Talk:List of notable roads in Toronto/Archive 1

For any merger tags which point here
Please see Wikipedia_talk:ONRD. If no attempt is made to clean these pages up, they will be merged into a more comprehensive article. A guideline page which explains the concept behind a well-established procedure, which explains this rationale is at MERGE:
 * Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.

--  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal for merging York Mills Road into this article.

 * Oppose -On February 4, 2011, User:Floydian proposed this merger. There has been no discussion, nor consensus for this merger. Topic is notable enough for its own article. --Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The notability of the topic for a standalone article was never questioned. If the article is not improved, then its contents will be merged to an article that has more in-depth information on both the road itself, and the topic of roads in Toronto at large. Please see the talk page linked above and add your big bold oppose there amongst the discussion. You'll see several other editors added their support long ago. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That rationale is not a policy nor even a guideline.  Since your merge tag has been in place for over a month, there has been ZERO support for this merge.  Unknown users somewhere on another page doesn't count as a discussion for the current merge proposal.  --Oakshade (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. That discussion was started as a result of mergers I was boldly performing. You even participated in it, so don't play the coy card. Despite several users supporting my actions there, you reverted several mergers solely because you feel they are enough for a standalone permastub. The rationale and the guideline it is from is above. There has also been zero opposition to the merge (assuming we are excluding my support and your opposition). I am pointing you to that discussion now, so go add something to it. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That MERGE states very clearly it is Not a policy or guideline on the heading. And sorry, a discussion on a page (most of which disagreed with your proposals by the way) which doesn't even mention this article does not count as discussion for this specific merge proposal.  And please stop altering my edits.  That's a blatant violation of WP:TALK.--Oakshade (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've merely removed the header because its a continuation of the discussion I started immediately above it; don't worry, you can have a seperate header (but it is certainly not altering your edits, and I'd thank you to not accuse me of such behaviour). You're clearly unable to discuss this rationally, and you inflate any discussion to support whichever viewpoint you want, even though the discussion clearly points out no such thing. Arguments can be based in something we call common sense, in addition to the many policies and rules creep that has found its way onto the written pages of the encyclopedia. WP:MERGE is the official page discussing how to perform a merger. It then discusses why someone would want to. You stand by this piece of writing until I point out that every straw you are pulling at is invalid, at which point you simply toss everything off as not being a guideline. And RFC would be the best route; there is simply no need for a separate discussion on each stub to be merged. Please go add your opposition to the other discussion so that it can continue and stop arguing the semantics of merger discussions. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You actually claimed it was a guideline above and used that to support your actions. And yes, we do need to have separate discussions for each article as multiple editors have different opinions about different articles.  I in fact came here to voice my opinion on a specific article and none of the others you apparently proposed merging of this one.  If you feel it's your prerogative to apply my opinion to all of your merge proposals, go ahead, but I will leave a clarification as to my intentions.--Oakshade (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not at all difficult to state which mergers you support and which you oppose. It is very common to nominate articles together when they are related, as is the case here. See this nomination for an example at afd. Of course you only add comments to the ones you oppose, then you can claim that the lack of discussion on the others is consensus to undo the mergers (or some whacky backwards logic). I have corrected my mistaken assumption that WP:Merging was a guideline; there appears to be no formally marked guidelines whatsoever which cover merging, unlike the multitude for deleting, redirecting, splitting and other related tasks. As such, they can only rely on discussion using logic and applying common sense. That said, I was not attempting to use its guideline (or not) status to support my rationale, I was merely copying a rationale out of it. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  23:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was proposing that York Mills Road can be combined to form an article called Walsh Avenue/Wilson Avenue/York Mills Road/Parkwood Village Drive/Ellesmere Road. It may seem lengthy, but there was such an article called Derry Road/Rexdale Boulevard. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent idea as it is one continuous road.--Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we'd end up with a bulky title for an article that will essentially be like this one, but with only 5 entries. I still disagree that most of these warrant independent articles until somebody is actually willing to sit down and make them deserving of one. Oakshade unfortunately has no interest in doing this, but would rather slap a few Google map references on the article and leave to go elsewhere. There is no investment here, and so unfortunately I personally envoke the Heymann principal. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

