Talk:Toronto/Archive 7

Over images
I thinks its time we look at all the images and see the ones we will be keeping as there is way to many (makes the article look childish let alone hard to read ...I take it you guys know that were not supposed to sandwich text between pictures. So lets take a look at all 44 pics and talk about the ones that we should remove. Moxy (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue comes up from time to time. Two years or so ago (I would have to go through the talk page archives to find the discussion), there was a similar discussion of which images to keep, which images to lose. We came to a consensus, if I recall correctly, and everyone seemed happy.  But in the months that follow, contributors add their holiday pixs and other images to the article, often caring more about showcasing their images than in improving the quality of the article, and we end up back in the same place we were two years ago.  For the effort to be worthwhile, editors need to monitor the article afterwards -- not as image police, or anything, but just to make sure balance and other objectives are maintained, and disputes are resolved on the talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But images do seem out of hand, there appear to be way too many per section. Here's a list of some that I think are redundant per section: I wouldn't say that's all. Other than that, I still think each section should have the most important/relevant image, instead of trying to fit and downsize so many image that may deal with the topic they are kept under. Another problem is image repetition: The CN Tower viewed from Rogers Centre (originally called SkyDome) under Cityscape and Toronto Blue Jays host the Detroit Tigers at the Rogers Centre. from Culture are pretty much taken from the same spot in the Rogers Centre, while both may describe two different aspects. Maybe one of them can be removed or replaced with something different. One last problem is longer captions. In the The CN Tower viewed from Rogers Centre (originally called SkyDome) image, there's no need to state that Rogers Centre's former name was SkyDome, something that can be found out by a curious reader who actually visits the respective article. Not trying to be too picky but small things like this do a lot aesthetically (layout, length, readability, etc.) to the article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Toronto Harbour and Late spring scene in High Park, in Toronto's west end under Geography
 * Toronto at sunrise under Cityscape
 * Maple Leaf Gardens and Pods at Ontario Place, with the Cinesphere behind. under Culture
 * College Park under Economy
 * Old City Hall and Metro Hall under Government
 * The CN Tower viewed from Rogers Centre (originally called SkyDome) under Cityscape and St. Lawrence Market, historic Toronto market under Culture have been removed. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 14:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Even with 2 images removed there is still way too many images. High park pic (not needed), Allen Lambert Galleria pic (not needed), some of the 5 skyline pics (not needed), kensington market pic (not needed), college park pic (really not needed), Ontario place pic (not needed), Maple Leaf Gardens pic (not needed), CNE pic (not needed), Eaton Centre pic (not needed), Liberty Village pic (not needed), HTO park pic (not needed), Roy Thomson Hall pic (not needed), row houses pic (not needed), Metro Hall pic (not needed), 1 of the hospital pics (not needed).
 * None of these pics really add to the article very much. If someone isn't familiar with Toronto they really mean nothing. A downtown mall ? Big deal. A exhibition/fair ? Big deal. A forner arena that is now a grocery store ? Big deal...and so on.
 * Looking at North American cities with more landmarks and history than Toronto, they seem to have far less images.
 * Philadelphia = 25 images
 * New York City = 30 images (with gallery)
 * Montreal = 29 images
 * Chicago = 29 images
 * Toronto = 42 images !
 * I would remove atleast 5-10 more images from the article. And a montage may help move some of the relevant ones out of the body. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried removing nearly a dozen images about a year or two ago. Nearly all of them were restored within a few weeks. I agree with most of the above suggestions for removal, but I don't expect that they'll stay off the page for long if we do remove them. For the record, the pics I'd remove are: Spring in High Park (generic); Dundas & University in winter (poor quality); Cityscape (too big); building in Liberty Village (meh); Roy Thomson Hall (awkward angle); HTO Park (no value); Maple Leaf Gardens (distracting foreground); and BMO Field, Rogers CEntre, or both. Other images need replacement with better versions (eg - Highway 401, Old City Hall).Mindmatrix 15:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is follow-up. We reach consensus, clean-up the images, and then anyone with a vested interest in particular images restores them to the article, and nobody does anything.  We're at fault.  We used to have the same problem with the infobox image (there would be a discussion as to what image to use, the consensus choice would be implemented, three weeks later someone would ignore the consensus and replace the image with their holiday shot, no one would say anything, we'd have another discussion a year later, etc.) - a few editors just became a bit more diligent about requiring consensus before a change to the infobox image.  It's resulted in discussions ad nauseum on the talk page (mostly due to the montage issue), but the article is more stable.  The collection of images in the rest of the article is harder to monitor, but it's not impossible.  Editors should be vigilant that deleted images are not restored (absent agreement to do so on the talk page).  If new images are questionable, people should raise the issue on the talk page.  It's done for a lot of articles, and isn't out of the realm of possibility here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Late spring scene in High Park, in Toronto's west end in the Climate section has been removed. There are 41 images in the article now. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that there are fewer images now and we have a montage. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Toronto "the most expensive Canadian city in which to live"
This information is from 2006. I am quite sure that currently Vancouver is Canada's most expensive city to live in. How should this be taken care of? Should it be noted that Toronto's Canada's second-most expensive city? Or should it be omitted altogther, as the information may be considered extraneous, seeing as it's not something which Toronto is #1 in, and therefore not particularly notable... Knock-kneed (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a more recent source that supports your belief and then you can replace it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ROM
The ROM image had a caption stating "Royal Ontario Museum is Canada's largest and busiest museum". There is a city of Toronto reference which is plain incorrect. Attendance at ROM is around 1 million yearly. There are large national museums in Ottawa with attendance above 1.3 - 1.5 million yearly. The reference says it's Canada's largest. It doesn't say if that is floor space wise (which would be incorrect) or artifact wise (which is questionable). I have changed the caption to simply state that it is one of Canada's leading museums. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Final montage discussions
Montage with the 6 most agreed images, perhaps our final montage. What you guys think? EelamStyleZ (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks very good! I like how each row is evenly spaced out, and all of the images are a great representation of the city. I also like how you were able to fit the flags beside the Legislative Building. I hope we can reach a consensus with this montage. Either way, thanks for all of your hard work Eelam. Blackjays1 (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and thank you very very much Eelamstylez! Let's hope this makes everybody happy :) -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 06:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I like it - so it should be ! LOL good job!Moxy (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there a better quality image for that skyline picture? When you got to the full image for the montage all the photos are nice and crisp and clear, except the skyline (the image people would be most interested perhaps in seeing the details) and it's a noisy blurred mess. It really jars with the rest of them. I've no objections to the image contents (it's a little outdated perhaps), just the quality of it. Canterbury Tail   talk  12:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's just from some step along the line to the making of the montage. The original image is quite crisp and sexy. I agree though. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 15:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - not much of a surprise: it looks great Eelamstylez! I'd say it's an excellent presentation of Toronto and a good replacement for the current image paul (dex) (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Good work. I, too, hope that the quality can be improved for the skyline image. A.Roz (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. Blackjays1 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I would support it just to get a montage up after a lengthy debate. However I think the images could be better. When I think of Toronto I don't think of Casa Loma, Scarboro bluffs, or a unspectacular bridge. It seems like more of what people want to show, than what really defines Toronto. But either way, support. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - On the condition I mentioned above about having a crisper version of the Skyline image for inclusion. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, actually I agree with Canterbury Tail. The skyline image is quite small compared to the other images which are much much larger than the montage canvass even, which is why when stretching the skyline image out to make it fit in the montage it gets quite noisy and blurry. Nonetheless, I don't think we can find a better daytime image of the skyline (if we could use an evening skyline image I'd go with this. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The night-time skyline looks good, but I think we should keep the daytime theme going. How about this one ? Blackjays1 (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True about the daytime theme, but I don't find the angle of this image too pleasing. It's so centered on the CN Tower that part of downtown seems to be cut off. Both the CN Tower and the Financial District buildings should sort of balance the skyline. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the angle of the image is good, because it gives a better view of the financial district's skyscrapers, whereas the current skyline image sort of hides them behind a bunch of condos/hotels. Also, if you compare them, you'll see that nothing is cut off (the same buildings are there). Blackjays1 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I think the montage looks fantastic although I agree with everyone about the skyline. As for the two possible replacements. I prefer a day time image but that particular one looks kind of weird with the random man in a canoe. The night time image looks nice though. Nations United (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Though I wanted a multicultural image and a streetcar to represent the lived lives of Torontonians, the current montage looks good. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, Indeed, which is why I still think it's possible to add maybe one (or two) more images to the montage. The current images take up a lot of space. I don't disagree with our current montage, but it's just a thought. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the great comments everyone. We seem to have very strong support for this montage, despite a few suggestions. Does everyone agree with this montage replacing the current skyline image on the article, or should the suggestions from above be addressed first? EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, I would once again like to thank you for all the hard work you put into this montage. As for adding more images I really think we should keep it as it is. We agreed to these pictures only so we should keep it like that. Besides, there really isn't a good photo of multiculturalism and many, including myself, strongly oppose the streetcar. The only suggestion I have is to fix the minor issue with the skyline. Other than that I absolutely support using this montage. Nations United (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Skyline issue can certainly be fixed if anyone could find a skyline image similar to the one we have with better resolution. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I still like the original choice but if we do want to change it, here are my choices:


