it. The article was about the whole area from Dundas to Bloor, not just the Baby Point enclave. I have lived in Toronto since 1959. Baby Point is just the enclave. I wrote the article based on the socio-demographic map of the City of Toronto, so that we can use the info from their data in the article. It is impossible to find a perfect neighbourhood definition. Alaney2k (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article didn't have any demographic information when I moved it, so it's not as though I invalidated any of the content. I have now added some information on Baby Point. It is very easy to get this data directly from StatsCan. There is no need to depend on the city reports if we want to incorporate such data. - SimonP (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information about Lambton Mills becomes irrelevant under the article name 'Baby Point'. You did not read the article before you did the move. Alaney2k (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but we also now have a Lambton Mills that is a better place for that content anyway. - SimonP (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History article, not a neighbourhood article, though. Alaney2k (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Naming[edit]

Baby Point is a purely residential development within the Lambton neighbourhood. As Lambton has deteriorated over the years, many residents in the somewhat exclusive Baby Point dislike using the name Lambton. The name 'Lambton Mills' is a complex one historically as the area was properly called 'Lambton'; 'Lambton Mills' should only really be used to refer to both the proper 'Lambton' neighbourhood in the former City of York (and its mill) and the Etobioke side of the community (now part of the Kingsway neighbourhood) with its mill; so 'Lambton Mills' should only really be a disamiguation page to the Lambton (Baby Point) and The Kingsway articles shouldn't it? JosephIWMolto (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the name for the area south of Baby Point. Would you call that Kingsway or Lambton? I've never thought of it that way, though I live over by Roncesvalles. I like the City naming because it's just an area, and tries to avoid boundaries. I agree that if you live in Baby Point, you live in the enclave. Alaney2k (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Mill neighbourhood article already existed. I have that linked in for the area south of Baby Point. For the area north, I have created Lambton, Toronto. Lambton Mills article still exists. Alaney2k (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Baby Point has always been counted with Lambton as opposed to 'Bloor West' is that Lambton (and Baby Point) were in the City of York (now 'district' of 'Etobicoke-York') as opposed to 'Bloor West' which was only a BIA commercial strip connected to Swansea and that is within (the old city of) Toronto. Historically of course, M. Baby (owner of what is now Baby Point) was a prominent resident of Lambton not Swansea. Old Mill has nothing to do with it, there was another mill in Etobicoke was further north at Dundas across from the Lambton Mill and an Etobicoke side of Lambton ('Lambton Mills' properly refers to the combined communities of Lambton, York and Lambton, Etobicoke [now part of the Kingsway]). Of course because residents in Baby Point are wealthier today than people living along Dundas (the heart of Old Lambton that traditionally served residents in Baby Point) residents now prefer to shop in 'Bloor West'.JosephIWMolto (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to the Lambton Mills article to reflect this. It's a historical article, I suppose, rather than a neighbourhood article. Have you seen a link or a book with boundaries (even approximate) for Lambton Mills? As for the neighbourhoods, I've followed the boundaries of the Star and the Real Estate Board for the several neighbourhoods that make up Lambton-Baby Point. It might be a good idea to rebuild that article as a summary for the three neighbourhoods, I think. Alaney2k (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not identify the Baby Point community as 'predominantly white' as that fact has no relevance to that section. Moreover, the mention that the neighbourhood is predominantly white is a clear attempt to hold current residents accountable for the naming of the streets, which was done over 100 years ago and is currently being reviewed by the City of Toronto. Wikipedia should be limited to facts and not political opinions. If facts shown are not relevant to the article they become opinions. Furthermore, Black Lives Matter did not place the temporary signs at the gates of the neighbourhood. An anonymous white person claimed to have done it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.190.100 (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery[edit]

Editors have been removing referenced info about slavery and a project to highlight the history of slavery in the area. I have reverted the most recent change of this kind as I think it needs to be discussed on the Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the Page History page, clearly there is disagreement as to whether it is appropriate to include points about racism and slavery in this particular article. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent on an article devoted to that topic, e.g., something like "History of slavery in Upper Canada," or "...in Toronto." 70.29.81.45 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'v returned the relevant sections to this article and moved some to James Baby's if you think they should be somewhere else WP:JUSTDOIT—blindlynx —blindlynx 20:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]