unsplitting
This article is much more confusing in three parts. It never actually broke any rules (except for Oakshade's literal interpretation of WP:SIZE. Anybody opposed to me restoring it as a single article, slightly long, but much easier to navigate? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say no, per WP:SILENCE. The only editors opposed have no vested interest in this set of articles, except for splitting its contents into as many separate articles as possible. I'll remerge this in short time. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article can be restored to its longer state, but individual articles have to be recreated if they are long enough to have their own articles. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, assuming there are enough sources that was always the eventual intention... Some roads though will never get more than two, three paragraphs, and recreating them as individual articles just to toss a table of pictures up is not my personal idea of expanding an article to standalone status. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions
It seems some streets are listed as "Street name, Toronto" while others are listed as "Street name (Toronto)". I think that we should follow a single format for all Toronto streets (excluding those that don't include the name of the city, like Bloor or Yonge Streets). I know that the standard for American streets is to use the parentheses, while British streets tend to use the comma. I'm not sure what the standard is for Canadian streets, any ideas? Eco84 | Talk 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Worse yet, King St. has King Street, Toronto, Ontario. No reason for that unless we're likely to have an article on a King St. in some other Toronto. Can someone rename it, please? (Anons aren't allowed to.) --207.176.159.90 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this was done a while ago, but given that this Toronto is the one most people associate with the term Toronto, the article would be deserving of the title King Street (Toronto) irrespective of other such streets in another Toronto. If they do exist, and are notable enough for an entry, they would be required to use extended disambiguation. Mind  matrix  22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What if someone is interested in creating an article about King Street in Weston? It is in Toronto proper.  So, do we call the King Street downtown King Street (Old Toronto) and the one in Weston King Street (Weston, Ontario)?  Note that there are many streets in Toronto with the same name. Johnny Au (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The rule of thumb is usually this: what will most people associate with a given term? King Street (Toronto) would almost always be associated with the downtown street, and so should retain that name. Other King Streets would, again, be disambiguated accordingly (for example, as you've indicated for the street in Weston, if it merits an article). I'm not sure there are other King streets in Toronto more prominent than the downtown east-west route. Mind  matrix  15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Streets named after important people
Based on the section just added, perhaps all streets named after someone important should be added, such as Mike Myers way, Gardiner Expressway, etc? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If we were to do so, then there would be too many to list; they belong in the important person's article as legacy/trivia, unless the street itself is notable, such as De Grassi Street. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Making a Table
Wouldn't it be a nice addition if we organize the list of roads into a table and sort of add more overview information, i.e. terminus, etc... on this list? Just a thought. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Be careful not to add too many minor streets on it.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A very very valuable source
This list formerly appeared on the city of Toronto website. It lists every non-local-street road in Toronto, arranged first by former borough, then alphabetically. This classifies them as expressways, major arterial, minor arterial and collector roads. Any road not on this list should (unless they have publication in reliable secondary sources) not be on this article.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080411084540/http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/pdf/roadlist.pdf