 * This may be a little too dark


 * This one is kind of old but it's nice


 * This one is also nice


 * What does everyone think? Nations United (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also left a photo on the Flickr page for the photograph currently used. Hopefully the user checks it and has the original photo. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 03:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the first image up there is simply gorgeous and picture perfect. There's nothing blocking the view of the Rogers Centre's dome. EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't really see any issues with the initial skyline image - I think it looks very beautiful and unmistakably Toronto; I don't see issues with any of the new images suggested either - they're all quite appealing and unmistakable also - this is our skyline no matter what angle you see it from. In the day time image the skyline looks fine but the canoe takes the focus (that distraction can be easily cropped out). I think the main problem is that all other images in the montage "look" sharp because they have a very strong subject; whatever skyline image will be chosen, when shrunk down to the montage size it will probably have the same issue, and I'm thinking it would take too much time and work for Eelam to make montages for all suggestions. The only other thing I noticed was that, visually, the 2 lower images seem to be bigger in hight than the skyline, but the actual hight is exactly the same (if not a bit smaller) and then I thought I might be nit-picking so I didn't mention it. Regardless, I find all skylines suitable for this, and I wish everyone will be happy with a decision or at least find a way to compromise without feeling totally disappointed because a lot of people provided excellent feedback. paul (dex) (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Eelam, if you can crop out the canoe in the image Paul provided, then you should definitely use that photo for the skyline image. If not, then I think we should just use the original. No one really opposes using it. Also, if you think it's a good idea, you may want to make the last two images smaller. Nations United (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, I thought the same about the two bottom images. I made sure that they both matched the height of the skyline image, though, so I hope it's not too noticeable. Also, I was recommending this image to be used for the montage. I do agree that a daytime theme could be nice, but at the same time, why not throw in an image during a different time of day rather than keeping it monotonous? NYC, London, and Vancouver don't just use daytime shot in theirs. Also, this skyline clearly shows the Rogers Centre's upper dome (users disliked an individual image of Rogers Centre due to it's concrete base, which can't be seen in this). I'm sure you all agree that the Rogers Centre is an important part of Toronto's skyline (as is Opera House to Sydney and the Olympic Stadium to Montreal) and I'm hopefull to have a skyline image that clearly shows it without any obstruction in the foreground. Any rejections to this suggestion? EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Eelam, the one you like has a very nice green glow that adds a certain charm, makes it somewhat unusual and outstanding. I definitely agree about the Rogers Centre being a big part of the scape and a solid icon for the city, but in this image it doesn't have as much contrast as the other buildings on the right or CN Tower - I'm seeing the small versions of all images in thumbnail view (Win 7) and I think we'll end up with somewhat of an outline of the city which is perfectly fine to me. Out of all of them I favor the current one because in the smaller version it provides the best details for all buildings and the nice sky on the top left changes to light clouds that help with the contrast. To me the time of day doesn't make much of a difference as long as the images are appealing; I'd call a "night-time" image one that has a dark sky and the contours of the buildings would mostly be implied by their lights and not actual edges. In terms of appeal from our list my top 3 pics would be 1. the current image, 2. the green glow, and 3. evening shot. paul (dex) (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with any of the images suggested, but my favourite still has to be that day time image. Of course with the canoe cropped out. I know the Rogers Centre is very important but this skyline is recent and shows many buildings that the green glow image doesn't. As for the evening shot, if I'm not mistaken, I think we already have it in the article. Nations United (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm also fine with our current skyline image. But I still find the green glow image a "complete" image of the skyline. I can always replace the current skyline image to any skyline image we find better. Anyone think I should do that? (By the way, thank you so much for the barnstar Nations United! :). EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome Eelam. You deserve it. I too am fine with the current skyline. Although, as I said before, I still think the day time image looks better (without the canoe). I've stated my reasons why above. What do you think? Nations United (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So far, three of us (including myself) would like to use the daytime image. Anyone else agree? Eelam, maybe you could upload another sample of the montage with this image, as long as there's enough support. Blackjays1 (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree; if it's not too much trouble. Although, I only support this photo if the canoe is removed. Nations United (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional support: As long as the canoe is digitally removed, I would support the image. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the canoe should be removed. Blackjays1 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So canoe skyline it is (without the canoe of course). Will be uploaded later tommorow! EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Make sure that when you remove it, there is no evidence of the canoe. That can be done by cropping out the canoe or inpainting out the canoe with lake water by using the content-aware fill tool from Adobe Photoshop CS5 (the newest version) or the downloadable "Resynthesizer" plug-in from the GIMP. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

✅, three montages have been uploaded for your viewing, two of which contain the latest decided skyline image. Montage 6 has the "green glow" skyline as its skyline image (made and uploaded just for comparison). Montage 7 has the daytime/canoe skyline image that has the man with canoe portion cropped out of the image. Montage 8 has the daytime/canoe skyline image that has the man with canoe portion taken out using the content aware fill tool of Adobe Photoshop CS5. Choose your favourite! EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In 6 I like the unusual tones and reflections, and Rogers is there too; 8 looks nice, but in 7 the montage itself looks more balanced overall and the skyline shows great details. Appreciate your time again Eelam - makes it much easier to compare. paul (dex) (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support #7. Once again, great job! The #7 image has much less emphasis on the lake, compared to #8 (the Bluffs image shows enough of the lake). Also, the cropped close-up of the skyline, and the glare of the sun on the buildings truly make this image stand out. Blackjays1 (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support 7. The buildings frame the skyline photo much better. Though the green skyline was good in theory, seeing it up against the other pictures really makes the picture too muddy for me (to use a term reserved for sounds). Great work and thank you! -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support #7 As I said before, I thought that this image would definitely look the best. The green skyline looks good on its own but when put into the montage, it just doesn't look right. I prefer number seven over number eight because, like everyone else, it looks much better with less emphasis of the lake. I think we finally have our winner. Excellent work Eelam! Thank you very much. Nations United (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support #7: It has no "green" sky as in #6 and emphasizes the skyline much better than #8 (there is still that artifact that the canoe left behind in it as well in #8, which is cropped out in #7). Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I appreciate the great comments guys, thank you. Also, I agree there is some evidence that something has been digitally removed in Montage 8 when looking at the colour of the lake. I tried to get them to blend in, without success I guess. So Montage 7 it is then? Anyone who feels it's about time to put it up in the article may do so. EelamStyleZ (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. If anybody objects to this image then feel free to revert until a stronger consensus is built. However, it seems that everyone is levitating towards #7. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the montage should be 75% of the original size, so that it can load up faster (but would not lose quality, since the image on the main article is much smaller anyways). Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Good work everyone. I (good-naturedly) disagree with Floydian's comment above, however, where he states: "If anybody objects to this image then feel free to revert until a stronger consensus is built". I know that he was only being cautious and diplomatic, but we shouldn't diminish the value of the process that has just been undertaken. This exercise was textbook consensus-building - consensus was achieved at each and every step in the process. We shouldn't be inviting individuals to revert because they do not like the legitimate results of a lengthy process. It wasn't that long ago that the infobox image was being changed unilaterally so often that a previous consensus was reached that the image should not be changed absent a discussion on the talk page. If anyone disagrees with the decision here, they are free to raise it here on the talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with Sleezix. I'm not sure if there is a problem with my computer, but I cannot see the montage and there is no picture at all. Also, on my iPad, the photo is also not visible. Can anyone help me with this? I have no idea why this is even happening. Nations United (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem. As I said earlier, that problem can be fixed if the original image is shrunken (but not too much), such that it takes up less time to load up. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 22:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having the same problem; can't see the latest montages here or the one in the article. It's probably a server issue again - the users liked our result so much that they overloaded the system paul (dex) (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, and I thought it was just my Internet connection (LOL). Should the image size be reduced? EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when you shrink the image, ensure that the image remains the same quality on the infobox. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, Congratulations everyone, we have our own new montage! EelamStyleZ (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Toronto's Pre-contact history
I'd like to suggest the following reference to the first sentence in 1.1.:
 * See R. F. Williamson, ed., Toronto: An Illustrated History of its First 12,000 Years (Toronto: James Lorimer, 2008), ch. 2, with reference to the Mantle Site.

