Talk:Old City Hall (Toronto)

Old City Hall was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

This sentence in in the "Grotesque" section
and I do not understand it.
 * "The entire building has decorative Ancient Roman art at which the architect tried to express."

The decoration and carving is very typical of what is found on Richardsonian Romanesque buildings. I do not understand what the "Ancient Roman" refers to not do I comprehend what the architect was trying to express. However I am reluctant to make changes without posting first. EInar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this sentence
in the Grotesque section bother anyone else?
 * "The entire building has decorative Ancient Roman art at which the architect tried to express."

This means what? I am tempted to remove the Ancient Roman reference because I don't know what it refers to. Do you? Carptrash (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Coaster92 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)==Page No Longer Live?== I do not understand the sentence at the top of the page that says not to make entries on this page and to go to the Talk page. Isn't this the Talk page? Anyhow, I tweaked the grammar and sentence structure in several sections. I was able to clarify the clause about "asymmetry" by checking the reference.

Possible sale of Old City Hall for a shopping mall
Read here: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-84009.pdf

The city has plans to sell the Old City Hall, so that it would be used as a shopping mall.

Should it be added to the article? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have also clarified that the city would be leasing off parts of Old City Hall, not selling it outright, as per the briefing notes. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Corbels Date 1898 or 1889?
Article claims they spell "1898", but in reality date is spread over two stones. First "18" is read bottom-left to top-right (somewhat left to right), if the second stone is read the same bottom-left to top-right way, it says "89". The tail of the 9 is after the 8. I think this should say "1889" Navathehut (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)