Cheers,  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

More sources
Road classification table Kilometres of each type/total km in Toronto Full document (There's a good map on page 29) -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  04:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/road_class/pdf/appendix-1-rc_criteria.pdf
 * http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/road_class/update.htm
 * http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/road_class/pdf/rc_document.pdf
 * These are useful, but there are by no means those that we must use. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the total km by former cities is useful for this page, and seeing as there are currently no sources, which is unacceptable, some of this should be used, and the lists redivided by the categories present on those lists. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Table format
Per the discussion above, perhaps we should rework this page as a table? That is certainly the standard for lists of structures, such as List of tallest buildings in Toronto, List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto, List of cemeteries in Toronto, List of National Historic Sites of Canada in Toronto, etc. Having such a format is much cleaner, can be sortable for the readers, and would conform to featured list standards. - SimonP (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Care to point to this supposed standard? The current structure is much better organized for the amount of infomation, and follows the Rockland County Scenario guideline, which is designed just for situations like this. Lists work better in a case like List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes (a featured list), where there is not much to explain about each entry besides the terminii, length, and towns that it passes through. The discussions had on this page are very old, and it was recently upgraded to its current format just days ago. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Though none of the pages at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Rockland County Scenario are anywhere close to becoming featured lists, and I don't think any reasonable person would describe them as meeting the ease of navigation or visual appeal requirements at Featured list criteria. As you point out the structured list of List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes is a FL, largely because it is table based. I think we should be working towards a better structure for this page. - SimonP (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We did. The current article is the result of that very recent effort. You're looking to go backwards; here is how the article looked two days ago. Here is a featured list which follows the same format as this article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definitely better now, but that is why we should try to reach some consensus on format. It's only been two days, and we don't want to have to waste a bunch more effort if the general view is that a list based form would be better. - SimonP (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Simon, many of the RCS-ed lists aren't close to FL standards because county roads (the main usage) are barely notable, and extremely low priority for the US Roads Project. That does not mean that the concept itself fails to meet FL standards, it only means no one cares enough about those articles when there are 10,000 other road articles in the US to work on. Former Michigan spur routes, [Business routes of Interstate 196]] or List of Michigan County-Designated Highways (the actual progenitors of the concept) should give you some other examples.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Split into separate articles
Due to the contents of many separate articles being merged into this one recently, it is getting far too large and has too many images. It should therefore be split into component articles for the major text and details on this page (incidentally just like it was before.) Anything with more than a large paragraph, or having two paragraphs or having an image, should be split out into it's own article. If it's notable enough for that much info, it's notable enough for its own article. When you edit it you get the this article is large and may be appropriate to split message. Canterbury Tail  talk  23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe an alternative is to split it in half by east–west and north–south roadways.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, two paragraphs and an image is NOT enough to warrant an independent article at all. Unless the article has potential to be a GA, it shouldn't be independent. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about splitting the article into north-south arterial roads, north-south side streets, east-west arterial roads, east-west side streets, and diagonal/contour streets? This way, we will not have to do the Pokémon Test. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that many is necessary. Just splitting it in half lowers one half to ~45K and the other to ~65K, which is acceptable. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Burnview crescent is a minor side street in the Cedarbrae and Bendale neighbourhood of Toronto which travels along the brim of the Highland Creek ravine. The road connects Bellamy Road North with Lawrence Avenue East, near The Scarborough Hospital, and is residential in nature. There are three junctions along Burview Crescent; the first is located 100 metres from Bellamy Road North, with a crescent named Gaiety Drive. Northeast of Gaiety Drive, Burnview climbs a small hill and curves towards the west. It meets its second junction shortly thereafter with a street named Vesper Court, a short cul-de-sac with houses numbered as high as 22. Now facing east, Burnview travels parallel to and south of Gaiety Drive for 25 m, before Gaiety turns south and meets Burnview at its third junction. Burnview then curves north and ends at a traffic light at Lawrence Avenue East.


 * No bus routes follow Burnview Crescent, but the Bellamy 9 stops just south of Burnview's eastern terminus, and the 54 Lawrence East features a stop west of the traffic light with Burnview Crescent.

There, a road about the street I used to live on. I'll get a picture soon. Can I make an article about the street I live on now as well? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I live on collector roads for much of my life. If Burnview Crescent is notable, then we will have to undergo the Pokémon Test to see if there are any references to Burnview Crescent in non-user-generated, non-cartographic, and non-technical reliable sources, such as newspaper articles. Burnview Crescent can be included if something extremely newsworthy occurring there, such as Highland Creek eating up Burnview Crescent, but not because a world-famous musician happens to reside on the street.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Canterbury Tail's assessment about splitting the articles and having the streets/roads their own articles. It was one editor who took it upon himself to do this mass merging and it has only caused logistical problems and ill-will. --Oakshade (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The merging was a seperate task from updating this article. It has since been split. Does anybody else object to the current format for List of roads in Toronto, irrelevant of individual entries needing fine tuning? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  07:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll assume not. Feel free to remerge this when other editors clue in to the fact that plenty of articles on en.wiki are over 120kB. Almost any featured article on a musician, for example. Sorry I ruined this article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not have to apologize to yourself. Please consider the fact that people who have slow Internet connections and/or read on mobile telephones cut off webpages that are over 32MB large or take a very long time to load.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blanking of Kennedy Road content
User:Floydian just merged the Kennedy Road (Toronto) article into this one under citing the WP:MERGE rational:
 * Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.