Williamson, a well-respected Toronto archeologist, is the author of ch. 2 ("Before the Visitors") and makes frequent reference to the Mantle Site in his account of Toronto's pre-contact history. Neufast (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference is good. You can use material from that book for the History of Toronto article, which is in need of significant expansion and citations. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 14:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll start with this first reference. The Williamson book is an reliable and accessible resource for that brief first section on Toronto's history.Neufast (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, but please improve the History of Toronto article, as for the past few months, I am the only editor for the article, making only minor edits. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is the History of Toronto so rarely edited? It needs more sources, but I do not have the sources. It also reads like a high school assignment. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Population rank in north america mis-leading statement
The following statement "With over 2.5 million residents, it is the seventh most populous municipality in North America." Is very mis-leading with 2.5 million people Toronto's city population would rank fifth (or 6th depending on the inclusion of the Dominican Republic as part of North America) in North America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_North_America Duhon (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article actually contradicts itself in the Demographics section, where it states that Toronto is the fifth-largest municipality. The sentence does link to the list of the largest urban agglomerations in North America, which correctly lists Toronto's as the seventh-largest, but the sentence must be changed to make it less misleading. The only question is, how? Blackjays1 (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bills
I would say the fact that the Bills are playing just 5 games in Toronto means that it does not warrant being mentioned. This section is about describing Toronto's sports teams and sports in the city. The Bills games are therefore comparatively insignificant. Canking (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot comment on it now, but this is quite debatable. We should reach consensus before we keep or remove this first.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 19:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Bills regularly have played games in Toronto should be mentioned (on the Buffalo Bills article as well). Individual spurts of games held here don't warrant mention. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 02:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Most Diverse City
"As a result, the city was recognized by UNESCO as the most ethnically-diverse city in the world."

This is, in fact, a famous myth. Debunked here:

http://ceris.metropolis.net/policymatter/2004/policymatters11.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.211.2 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes. This tidbit has been removed before, but keeps being re-introduced. We also have a note about this at factoid.Mindmatrix 14:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is a myth. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 04:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fourth Best City To Live In
Please add that Toronto has been rated the Fourth best city to live in. In the world!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities#World.27s_Most_Livable_Cities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.132.38 (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is already mentioned (implied). Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Schools in lead
The lead reads "It is also a major centre of education and research, home to the University of Toronto, Ryerson University, and York University amongst other universities and colleges". It started off saying only mentioning the UofT, then York was added, now Ryerson. This seems to be biased towards the Universities not to also mention Seneca, Centennial, Humber, and George Brown. Maybe it should just read: "It is also a major centre of education and research, home to several universities and colleges". What does everyone think ? UrbanNerd (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Either mention UofT alone (not to take anything away from the other schools, but it has a global profile that the others do not), or do not mention any of them.  Once you start listing them, it's hard not to start listing all post-secondary institutions, and that's not something that needs to be done in the lead.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would revert to the version that only mentions UofT, as it is well-known internationally, whereas the others are not. Otherwise, simply remove all examples per your suggestion, as there's no need to have a list in the lead.Mindmatrix 18:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sort of saw this late. I reverted it to just U of T as soon as I saw the long list of universities. U of T is worth mentioning alone because of its notability in Canada and the world (usually 1st in Canada and typically among top 20 or 30 in the world). The lead is no place for detail of any sort. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure just mentioning UofT is the correct path. This implies that the other universities and colleges in the city are somehow inferior and gives UofT a false sense of prestigiousness. I believe removing all school names is the only way to have the statement remain neutral. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My alma mater may be the University of Toronto, but I believe that it should not be given undue importance. Either post-secondary institutions are not mentioned or all must be mentioned in the lead. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 14:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think U of T should get the exception, being the only Ivy league school in the (AFAIK) the province. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 15:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ontario does not have any Ivy League schools. The Ivy League is a group of prestigious private schools. U of T, along with the other universities and colleges in the province are public schools. It's hard to prove how one public school is more prestigious than another. U of T has been around longer and may have a larger endowment than the others, but that doesn't make it "better". UrbanNerd (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So what? The U of T is much more notable institution than any other in Toronto and arguably in Canada. It's the top-ranking Canadian university and happens to have a huge endowment, long history, large library volumes, and list of notable scholars and alumni. It takes up a lot of space at the heart of the city and also two other campuses. Let's be objective. A.Roz (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So your implying York, Ryerson, Seneca, Centennial, Humber, and George Brown do not have a list of notable scholars and alumni ? And although some residents of Toronto may think this public school is prestigious, I would argue many people outside of the Ontario have never even heard of it. You say "It's the top-ranking Canadian university", which I'm not sure if you just made up or if you're referring to a certain source, but these rankings are a dime a dozen and change order regularly. The point is no one school should be highlighted. Seems a bit POV. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

