Talk:Spadina Expressway

Image
This image is stolen from www.Thekingshighway.ca (as many have been in the past). This image is copyritten, and is not credited to the rightful owner (Mr. Cameron Bevers). He would probably allow use if properly credited, and if he were notified. I am removing image again. --24.103.242.178 19:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notice to all Wikipedians: The images and text located at www.thekingshighway.ca is protected by copyright. You may not reproduce my work without my written permission!

I had to pay the Government of Ontario a $20.00 service fee to obtain a copy of this photo. I also had to obtain special written permission from the Archives of Ontario in order for me to legally display this photo on my website. This particular image is still protected by copyright, and must not be used on a website or published without the explicit written permission of the Archives of Ontario. I credit all of my sources. Why do you Wikipedians have so much trouble in quoting yours? Cbevers 02:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The source (Government of Ontario) is credited at Image:Spadina.jpg.


 * Removing the image from this page doesn't undo the copyright violation if any, since the image is still displayed at this page &mdash; Image:Spadina.jpg.


 * If you feel that you own the copyright to Image:Spadina.jpg and that has been violated, please list Image:Spadina.jpg (and not this page) at Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.


 * Thanks. -- Paddu 20:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

POV

 * I have deleted " helping to contribute to Toronto's reputation as a beautiful and livable city, despite these neighbourhoods becoming choked with traffic because of the lack of through expressways." This sentence is filled with bias. "Choked with traffic" does not strike me as the right tonw for wiki and Toronto has little reputation for being beautiful. Palmerston 04:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While on New Changes Patrol, I saw a questionable edit to this article. Upon further review, I noticed an ongoing trend toward similar uncited, non-NPOV edits (critical of the detractors of the expressway) and reverts on this article, as well as Gardiner Expressway, from anon IPs. I have reverted the edits again, making the third RV. If the changes are replaced again, then I will take this up the ladder.
 * I'd like the anon editor who is making these edits to respond with sources for these edits so that some common ground about wording and tone can be found.
 * Some of the language of concern...
 * "...not by the majority of Toronto residents, but rather a small group of anti-car organizers..."
 * "Unfortunately, these types of fear driven comments have proven the opposite..."
 * "There were political motivations behind the decision: the Municipal government wanted to demonstrate its commitment to a "no expressway expansion" mandate."
 * "''However, no new investment has been made into mass transit..."
 * If the editor can substantiate these statements, then there's no reason not to include them (save for the second statement, which is blatantly non-NPOV). But just saying "Please review http://www.toronto.ca/ for all sources." (per the RV edit summary) is insufficient. Detailed cites are required, especially for politically charged material, as per WP:CITE. Caknuck 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words
I have added the weasel tag to the "Outcomes" section, as it contains the following statements which are unsourced or weasel words: There is no source for this statement... which businesses stated this? This is a weasel.
 * many businesses disliked the new urban-reform measures which were seen as anti-development policies.

Where is the evidence that anti-car policies caused the economic slowdown? Where is the evidence that freeways were the reason for the growth of Peel and York regions? There are many confounding factors in the economic growth and decline of different areas and I don't think you can attribute it to just freeways.
 * Because of its percieved anti-car policies, Toronto was no longer as attractive to development as it formerly was and businesses migrated towards Peel Region and York Region where taxes were lower and where there were less growth restrictions and superior freeway networks.

If there are no objections I will change the section in a couple of weeks. Dave 14:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BadTrip.jpg
Image:BadTrip.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging in Allen Road
Before I get going, put the potential future title aside, as that would take some pondering. Does it not make sense to merge the bit of useful content from Allen Road into this in order to avoid duplication and to make this more comprehensive? Allen Road is the Spadina Expressway after all. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  00:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Haljackey (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've instead merged into Allen Road, but now an appropriate title for the combined article can be decided. -  Floydian  τ ¢  20:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)