When he preformed the merge, he only merged less than a quarter of its content. When that content was restored, Floydian deleted it with the summary: "Removing unnecesary bloat per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, restoring imperial first, metric second for acreages granted in colonial times. The original entry was sourced, the addition was purely WP:OR" The user has not applied the same logic to anywhere else in the article. If there is too much content to cause UP:UNDUWEIGHT issues, either this topic needs to be separated into its own article, or this be allowed to be expanded. Below is the content blanked by the user:--Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy Road is one of three major streets in Scarborough, and is home to the business district of Scarborough because of the many hundreds of stores along Kennedy Road. The Toronto section of the road is mainly residential with high rise apartment buildings but there is a large section of commercial activity from Lawrence Avenue East to just north of Sheppard Avenue East. North of Steeles Avenue, it is also known as York Regional Road 3, and traverses Markham, Whitchurch-Stouffville, East Gwillimbury, and Georgina, where it terminates at Lake Drive East.

Kennedy Road is named for the Kennedy family, one of the many early farming settlers in the 18th and 19th centuries to which Thomas Laird Kennedy belonged, who settled along the early concession road. It is likely linked to Private John Kennedy of the 3rd Regiment of the York Militia (now The Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment) (RCAC) who was granted 0.4 sqkm of land near Kennedy Road and Ellesmere Road. Kennedy Road is one of two major Greater Toronto Area streets (the other being Queen Street West and Queen Street East) that share their names with other, equally major roads. The other Kennedy Road runs north-south in Peel Region. In York Region, former parts of Kennedy Road include Old Kennedy Road and Main Street Unionville. Kennedy Road is cut off between Davis Drive and Herald Road, because of the Pheasant Run Golf Club. Beyond that, Kennedy Road runs all they way north until the shores of Lake Simcoe at Lake Drive East.

In the 1990s, Kennedy Road was realigned at Steeles Avenue to connect the broken section, and was realigned east 300 m between Highway 407 and 16th Avenue. From Steeles Avenue, it is a four-lane road northward to Major Mackenzie Drive East, and a two-lane road from Major Mackenzie Drive East to Lake Simcoe.

There are low-density residential and commercial buildings from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive East and from Mahoney Avenue to Lake Drive East. Future high density residential and commercial development is beginning to go up in Downtown Markham, as Kennedy forms its eastern boundary. Lots of farmland and forests can be found between Mahoney Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive East.

Actually, I applied the same concept to every summary (I call it a summary because it summarized the pile of trivia that most street articles are) here: Bloat has been reduced, historical facts have been backed up by reliable references, and a paragraph of "it has houses, apartments, malls, stores, strip malls, industry, farms, recreation centres, libraries, schools, hospitals and other basic municipal necessities that can be found in every developed city block on the planet." has been cut. Unreferenced material has been removed, which policy backs me up on. As I have stated at other venues, provide reliable sources, and insert the material with proper grammar and flow, if you genuinely are doing something other than trying to make a point. Forum shopping will not change the facts. Once I get over my frustration of earlier events, I will be removing ALL unsourced and controversial information from every road article in Ontario. You have plenty of warning; start researching. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Floydian, see WP:THREAT. Yes, you are still angry, embarrassed and humiliated that your earlier mass deletion effort fell apart, but that is no excuse for threatening other editors.
 * Such a sentence ("it has houses, apartments, malls,...") was not in the section so we don't know what you're talking about. And there is a ""common facts" clause in Verifiability.--Oakshade (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of making a threat when I clearly haven't, nor continue to put words in my mouth; the text Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. is clearly posted at the bottom of the edit window. I am neither embarrassed nor humiliated that crap is kept; that is up to the wikipedia community to find them and feel that way. Until them I am forced to live with the straw poll of fly by editors who have made no contributions to the articles they are devoted to keeping, and continue to be completely stubborn when asked to do so. Common facts are concepts which are universally accepted. Even that has drawn out several essays. We don't need to cite that the sky is blue... But then again the sky isn't always blue, is it? There is an obnoxiously-fine line between footnote overload and fully referenced. However, there is a clear distinction between sourced and unsourced. If you cannot find references for the information, then I am going to remove it per policy. You may be proud of all the stubs you've created, but I prefer to make good articles and sourced contributions.
 * There are low-density residential and commercial buildings from Steeles Avenue to Major Mackenzie Drive East and from Mahoney Avenue to Lake Drive East. Future high density residential and commercial development is beginning to go up in Downtown Markham, as Kennedy forms its eastern boundary. Lots of farmland and forests can be found between Mahoney Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive East.
 * Again, if you stop reading every other line you might notice the writing. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very proud of articles that I created as many of them have blossomed into major articles over the years thanks to the work of other editors who were given the groundwork of a stub to work from. Editors should be encouraged to create articles of notable topics even if they're not major multi-sectioned ones from the start and might take a while to grow.  You don't seem to understand the value of small stub articles, but that's your opinion.  In this case, the article was much more than a stub. --Oakshade (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Far Too Large - Needs to be split
As several articles were merged into this one, this article is over 60kb. And this is with most of the street sections blank with no content. Per WP:SIZE, this article "probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)".