While I can't say that I have a strong preference either way, I don't believe it's POV to mention UofT, as it is ranked in the top 30 internationally by two of the three most recognized rankings (including the Times Higher Education rankings, which are widely considered the most pretigious), and is ranked first nationally by Maclean's. Whatever one thinks of these rankings (and like any other set of rankings, they are routinely debated), the international ones are given a fair amount of weight in academia and the international press. The lead itself is full of references to various types of rankings (as are articles on large cities generally), so obviously there is no impediment to relying on rankings. While the other schools in Toronto have incredible strengths, they simply do not have the international profile and reputation that UofT has. These are the facts. Mentioning UofT in the lead no more diminishes Toronto's other excellent schools than mentioning the 5 banks in the lead dimishes the rest of Toronto's corporate sector. I note that the NYC article mentions in the lead the three universities in that city that are internationally ranked, even though NYC has 100+ post-secondary institutions within its borders. If a decision is made not to mention UofT, it should be because it's an unnecessary level of detail for the lead, not because of undue importance or POV. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it is receiving undue importance by being the only school mentioned. It's a public school. That's like saying 45th street public school is more prestigious than Riverside public school because they have a bigger budget and more people have heard of it. UofT is not prestigious, it's tuition and entry requirements are comparable to the other schools. UofT has an endowment $1.4 billion for 45,000 full time undergrad/grad students. In comparison Harvard (which is a prestigious Ivy League school) has an endowment of $27.4 billion 21,000 full time undergrad/grad students. Half the number of students with 20 times the endowment. There is no doubt UofT is a good school, but it's not this prestigious Ivy League school some will try and make it out to be. But in the end it doesn't really matter what is chosen for the lead, I didn't attend any of these public schools. I just think it's a little funny is all. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Public universities can be among the best institutions of higher education, with the prestige that comes with being among the best. American schools have higher endowments, but U of T is a very high-ranking school. A.Roz (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * UrbanNerd, you're engaging in your own ranking exercising and setting up your own benchmarks. That's an WP:OR exercise.  We can do nothing other than to look at the facts. The simple fact here is that the school is ranked very highly on an international basis in the rankings that matter. Although it's always tempting to do so, it's not up to us to start discussing our personal views on respective endowment funds and the like.  There is a clear and demonstrable reason to mention UofT separately in the lead.  The real issue is whether needs to get into that level of detail about higher education in this city.  On that issue, I have no real opinion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm doing any original research by stating that UofT is not an Ivy League school, or a prestigious private institution, it is simply another public university. It may be highly ranked as a med school, but Ryerson is highly ranked in journalism. There's no question that it's a good school, ranked well, with a decent endowment, but it just doesn't make sense to give it undue weight. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We aren't unless we state something that gives it undue weight. Putting it in the lead is in no way stating that its more or less important that many fine institutions across the GTA. However, it should mention that University of Toronto, the highest ranked university in Canada, has three campuses located throughout the city, including the downtown campus which occupies a significant portion of the central business district. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's arguably a level of detail that doesn't belong in the lead. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe McGill is the best med school in the country. You see this is where problems arise. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * UrbanNerd, nobody is suggesting (or should be suggesting) we say in the lead that UofT is an ivy league school or a private university. It is one of the top ranked schools in the world. That's a fact .  What any of us think about the school, or think about Ryerson's journalism program or McGill's med school is utterly irrelevant.  The question is: should it be mentioned in the lead that Toronto has one of the world's top ranked universities?  Yes or no.  It isn't up to us to debate whether we think UofT ought to be so ranked (which is the OR issue).  It simply is.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Skeezix makes fine points there. I think the only reason to exclude U of T is that it might be unnecessary detail for the lead, but, U of T has a level of notability that those other (fine) schools simply do not have.  U of T's public or private status is entirely irrelevant. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that to resolve this issue, I believe that if we include the University of Toronto, then it is only fair to add the other post-secondary institutions. It is only fair. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But why is that only fair? Who are we trying to be fair to?  The other schools?  It's not unfair to rely on the facts. If you look at the articles on NYC and LA, they note their top-ranked schools, and don't mention the others.  The point of the lead is to mention the most important aspects of the city, and a university that ranks in the top 30 is arguably one such aspect - the other schools, while very good, aren't so recognized.  Now, it's also a fair argument to say that UofT's ranking is not important enough to merit inclusion in the lead, and I can see the merits of that argument.  It's our job to present the reliable and sourced facts, not to be choosing content based on perceived equity to outside players.  If we chose the content for the lead on the basis of "if we mention one thing, then we have to mention everything that is alike", then there is a boat-load of content that we need to shoehorn into this lead and into the leads of other city articles.  Personally, I don't really care whether UofT is mentioned in the lead or not.  I just think people are focused on red herrings while they debate this issue.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Who cares about fairness? I mean seriously, the fairness argument is not one.  Either leave U of T in, which I prefer, or remove all mentions of the University names.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point is quite close, yet so far. Either the mention of University of Toronto has to go or all of the post-secondary institutions have to be mentioned.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 12:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But why? Where does that principle come from?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (And as an aside, I have no idea what is meant by your edit summaries, Johnny. And the template at the top of the discussion is odd.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC))
 * I have to agree with JohnyAu, if the lead is to mention UofT's notability as a top 50 med school, it's only fair to mention Yorks notability as a top 20 business school, or Ryerson, Seneca, Centennial, and George Browns ranking in their specialties. It's only fair UrbanNerd (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * U of T is ranked highly as a whole, not just individual programmes. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * it's irrelevant which survey ranks which school and how. They are all highly ranked highly in their own way. This is something that can be elaborated on in the education section, not the lead. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the sake of this, I guess it's appropriate to leave U of T out of it to prevent detail. However, without prejudice, I think it's okay to mention U of T, only to justify the claim "major centre of higher education and research". I may be part of U of T as well but I would consider the same even if York or Ryerson were "better" (i.e. more recognized) than U of T. Certainly, we simply cannot mention all universities, or, all universities and colleges, in the lead. Otherwise, is it possible to create a new page for universities and colleges, such as Universities and colleges in Toronto or Post-secondary institutions in Toronto, and link it in the lead? EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We will have to settle with no mentions of specific post-secondary institutions in the lead then. It is less confusing and does not give undue weight to any specific post-secondary institutions. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a fine resolution, although I think that the right decision was made for the wrong reasons (I'm just repeating myself here, but no one has explained how mentioning UofT is "unfair" or is "undue weight"). But no matter - it's the end result/consensus that counts.  I am, however, still perplexed by the unusual accusations in the edit summaries of unconstructive editors, uncivility, personal attacks and using this page as a soapbox.  I didn't have strong opinion either way on mentioning UofT (I simply questioned some of the rationale that was being advanced), but I do have strong opinions when someone starts making troubling accusations such as those.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post virtually the same thing skeezix. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This topic seems to generate so much uncivil debate, generally against Dbrodbeck. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * huh? You must be referring to that vandal, I don't think I would worry much about an IP vandal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was asking, because I thought that this topic may be controversial. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I now see that there was a vandal posting some crazy comments. It was very kind of you to delete those and it is much appreciated.  You may want to be more precise in your edit summaries, so nobody else mistakenly thinks you are accusing them of anything.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is obvious vandalism, and I am a rollbacker, so I simply used the rollback feature. In addition, I also warned the user in their talk page. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 23:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody disputes that. The problem is that it wasn't obvious to everyone that your edit summary and tag were intended for the vandal.  That's all.  Not a big deal.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I think that we should go back to discussing schools in lead, not vandalism within this topic's discussion. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I think that discussion is done. I think it was a fair question of me to ask why you seemed to be accusing the participants here of lack of civility, etc.  I was mistaken, but that sort of clarification is really important (for obvious reasons).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Source for Toronto having most corporate headquarters in Canada
As requested by Eelamstylez. Time for dinner, so I'll let someone else deal with formatting/insertion. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 23:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC) ✅ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sporting clubs
I removed the Lingerie Football League from the list of sports teams, after it was put in by an anon. And I've be reverted myself. So, what do others think. I feel the LFL isn't recognized as a serious sports team, and isn't that notable generally (though it does have national coverage), and so doesn't warrant a listing with other teams. Rob (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a niche sports league at best and therefore does not warrant a mention. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Major centre for education
Lately, I found it hard to agree with this statement in the lead. Even Montreal has a greater number of higher educational institutions. Perhaps it could be replaced with a better remark, such as PwC claiming it to be the second best city in the world to do business? EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be updated. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Toronto Rock championships
Can you put that Toronto Rock has 6 championships now? Stanley2toronto (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 19:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Toronto's Population
According to Statistics Canada, it appears that the population of metropolitan Toronto is currently 5 741 400 (http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.204.44 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Yes, but per WP:WikiProject Canadian communities, we use 2006 census figures until the 2011 census figures are published. In addition, metropolitan Toronto is not the same as the Greater Toronto Area, which itself is not the same as the Toronto CMA.  This article is on Toronto proper, which excludes much of the Toronto CMA, which Statistics Canada uses.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.49.228.133, 5 June 2011
Under Health and medicine, the paragraph beginning "Several years ago, Toronto was reported as having longer wait times...." should be deleted, as it is no longer accurate nor relevant.

