Talk:Banbury-Don Mills

Merging this page with Don Mills.
I think we should merge this page into the Don Mills one. According to the Toronto Star map Don Mills covers the same area the city labels Banbury-Don Mills. The Don Mills residents association also has the same boundaries. Since Don Mills and Banbury-Don Mills cover exactly the same area, share the same borders, and are the same thing, there is no reason to have two separate articles.

In terms of which name to merge them into, it is readily apparent that 'Don Mills' is the more common name. It gets a more than ten-thousand times as many Google hits. A search through the last 20 years of the Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star find that not one of them has ever used the name 'Banbury-Don Mills' for this area. - SimonP (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree that Don Mills is the better known name, is historically the community name, and is the name of the residents association, etc., which is why I didn't merge Don Mills into Banbury - Don Mills long ago, and kept most of the history of the area in the Don Mills article instead of moving it to the other. We've had a recent discussion about how to orgianize Toronto's neighbourhood articles at the main index article; I have said that the neighbourhood names and divisions declared by the City of Toronto should be the basis for how we organize our articles, and I believe that most editors of these articles on WP follow that list and frequently insert links to it.  I have said that the City's boundaries being important because they are also boundaries for municipal, provincial, and federal election wards, and census wards, and you disagreed because you can name some exceptions to the election wards.  Thanks for pointing that out, but I don't agree that this means there is no correlation between the City's boundaries and election wards; they appear to be in sync nearly all the time.


 * As for the Toronto Star's map, in the neighbourhoods index discussion there was clear non-consensus for the idea of using it as the "authority" to decide how we arrange our articles at WP. In the discussion, although some people said they like the Star's map, there was stronger support for continuing to use the City's as our main guide.  However, this discussion did raise the issue (again) that there are multiple maps out there (including another online map, torontoneighbourhoods.net, which is quite different from the city's, and is frequently quoted at WP), and we should be accomodating to all alternate names as used on those other maps, and allow articles to be created for them.  The same argument can be made for retaining an article to both Don Mills, and Banbury - Don Mills, even if a map other than the CIty's were our main guide.


 * A final point about that: while it's true that the City's neighbourhood names are not the most commonly used, surely that will change over time. For example, people are already getting used to thinking of their neighbourhood as Don Mills East or Don Mills West, rather than just Don Mills, because these are the names of the election districts.  Banbury is a much newer neighbourhood than Don Mills, and tends to be overlooked, but it does have a significant population, and in time they will gain wider recognition.


 * Regarding your statement that the boudaries of Don Mills and Banbury - Don Mills are the same, as far as I can see, the Don Mills boundary explicity exclude Banbury. So they are not the same.  This is a concern because while Banbury is a tacked-on area, its population may be significant when it comes to census information.  Last year I intended to add census information to all Toronto articles in a consistent manner, but stopped after doing a dozen or so North York articles (including B-DM).  I really don't see how we can complete this task, or quote census data at all, if we are going to use unofficial neighbourhood names and boundaries.  Please, let's keep all articles that are official names.  If we want to keep articles for sub-sections, or larger sections that cover more than one official neighbourhood, for the purpose of describing the area's history, that's fine.  But when it comes to statistical information, it belongs in the articles corresponding to the current official areas, and we should have articles for all of them. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Where is Banbury? From what I can tell it is the area between Wilmet Creek and Leslie. This area is part of the Toronto Star's Don Mills and is also covered by the Don Mills resident's association. If there was any difference between the borders of the two areas I could see having two articles, but in this case the boundaries are identical. These are thus two articles under different names on exactly the same thing. It's unnecessary and counter to policy to keep them separate. - SimonP (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also on the matter of electoral districts, I really don't think the correlation is very good at all. For my riding of Beaches-East York, there are five different neighbourhoods that are both in it and another riding. Looking across town at Trinity-Spadina fully seven of the city neighbourhoods cross riding boundaries. - SimonP (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)