 * Many featured articles are well over 100kb. 60kb is not enough for a split. Most of the streets have nothing that can be written about them, but are listed regardless as they were before the conversion to a WP:USRD/RCS style list. If anything I have considered remerging the list. It was only merged to try and appease everyone for the merges, but clearly that's not possible. There is no convenient geographical way to split this article, and most of the roads are not worthy of a standalone article (despite your belief that a sentence justifies a new "framework"). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are no convenient geographical ways to split this article, then content should to be split into separate articles per WP:SIZE. --Oakshade (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they don't warrant individual articles, and WP:SIZE doesn't support your assertion:
 * No need for haste: Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB overall. There is no need for haste, and the readable prose size should be considered separately from references and other overhead.
 * So pictures aside, the readable prose is just under 30000 bytes. Also note under the Rule of Thumb, the text:
 * They also apply less strongly to list articles
 * Which is exactly what this is. 'Strongly oppose. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's almost twice 32kb, and that's with a majority of the sections blank. Thanks for your opinion. --Oakshade (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * References, headers and coding overhead should not be included in that total, per the same guideline you are using to justify the split. I have a javascript tool which counts the actual text of an article, and there are 29752 characters (4933 words). Until those sections are not blank, they are blank. WP:DEADLINE applies to those sections in terms of both leaving them there while they are blank, and in terms of not counting the potential content that they may or may not have at some undetermined point in the future. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That "readable prose size should be considered separately from references and other overhead" sentence in WP:SIZE is for articles that are already just 32kb including references, headers, etc.. In this article's case the article is over 60kb.  And this is even before anyone has filled in any content in most of the sections, as you even admit ("they are blank").  Per our guidelines, this article should be split.--Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the readability section of WP:SIZE, the first subsection of the guideline, states very plainly "For stylistic purposes, only the main body prose should be counted, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose.", then goes on to explain how to count only the prose. You are once again not reading things through before drawing conclusions. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oakshade - Stop it
You do not live in Toronto, you do not know Toronto, you do not know Kennedy Road, nor that it is "one of three major roads" in Scarborough, a suburb of 500,000 residents with at least two dozen major arterial roads running through it. Kennedy is nothing special. Stop acting like you are aware of what you are sourcing, and please inform yourself before acting like a know-it-all and pushing things as facts. I am reverting your edits once again. This time I'm going to very clearly explain to you why each piece of information is either A) Original research, B) trivial, or C) not applicable. You need to improve your ability to write and stop re-instituting poorly worded, bulky trivial details which do not serve to further the encyclopedic content of the article. There are plenty of venues (other wikis, personal website or blogs, etc.) for you to pursue your interest in compiling every minute detail about every run-of-the-mill road.