66.49.228.133 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * . Presumably the study is still accurate for its time period. If there is up-to-date, reliable data that shows it's no longer accurate, please indicate so. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Gallery
I see a gallery with three images has been added to the article. Considering WP:IG and the images it currently has, is a gallery necessary? EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No not at all - we have a very nice set up for this things at Wikicommoms that is linked. As per MOS:IMAGES "Use to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible." Moxy (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Galleries are by no means prohibited by WP:IG, but unorganized galleries of random images (like this one) are certainly strongly discouraged. They become dumping grounds for people trying to shoehorn their personal photos into articles.  While well-organized and themed galleries are often appropriate (e.g. "History of Toronto by decade"), they tend not to work very well for articles on large cities as the galleries can become (even if properly scoped) overly large.  Thus the handy link to Commons works so much better. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, the section shall be removed. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Car5445, 12 June 2011
Please update all references to Toronto population -- all references currently use 2006 Census data, which given Toronto's very fast growth rate is extremely out of date.

Please replace "TORONTO CENSUS METROPOLITAN AREA POPULATION 5,113,149" with "5,731,400 (2010)" Source: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm

Please replace "GREATER TORONTO AREA POPULATION 5,555,912" with "6,226,900 (2010)" Source: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/table6.html

Car5445 (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Yes, but per WP:WikiProject Canadian communities, we use 2006 census figures until the 2011 census figures are published. We do not use projections, as they constitute synthesis and crystal-balling.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody's half-American
Not really sure if it belongs here, but there was a Toronto steam tractor maker, American-Abell Engine and Thresher Company. If somebody knows more...? (All I've got is a pic of a museum placard describing one of the products: a 24 tonne monster that burned 2.3 tonnes of coal a day!)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, formerly Toronto-based Massey Ferguson is also half-American. We should add images of both Toronto-based steam tractors.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 21:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Outdated photo
I think the panorama photo of the downtown core from the cn tower is seriously outdated. It should be relabeled with the date it was taken (around 2000) or replaced with a newer photo. The growth Toronto has sustained over the last decade needs to be portrayed in current photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.28.32 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. There should be more panoramic photos of the downtown core from the CN Tower, but they cannot be copyrighted.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So yes, somebody please remove the very old downtown panorama photo from the cn tower or relabel it. It gives the wrong impression to people who have never seen Toronto before and lacks a lot of new architecture that has modernized our skyline. Most of what is built in the photo was built by 1990. Many buildings over 200 meteres are missing. To call it our current skyline is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.28.32 (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The photo is dated from 2004. The people who created the image are probably inactive.  Here is the meta-information about the photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_panorama.jpg  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

History of Toronto side navbox
I have a question about this template. Do we really need Template:History of Toronto to be a side navbox? It really digs into articles and takes up too much space, pushing other images placed on the right further away from their intended sections. It also takes up extra space on really small articles, like the Great Fire of Toronto (1904) and the Toronto Purchase. EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a big fan of side navboxes, so no, it need not be a side navbox, nor is it required here in this article. We can't add every Toronto template to the main article.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the side navbox can stay, but not in the Toronto article. The discussion should be here: Template talk:History of Toronto. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a side navbox fan either. I believe it should be a footer navbox, or it can stay as a side navbox, but not be kept in this article (i.e. only in articles pertaining to Toronto's history). Also, I brought this topic here since my concern was about having the template in this article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you, EelamStyleZ, since the template being in the main Toronto article is taking up too much space and may not be too relevant. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, shall we remove it from the article or keep this discussion open to more suggestions? EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree no need for it here - just as with other cities (Ottawa) - this template is only seem on the HISTORY pages - not the main overview article page as all the links should be linked alre4ady.Moxy (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

✅ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011
The entry under architecture for number of highrises is incorrect:

Toronto is a city of high-rises, having over 2,000 buildings over 90 m, second only to New York City (which has over 5,000 such buildings) in North America.

There are three issues with this reference. Emporis defines a highrise as 12 floors or more, not 90 meters. Secondly, the emporis list includes un-built and destroyed buildings. Lastly, emporis is grossly out of date and user edited so it is not a reliable source.

The text should read as follows:

Toronto is a city of high-rises, having 1,800 buildings over 30 m, second only to New York City (which has over 5,000 such buildings) in North America.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.236.99 (talk)
 * seems reasonalb eand cited - ✅ - Youreallycan (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

== Golden Horseshoe population statistics in the Toronto Page Out of Sync  with the Golden Horseshoe page. Statistical Data should only be stored in one place. Propose mechanism to mitigate this type of issue. ==

Which page is correct? There are some references on the Toronto page to the Golden Horseshoe region that states the GH's population as being around 8.1 million people. Then if you click the link to the Golden Horseshoe page, it gives its population as 6 million.

This is the problem with trying to give information that belongs somewhere else. The Golden Horseshoe article should be the article of record for that region's statistics. i.e. the Toronto page shouldn't give populations for that regions because the data will always eventually get out of sync. How are people editing the GH's info to know that editors of pages linking to it have also copied the data to those other pages, and now they need to be updated too (answer is they won't, that's why this is a bad practice). A link to the other article should suffice.

The only other option that I can see to avoid these issues would work is if the Wikipedia developers created a mechanism that allowed statistics to be recorded once and somehow linked to from multiple pages. So for example the Golden Horseshoe article could store the population etc. and if an editor of the Toronto article wanted to display the same data (e.g. the population of the GH), that editor would inline a one way link to the Golden Horseshoe's statistic stored by the GH editor(i.e. without it being a hyperlink... the link is from the data, but you can't click on it in the TO page). That way the data would be stored in one place so any updates are reflected everywhere it is used. Otherwise, like I said it should be removed and only available from the article of record.

I could delete the info myself right now but I haven't been involved that much in this important page so wanted to post this info first so that those more involved can comment. Bottom line is that I believe numbers relating to other areas' statistics should only be listed in those other pages, and removed from this one's in order to keep consistency of information.

Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshowmecanuck (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Temperature table in the Climate section
I was looking at the Climate table in the Geography section, and wanted to double check the average January temperature in preparation for a trip next month to Toronto, so I went to the source, and the link was dead. After entering the citation title (Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000". Environment Canada) into Google, I was taken to the same publisher, where after entering in "Ontario" and then "Toronto", I was brought to the updated page here, since I would've preferred updating the same publisher instead of finding a new one, which might necessitate changing all the figures. However, even though I found that same source, as indicated by the domain and page title, the January daily average is different. Whereas the article gives it as -1.1 C or 30 F, the source gives it as 4.2 C, which the conversion widget on my computer says is 24 F. This despite the fact that it's same source, and the dates given for this data the same (1971-2000), and for the same city, Toronto. I don't know if I did something wrong, or if this means that the figures are updated, and that the ones in the article are out of date, but if it's the latter, I thought I'd point this out to regular editors of this article, in case anyone else wants to double-check it and fix it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Toronto Ultimate Club addition
Hello, I would like to add some information and a little history about Toronto Ultimate (disc sport) to the sports section in the article Toronto

Reference http://tuc.org/History/TUC-History

Today the Toronto Ultimate Club is one of the largest Ultimate clubs in the world, with thousands of players and hundreds of teams participating every season and on most days of the week, on various fields (indoor and outdoor) throughout the year. We are a not-for-profit organization that was officially incorporated in 1995. The Club is comprised of 3 full time managers, a strong Board of Directors who represent the membership, and over 100 volunteers who make the TUC successful.Thank youAudra454 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Toronto Ultimate Club does not have an article yet. Please come back when it has an article and survive WP:CSD and/or WP:AFD.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2011
Under the Economy section of this article it states that the unemployment rate in Toronto in November 2010 was 6.7%. This is inaccurate. The unemployment rate in Toronto in November 2010, according to Statistics Canada, was 8.3%. In recession ravaged Southern Ontario, it is logically and highly unlikely that the unemployment rate was only 6.7% in November 2010. Here is the link to the correct and accurate information provided by Statistics Canada: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/lfss04f-eng.htm

Please correct this information.

Madelimek (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Population of "metropolitan area"
There are a few fixable problems with the article's treatment of Toronto's larger population counts now that the 2011 census figures are out. First, the introduction states "With over 2.6 million residents, it is the fifth most populous city in North America. Its metropolitan area with over 5.5 million residents is the seventh largest urban region in North America." The first item links to a page which confirms the stat given, but the second links to a page in which only 2005 numbers are given and Toronto appears at No. 5, not No. 7. The information there appears to based on the GTA (not Toronto CMA) population numbers, and from the 2006, not 2011, census. This needs to be fixed somehow, as there is currently no cited basis for considering Toronto the "7th largest urban region in North America." Further, there is question of whether Toronto should be ranked based on the GTA's overall population or just the Toronto CMA, given the use of the words "urban region" in the statement and "urban agglomeration" in the cited list. I should also note that the standard for other North American cities on these pages appears somewhat inconsistent with how Stats Can counts the CMA (they appear to use much larger areas). I can't make any changes to the Toronto article as I'm a new user and this is a protected page. Claroche 17:46 February 2012
 * That will be done. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add to the debate here about Toronto's "Metropolitan Area population." Yes, it's true, the Statistics Canada site says that Toronto has 5.5 million residents; but as was noted by Claroche, Statistics Canada has very odd definitions of "metropolitan area." For example, it fails to include Oshawa as a suburb of Toronto, instead claiming Oshawa as its own metropolis with Whitby and Clarington as suburbs. I don't know anyone in Toronto, or any other source other than Statistics Canada for that matter, who thinks Oshawa is its own separate metropolis, as opposed to a suburb of Toronto. Now Oshawa on the Statcan site has a metro area pop of 356,177. Some simple math gets us to 5,939,241.

Now the real debateable point is whether Hamilton is a suburb or not. You'll get some who say yes, some who say no, mostly Hamiltonians who are trying to defend the integrity of their own city. You'll also note that a number of lists on Wikipedia already include Hamilton as part of Toronto such as this (out of date) list. Other lists like this one do not. (Really it's somewhat amusing to see how every list has its own number.) At any rate, I think Hamilton ought to be included, and Hamilton's CMA would add 721,053, bringing the total up to 6,660,294.

Whether you choose to include Hamilton or not, I don't think there would be much support to retain the currently listed 5,583,064 figure, because as I have stated above, Oshawa is widely considered a part of Toronto and is only excluded by Statistics Canada, for reasons unknown. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC))


 * After looking at the opening few paragraphs of the Toronto article, I noticed that it stated that the Greater Toronto Area has a population of 6,054,191. Based on the above figures I am assuming this is the Toronto CMA, plus the Oshawa CMA and Burlington.  At any rate, how is the "Greater Toronto Area" NOT the metro area population of Toronto?  So as per the above comment and this comment, I am requesting that Toronto's Metro Area Population be changed to 6,054,191. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

This section is incorrect: "With over 2.6 million residents, it is the fifth most populous city in North America. Its metropolitan area has 5.84 million residents.[2] Toronto is at the heart of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).". Instead it should read: "With over 2.6 million residents, it is the fifth most populous city in North America. Toronto is at the heart of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) which has a population in excess of 6 million. The problem is with the use of the words "metropolitan area" to erroneously refer to the "Census Metropolitan Area" which a) nobody really uses b) is DIFFERENT than Greater Toronto Area (which IS commonly used). There is already a definition for "Metropolitan Toronto", but it is rather antiquated since amalgamation. 70.29.82.70 (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Small error under "Cityscape"
The caption of the panoramic image reads: "The Toronto Islands and the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport on Lake Ontario are visible on the left side of the image while buildings of Downtown Toronto are visible on the left." It should read: "The Toronto Islands and the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport on Lake Ontario are visible on the left side of the image while buildings of Downtown Toronto are visible on the right. I don't have authorization to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deverezieaux (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no! Downtown is on the left and Humber Bay is on the right, with the Island Airport being sort of right of centre. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops!' Look before you leap. I didn't see the full 360. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 May 2012
Please delete international relations section. This is meaningless filler.

206.248.177.117 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 06:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think only a link to the subpage is necessary, and I've tried removing the content several times in the past. Someone keeps re-introducing it.Mindmatrix 14:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

✅ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Redundant text in Introduction
Upon editing a typo out of the sentence which mentions the Golden Horseshoe, I noticed that our introduction to Toronto's demographics (that is, the part on T's demos in the intro) may be somewhat repetitive. In the text below, we give the city population, then a general metro population, then the G.H. population, then back the metro population (made more specific this time), and finally to the GTA population. There are two problems here: first, the figures jump around quite a bit, without any obvious logic to the order. Second, we mention the CMA population twice - -the first time more generally, the second time in specific. I wonder if we should re-order this so it goes from smallest to biggest, or, after giving the city pop, the other way around. The text in question:

With over 2.6 million residents, it is the fifth most populous city in North America. Its metropolitan area has over 5.5 million residents. Toronto is at the heart of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), and is part of a densely populated region in Southern Ontario known as the Golden Horseshoe, which has a population of nearly 9 million people as of 2011.[2][3][4] The census metropolitan area (CMA) had a population of 5,583,064,[5] and the Greater Toronto Area had a population of 6,054,191 in the 2011 Census.[6] Its cosmopolitan and international population[7] reflects its role as an important destination for immigrants to Canada.[8] Toronto is one of the world's most diverse cities by percentage of non-native-born residents, with about 49% of the population born outside Canada.[7][8][9] Toronto is also consistently rated as one of the world's most livable cities by the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Mercer Quality of Living Survey.[10][11] Claroche 15:15 May 2012  —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Thank you for clearing the redundancy. Next time, please remember to sign at the end of each post by using four tildes like this: ~ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made any changes to the article -- just finding out if there's some logic to that paragraph that I am failing to see. Thanks for the tip. 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Claroche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.139.126 (talk)

Please consider removing any instances of the words "metropolitan area" unless speaking specifically about "CMA (Census Metropolitan Area)" -in which case it should be used carefully to avoid confusion with "Metropolitan Toronto" which since amalgamation simply means the City of Toronto (and ONLY the City of Toronto).

Also, please consider adding the caveat at the top of the page that this page for "Toronto" is not to be confused with "The Greater Toronto Area". You might also include the caveat that it's not to be confused with "The Census metropolitan Area of Toronto", but that IMHO is less relevant/important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.82.70 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC) 70.29.82.70 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Education Section
This is my first ever post so please excuse my lack of proper format or structure. There are two errors in the Education section list of fifteen well known private schools and College of Toronto.

The first error is listing Ridley College, which is located in St. Catherines, Ontario, over 100km away from Toronto. While it is an excellent school, it doesn't belong in a list of Toronto schools.

The second error is listing College of Toronto. The website for the College of Toronto school is very sparse and looks like small institution aimed strictly at foreign students. There are numerous small private schools in Toronto, mostly legitimate institutions, and some that are of dubious credentials aimed at overseas students looking for Canadian high school diploma for easier access to Canadian universities. This school sounds like the latter. As support, I offer the Canadian Accredited Independent Schools website www.cais.ca as a source of accredited and recognized prep schools. You will find all the other schools in the list belong to this organization. The same schools are all also members of the Conference of Independent Schools (www.cisontario.ca)

There are also numerous private university-preparatory schools, such as Bayview Glen School, Bishop Strachan School, Branksome Hall, College of Toronto, Crescent School, De La Salle College, Greenwood College School, Havergal College, Ridley College, Royal St. George's College, St. Clement's School, St. Michael's College School, Toronto French School, University of Toronto Schools, Upper Canada College, and The York School.