First of all, every other entry in this article has the historical information first. Consistency will be maintained until a discussion shows a desire to change the status quo; stop trying to reverse the order. Every street in Toronto has buildings; it is the origin of the street that makes it unique and gives it character. There is no guideline which advocates what you are doing, and I have no clue what part of WP:STYLE you're trying to toss at me to back up your edits.


 * <pre width=100%>[[Image:ScarboroughKennedyEllesmere.jpg|thumb|left|Kennedy Road, south of [[Ellesmere Road]], circa 1925]]Kennedy Road is one of three major streets in Scarborough. North of Steeles Avenue, it is also known as York Regional Road 3, and traverses Markham, Whitchurch-Stouffville, East Gwillimbury, and Georgina, where it terminates at Lake Drive East.


 * 1) Kennedy road should begin on a new line.
 * 2) There is no source (including the map which I introduced as a source to this article and which I have studied tediously) that will back up Kennedy as one "three major streets" in Scarborough; WP:OR.
 * 3) North of Steeles in not Toronto, and it has its own article with an entry on York Regional Road 3. Since York 3 does not redirect here, it should not be bold per WP:BOLDFACE.
 * 4) The towns which York 3 passes through are not relevant to this article, and again are listed in the table for York 3 at List of numbered roads in York Region.
 * 5) The map of Toronto doesn't back up anything about York Region. The shores of Lake Simcoe are much more widely recognized than "Lake Drive East", but this minor change is indeed a personal preference on my part.