Ml1967 (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 04:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed all these schools which are already listed in Education in Toronto. They are just not important enough to overload this section of the main Toronto article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor Edit Request
Under "Industrial," fourth paragraph down, please change "close to (or Downtown)" to "close to or in Downtown" for clarity--provided that that's what the original contributor intended to say. Guyovski (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ DoctorKubla (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Toronto's history pre-1800
Toronto's 16th century "pre-history" needs to be re-written in light of the Mantle Site (Stouffville) research; new information was released July 9, 2012 with the doc film "Curse of the Axe". The Wikipedia article for the Mantle Site has been up-dated accordingly and can be used for basis of the Toronto entry (Neufast (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC))
 * That will be done when I have the time or someone can do this as well. In addition, the History of Toronto article likewise needs to be updated with the same information. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2012
It would be nice to add another external link to a proximity search app for the City of Toronto. The app has been recommended by the City of Toronto, see https://twitter.com/Open_TO/status/237532982158712832 For example, the moderator can add:
 * MSOR Solutions, Toronto proximity interactive map of schools, bikeways, business improvement areas, and places of worship

ObservableDeveloper (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. In my opinion, it'll just add to all the links that are already in the article.  A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  16:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

spelling mistake in photo caption for "Richard Serra's Titled (sic) Spheres"
They are "Tilted Spheres." See Richard Serra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.249.137 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.Mindmatrix 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But isn't that in Mississauga? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very true. The picture should be removed seeing how it isn't even in Toronto. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's Toronto's major airport. In terms of geography, there's no city that it's more associated with than Toronto. It's no surprise that that photo hasn't been removed for all this time; it's a natural fit. A.Roz (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't see New York City adding a picture of MetLife Stadium in New Jersey where both New York football teams play. If it's not within the city there shouldn't be a picture in the article. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a picture of "Toronto Airport". It's a picture of a piece of sculpture in Mississauaga. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a picture of Toronto Pearson International Airport. That it's in Mississauga is a qualification that can be noted in the caption. I wouldn't be surprised if the New York City article had a photo of their football teams playing at their stadium in New Jersey. These aren't small towns; they're major metropolitan cities where such landmarks frequently appear outside of their official boundaries. However, while I feel that the presence of the photo in the article can be justified, that the sculpture isn't actually in the city of Toronto makes it a weaker choice to include in this article. A.Roz (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is my point. It is not a picture of the "Airport"; that would be valid. We should find one and replace the sculpture. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I'm fully aware that big cities often have landmarks outside of their city boundaries. The article isn't about the Greater Toronto Area and all of it's landmarks. It is about the City of Toronto. Anything that falls outside it's boundaries should not be pictured. I fully disagree that the NYC article would include an image of the MetLife stadium in New Jersey in their article. The article is on the CITY not the Metropolitan region. They are two different articles. If it's not in the city (which is what the article is about) then it shouldn't be pictured. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Though Pearson is Toronto's most important airport, it is not in the city proper. There is a very good reason why is there no image of Behemoth in the Toronto article, despite the fact that Canada's Wonderland is 7km north of city limits.  Therefore, the image of the sculptures should be removed.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may, Pearson airport is an important part of Toronto as its major travel hub, regardless of the fact that it lies mostly outside the city limits. Relating a depiction of the airport to the section on transportation makes sense to me. The question is whether to put up a picture which gives a general sense of what the airport looks like from the exterior, or to illustrate one of the airport's distinguishing or unique features, like this sculpture. I'm not saying that either way is better, but I don't think there's any reason to remove this picture unless we come up with a better one.Harachel22 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what people don't understand. this article is on the City of Toronto, not things important to the City of Toronto. If it's not in the City of Toronto it's not included. Although Pearson is the most important airport that services Toronto, it is not in the city and it also services other cities. Can the Richmond Hill article include the ACC in their article because it's the closest major arena ? Nope. It's not in the City of Richmond Hill. Same thing applies. Just because it's a major city doesn't mean it can just absorb everything within a 100km radius into it's article. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is about Toronto, and the content should be relevant to Toronto. I know of no rule that says relevant content must be deleted because it refers to, or portrays, something outside a boundary.  The question is not whether is is in Toronto, but whether it is sufficiently relevant to the article subject to merit inclusion.  If the airport is one of Toronto's main transportation hubs, then I can see the argument that it should remain in the article. I can also appreciate that others may feel there are more relevant images of subjects within the city boundaries.  That's a determination to be made through consensus.  I am not advocating for or against this particular image, but I do disagree with the suggestion that "If it's not in the City of Toronto it's not included" is the rule, and the image is therefore automatically irrelevant.  That's simply not true.  By the way, a small portion of the airport is located in Toronto (106 acres) although this particular sculpture obviously is not.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand the argument is about whether the actual image is relevant and not whether the airport outside the city limits is includable. And yes a small portion of the airport lands (fields) are within the City of Toronto. If we start including images of things outside the city boundaries where does it stop ? Toronto's amusement park, Wonderland in Vaughan like JonnyAu had mentioned ? Toronto's most popular ski resort, Blue mountain in Collingwood ? Should San Diego add attractions in Tijuana ? Chicago add attractions in Gary Indiana ? Miami add attractions in Ft. Lauderdale ? It makes no sense. It's outside the city. The article is about the city, not the metro. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Canada article contains photos of events in Europe, Florida, Washington D.C. and the Pacific Rim, and I am pretty sure no one is wringing their hands with worry about where it stops. If the image is determined to be sufficiently relevant/important to the article, then it is included.  If it isn't, then it is excluded.  The question at issue is this photo and the airport, and the relevance/importance thereof to the article subject.  I'm not sure how inclusion of a picture of the airport would necessitate the inclusion of a photo of a ski resort.  Slippery slope arguments are just a red herring.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I wonder why I bother. The question I raised is not whether the airport is relevant to Toronto, but whether the sculpture is. I have replace the work of art with an interior shot the airport terminal. I leave the rest to you :) Secondarywaltz (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it is perfectly acceptable for contributors to discuss the wider implications of an issue you raised. Your initial question doesn't define the scope of what people are entitled to discuss.  I'm not sure why this requires a "sometimes I wonder why I bother" comment, as it's not clear to me that anyone here merits that sarcasm.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Toronto's Metro Population
I'm sorry for writing in my comments in an above section, but I didn't realize that I needed to make a new section to get an edit done on this article. As per the discussion above, I would like Toronto's metro population, as stated on the sidebar, to be changed from the StatsCan CMA figure of 5,583,064, to the more conventional Greater Toronto Area population of 6,054,191, because the Greater Toronto Area better reflects the commonly understood definition of "metropolitan area."

I would ask for Hamilton's population to be added as well, for a total of 6,660,294, because that better fits usage of the term "metropolitan area" on wikipedia, given that Hamilton is served by Toronto's regional public transit system. Of course, Kitchener and Guelph are served by GO Transit as well, and significant portions of both populations commute to Toronto for work, so technically speaking those ought to be part of Toronto's metropolis too. However in those latter cases there is a significant amount of greenspace between the cities, greenspace that does not exist between Hamilton and Toronto, and so the figure of 6,660,294 makes the most sense.

With that said, I feel that a quick edit to 6,054,191 would be the least controversial solution, and would result in the quickest fix from the very inaccurate 5,583,064; and as such I am asking for this edit as stated above. Thank you. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

Correction: Hamilton is not within the GTA. For more information on the GTA(including boundaries and population), look-up "Greater Toronto Area". 70.30.24.24 (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While it's true that Hamilton is not yet officially part of the GTA (something I noted in the above comment), many other metropolitan areas as listed on wikipedia include Hamilton-like areas. But with that said, you'll note that the figure in the quick edit I requested, 6,054,191, is in fact the population figure listed under the Greater Toronto Area article you are referencing; and it is this figure I am asking the metro population totals to be corrected to. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

Promotional tone
Looking over the Toronto article I think the article overall needs to have less of a promotional tone and more of an informative tone. Although comparisons to other cities will occur and are often needed, they seem to be excessive in this article. This is a direct copy showing all the gloating/promotion from the article....