The only thing the map backs up is that Kennedy Road is an arterial road in Toronto, where it travels from Highview Avenue to Steeles Avenue East. The rest is unsourced information. I will not allow you to insert unsourced trivia (or weightless trivia in general, for that matter) into these articles. Please stop trying and realize that no useful information is being removed at all. Stop being pointy, and read and comprehend what you are adding to an article before pressing submit. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Floydian, that is extremely childish. If you have a disagreement with an editor, making that kind of editing only serves to publicly embarrass yourself, not the other way around.
 * First of all, there is no requirement anywhere that an editor must reside or be somehow personally connected to the topic they are editing (actually I do know TO and Scarborough, but your assumption is another topic). If that angers you, you can make a proposal for such a requirement.
 * You don not have a right to own an article and decide its content. Wikipedia is collaborative effort.  Simply because an innocuous easily verifiable statement written by editors over the years like a route description doesn't have a source, doesn't mean you have right to remove it.  In fact WP:VERIFY states very clearly "This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed."  A route description is easily attributable.  I honestly can't think of any better place for a route description than an article about actual routes. That you're fighting so hard to remove a route description of a street article is demonstrating you are not interested in improving this article.
 * And what's with this WP:UNDUEWEIGHT? WP:UNDUEWEIGHT is about the neutrality of articles.  There's nothing un-neutral about a simple route description.
 * Maybe you're trying to overcompensate for the public shaming you experienced when your multiple article deletion effort completely failed, but that is not an excuse for this immature behavior.--Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to assert that I am embarrassed is grabbing at straws. I have pointed out every sentence that doesn't belong with guidelines to back it up. You are selectively isolating parts of a larger guideline to justify terrible editing practises. The sentence immediately following what you quote is This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.
 * I have never asserted my ownership over the article. I would perform the same actions with any article on the encyclopedia that I have focus on. I have also not asserted that someone can't write about places they have never been to. Many of the roads I write about I have never come even close to (Ontario Highway 61 for example). However, trying to reinsert material as fact when it is not is a violation of policy. Obviously, since you don't live here, you need to brush up on your research and not rely on google maps for everything. The fact is that I am an extremely knowledgeable historian of roads and that I have hundreds of maps and books to verify information in these articles.
 * I'm sorry that you feel it is inappropriate that I call you out for your continued bad practises. However, your refusal to listen after having guidelines and policies repeatedly pointed out to you is becoming disruptive, pure and simple. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you claim to be an historian with hundreds of maps, surely you can write a simple route description instead of being disruptive and removing other editors' route descriptions. But you haven't.  You just lash out at other editors trying to actually contribute to this article and then leave the section blank.  Having a route description with a map as a citation is not a violation of policy.  If you want to challenge the route description per the WP:V sentence you quoted, surely as you are a historian and have hundreds of maps, you would replace the route description that's correct.  But again, you haven't.  If you truly feel there has been a violation of policy, then I'm sure you'll start a Request For Comment.  I would be happy if your actions were heavily scrutinized by the community.  I doubt you'll do that though.  You just cowardly splash an attack as a talk section heading and not really do anything about it.  --Oakshade (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, believe me, I'm tempted; However I'd rather confront you than make a bigger problem out of it. The route description that is already there is more than adequate, as it is a straight road with nothing substantial on it, except standard suburban sprawl. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just your opinion. To say what's "already there is more than adequate" is a pure case of WP:OWN.  If other editors feel a route description is important (actually all but you do), then you have no right to not allow editors to add that content.  WP:OWN states at the heading "No one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article."  By claiming what's "already there is more than adequate" is acting as if you own an article. You don't.--Oakshade (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, you are the only editor trying to copy and paste the original unsourced, inaccurate and bloated description into the article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that was the work of other multiple editors, not mine. If other editors want to insert route descriptions into this article, they can. Your opinion that what's "already there is more than adequate" is noted, but a clear case of WP:OWN.  --Oakshade (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I can also delete that description at any point if its invalid, poorly written, or unsourced. That is not a case of ownership, that is my opinion and within my allowance as an editor. Policy backs me up on removing unsourced information and original research, and no amount of misdirection or lawyering will make the opposite true. Having the article filled with unsourced information that doesn't pertain to the subject or analyzes unimportant details is your opinion. Articles are rewritten all the time. here is an example of one where I deleted almost everything on a very large article and started over from scratch, because the article had become a compilation of useless trivia and technical specifications. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Original Research is one thing, but deciding that route descriptions, even sourced doesn't belong in an article of routes is your opinion and is per policy WP:OWN. That's policy.  Either live with it or don't edit on Wikipedia.--Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the explanation I provided at the beginning of the section which explains why each piece of text you reintroduced is useless or original research. What is left, I have rewritten for better flow and it now sits as the second paragraph. Blindly slapping a reference from elsewhere on the article and calling it referenced is not only wrong, but destructive to the trust of readers in Wikipedia. Please find another editor who supports your viewpoint; I do not and neither does policy. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you're not addressing your serious ownership issues. You are demanding no route descriptions be in this article (and I suppose any article about roads) and when asked if you were going to replace the descriptions you removed due to source issues which you have repeated ad nauseam with your own sourced version, you responded that what's "already there is more than adequate."  That's WP:OWN.  This is now getting nowhere.  If you continue to want to edit war by removing route descriptions, we'll open a WP:RFC to get community input if route descriptions should not belong in road and street articles.  You can wine and call it form shopping all you want, but you clearly have serious ownership issues.--Oakshade (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oakshade, you are constantly accusing me of doing something wrong. Time after time the last few days I have proven your petty fights to be pointless and unsubstantiated, at which point you've stopped replying instead of admitting that you are wrong to insert a piece of text with a reference blindly slapped on to it. The reference can be viewed on the web and very clearly does not show buildings, nor any part of the road north of Toronto. It does not back up the original research that Kennedy is one of three major roads in Toronto. That the current description is more than adequate is my opinion, and certainly not a case of ownership. However, you have proven you are untrustworthy when it comes to referencing what you add to the encyclopedia. I'd encourage you to open an RfC.
 * I have shown you several good articles which I have written that have lengthy, accurate, proportional route description, and have never advocated having no route description. If you want to write a sourced description, by all means, but, as the saying goes, put up or shut up. The onus is not on me to provide sources for unreferenced facts, policy permits and encourages that it be removed if it sits for months. You have yet to provide a single piece of policy or guideline which actually approves of what you are doing. Instead you try to accuse me of being incivil, cowardly, whiny, and having serious issues. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  02:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Heated discussion regarding the format of the Kennedy Road section and the general article length between Floydian and Oakshade
There has been a heated discussion regarding the inclusion/exclusion of content in the Kennedy Road section of this article. The two also have a heated discussion regarding the overall length of the article. There also have been accusations of ownership and some personal attacks. I do not want to engage in this heated discussion. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the discussion cooled down, due to a lack of replies. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Disappointed
This has turned out to a giant mistake. We have dozens of articles that are now redirects to List of roads in Toronto, but that giant list has now been split into smaller lists which are still huge. So in effect you've taken dozens of articles which, although not perfect were a starting point, into several giant ugly looking lists that nobobdy wants to look at and even fewer people want to edit. I was going to update transit information but the current setup means that I will be taking my efforts elsewhere. There is a reason we have stubs; almost every good article out there started as one. The effort to consolidate has resulted in driving readers and editors away. Ng.j (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This would have been a good setup if hardcore inclusionists weren't insistent on creating a new article for every two sentences. The existing articles were not even starting points; they were full of trivial information and incorrect history based on original research. I originally did not split the list and it worked very nicely. Unfortunately those editors are only interested in ensuring that every independent article remains an independent article, and not in improving the quality of articles, and they took away any interest I once had. I have no problem recombining the two lists, which currently feature one for east west, one for north south; some redirects need fixing but its not a huge amount of work.
 * Transit information belongs under Toronto Transit Commission and the many articles in that heirarchy (including the list of bus routes in Toronto), not on street articles. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Even individual Pokémon species are beginning to have their own articles again. It seems that WP:PTEST is no longer being considered.  It might be time that articles on individual streets can be recreated, but still maintain the list.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Go ahead - if you think they are worthwhile articles. Some of the redirects still contain the full information before being made over and all you need to do is revert them. Good luck. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

St James Cathedral the tallest structure...
The article currently says: "The St. James Cathedral was the tallest structure in Toronto until the Royal York Hotel was completed in 1927." But the fifteen story Trader's Bank Building at the corner of Yonge Street and Colborne Street was the tallest building in the British Empire when it was constructed in 1906. Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Both are correct. St. James' spire is 93 m high, whereas the building was 60 m. However, the spire is a structure and isn't the same. Until the Royal York was built, that spire was the tallest object in the city. Here's a source that can't be used (forum) that compares the heights of various structures in Toronto over the years. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Although Old City Hall was taller than both and completed in 1899... The sentence should be reworked.

How can this/these article(s) move forward?
Alright, so after a few years of disillusionment, I feel I can maybe venture in to the streets of Toronto. I don't want to be pompous, claim ownership, or toot my own horn, but before people distrust my opinions, please note that I have written over 50 good or featured articles, almost exclusively on Ontario highways.

When I initially made these moves and condensed Toronto roads into three articles, nearly every minor arterial had its own article. They were unsourced, filled with minor trivia and lists of "landmarks" along the route (not sure who determines that status). I compiled history notes from libraries around the city, and the excellent book by Mr. Gould, and found the origin for many of Toronto's streets, and set forth to condense 40-odd articles into 3. This was met with considerable resistance at first, which waned slowly over the years. In the past few months, I have seen no complaints.

However, several independent articles exist which disservice the integrity of this encyclopedia, in my opinion. I would like to resolve this situation once an for all and establish a way to have every street (save things like Queen Street West or Yonge Street that are independently notable as neighbourhoods or very historic roads) covered in as few articles as possible.

So, my thoughts on ALL the available options are:
 * 1) Give each major road an article, compile details on minor roads into a single article (ie. List of minor roads in Toronto)
 * 2) Keep the status quo (some "very" major roads merit individual articles, but others are arranged by orientation (N-S and E-W) or placed into a "others" article
 * 3) Compile ALL (with exceptions as noted above) Toronto road articles into a set of three articles: East-west roads, north-south roads, contour roads [those that do not conform to the grid of Toronto])
 * 4) As above, but in a single article
 * 5) As above, but split into major (concession/sideline) and minor roads
 * 6) As above, but split into major east-west, major north-south, major contour roads (Danforth, Albion, Weston, Danforth Rd, etc), and minor roads
 * 7) Some other setup

So I'd like some opinion on how to improve this to a decent, half referenced (at least), reliable article. Toronto has a well documented history and one of the most active user bases on Wikipedia. I'm certain something golden can be created. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be great to have more opinions as well. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 14:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)