"the largest, fifth most, is at the heart of, an important destination, one of the world's most, one of the world's most, one of the world's top, world's seventh largest, more than any other Canadian city, tenth-most, one of the fastest, world's second-best, twelfth in the world, fourth in the Americas, ranked highest,  heart of the country, largest in the country, world's tallest, still the tallest, second only to New York City, highest among all cities, Once the largest, Toronto still has a robust, a "top pick" in Canada, Toronto is a major, the world's first, ranks as the third largest, one of the most important, one of North America's largest, is one of the largest, One of the largest, Toronto is among the world's top, ranking at 40th place, one of the largest in the world, Canada's largest, most elegant, one of North America's top, one of the highest, Canada's most famous, Toronto is the only Canadian city, home to the only, are the only, most successful, a league-leading, Canada's largest, centred in Toronto, Toronto is a major,  the world's seventh-largest, The city is an important centre, Toronto continues to be an important, second-highest, the largest cluster, fourth-largest, houses the largest, Canada's largest, the largest, the largest, the third largest, the busiest, Canada's busiest, the busiest, one of the busiest"

Very excessive. I think the articles promotional tone needs to be toned down and a more encyclopaedic approach taken. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I must agree. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The pages for cities on Wikipedia are all pretty much based off each other and you will find those same terms and tone in about 90% of those articles. Literally every city page on wikipedia serves as a promotional page for the city its a huge wikipedia wide issue: Vancouver, Los Angeles, Chicago.
 * Yes, the point isn't that other cities do it to, it's that Toronto's article is excessive with the promotional tone. Some stats and ranking will always be needed. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue mostly amounts to the tone of writing in my opinion, which will have to be addressed over time. Facts are presented from a variety of sources in the article. The most problematic situation is when promotion-oriented work leads to factual inaccuracies, misleading statements, and false depictions. That is fortunately not the case in this article, but some work will be necessary. -A.Roz (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I must agree that A.Roz hit the mark for the problems with the lead.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but not every fact needs to be mentioned. The fact that Toronto is the "10th most", or "ranked twelfth" is irrelevant, and embarrassing. Reminds me of Meet the Fockers with The Wall of Gaylord, "I didn't know they made 9th place ribbons". UrbanNerd (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No doubt about that. If it is not in the top 5, then it should be removed from the lead. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 14:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

✅ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 05:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sister cities correction
I am not an autoconfirmed user so I can't correct this mistake, but the sister city of Kyiv (Ukraine) is listed as "Kiev". That is not the spelling preferred in Canada. In Canada, we recognise the spelling of the city's name as "Kyiv". I think this correction should be made as this article is supposed to be written in Canadian English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephotographguy (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you can change it. Did you try? Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thephotographguy, you have made over ten edits and your account is over four days old. Be bold and try changing it yourself.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Inner Suburbs versus Boroughs
The following text is incomplete: "The inner suburbs are contained within the former municipalities of York and East York." Instead it should read: "The inner suburbs are contained within the former municipalities of Etobicoke, York, North York East York, and Scarborough.

I would also recommending changing the nomenclature from "Inner Suburbs" to Burroughs. Inner Suburbs suggests that Toronto has Outer Suburbs, but in my opinion it does not. Those which one might consider Toronto's "Outer Suburbs" are other independent cities and do not "belong" to Toronto. Replacing "Inner Suburbs" with Burroughs more clearly differentiates between the various areas within the city, without causing confusion with those areas outside the city.

I would suggest renaming the Section: Burroughs and starting with the text: Toronto has 6 Burroughs: Old Toronto, Etobicoke, York, North York, East York and Scarborough.

70.30.87.48 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Edgar Rice Burroughs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.92.157 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, 70.30.87.48 misspelled "boroughs." I have corrected the spelling.  Regardless, Toronto is not New York City and all but East York became cities before the 1998 amalgamation. Yes, please remember to sign each comment with four tildes like this: ~  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 19:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a JOKE about such a badly formed illogical suggestion. If you read the section it clearly defines what is meant by innner and outer suburbs. Just for you, now I sign. 69.158.92.157 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC) (but why?)

My apologies, I missed the paragraph on the Outer Suburbs, but I think the problem is that nobody uses those terms that way. Regardless, I don't understand your point about NYC. The word "borough" didn't originate in NYC nor do they hold exclusive rights to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.87.48 (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Read here: Borough Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A suburb need not "belong" to the inner/central city for it to be a suburb of that city. One can talk about Toronto's inner suburbs without implying that parts of the 905 are located within the City of Toronto. And, yes, I agree that all but East York has long ago ceased to be boroughs. And the term "inner suburbs" is commonly used. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

@Skeezix: Yes, "Inner Suburbs" is used fairly commonly, but to refer to ALL of the other outlaying areas within the city (i.e. Scarborough, York, North York, etc.). Outer suburbs would (from my experience) refer to suburbs OUTSIDE of Toronto (i.e. Vaughan, Pickering, etc.)

@Johnny Au: I read the page on Boroughs, and found this: "The concept of the borough has been used repeatedly (and often differently) throughout the English-speaking world. Often, a borough is a single town with its own local government. HOWEVER, in some cities it is a subdivision of the city (for example, London, New York City, Montreal, and Tokyo). In such cases, the borough will normally have either limited powers delegated to it by the city's local government, or no powers at all. With these precedents in mind, it seems it would be appropriate for Toronto's subdivisions to be referred to as "Boroughs". 70.30.87.48 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read my comment again, 70.30.87.48, since I didn't disagree with that point.  I was simply disagreeing with the statement: "Inner Suburbs suggests that Toronto has Outer Suburbs, but in my opinion it does not."  I also think it's a bad idea to refer to the inner suburbs as boroughs, since each of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York at points in their respective histories effectively declared themselves to no longer be boroughs. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't use borough as that is an administrative division, we cannot just declare something a borough. Suburb is not an official designation of a place, whereas borough is. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Canterbury Tail. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Transportation
This section includes the following statement.

"Toronto/Downsview Airport, near the city's north end, is owned by de Havilland Canada and serves the Bombardier Aerospace aircraft factory."

This sentence includes a link to De Havilland Canada which page clearly explains that De Havilland Canada was privatized by the Canadian government, purchased by Boeing and then sold to Bombardier. Since De Havilland Canada no longer exists, how can it own the Toronto/Downsview Airport?

Ruthe (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Toronto Ultimate Club
For someone that can edit this article, I think you should update the sports section to include the Toronto Ultimate Club (http://tuc.org/) that has 3500 members with 300 teams playing year round. TUC is also hosting the 2013 World Championships in Toronto, 20 countries will be represented. Ultimate is one of the fastest growing sports in the world and Canada has produced some of the best ultimate players in the world. Canada has had several first place finishes at world ultimate championships.

This is what I would like to include if no objections.

Just above Historic sports clubs in Toronto in the Sports section.

New sports clubs in Toronto. Today the Toronto Ultimate Club (TUC) is one of the largest Ultimate (sport) clubs in the world.(ref) Thousands of players and hundreds of teams participate every season and on most days of the week, on various fields (indoor and outdoor) throughout the year. TUC is a not-for-profit organization that was officially incorporated in 1995 (ref). In 2013 Toronto will add a professional team to the AUDL (American Ultimate Disc League) call Toronto Rush (ref). The worlds first professional ultimate league.(ref)

References http://theaudl.com/ http://theaudl.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=147:toronto-rush-intro&catid=13:featured-news&Itemid=71 http://www.wfdf2013-u23.com/

Audra454 (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We will need reliable secondary sources to include this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What does reliable secondary sources mean? I was listing references now, whatever you need I'm sure I can provide. Audra454 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Read here: WP:RS. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm pretty sure the references I've listed obove satisfy the reliable sources requirement. If not let me know. Audra454 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Newspaper accounts would be best. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, heres a couple of articles along with the Toronto Ultimate Club Website.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/localsports/article/1292212--american-ultimate-disc-league-gets-toronto-franchise

http://canadiansporttourism.com/news/toronto-will-host-world-flying-disc-federations-world-under-23-ultimate-championships-2013.html

http://tuc.org/ Audra454 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The one from the Star looks good to me, I am inclined to think that the team could be mentioned in a sentence. What do others think?  Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. One sentence.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 21:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Canada's first Ultimate (sport) League, the Toronto Ultimate Club (TUC) has 3500 members and 300 teams playing year round (TUC ref) In 2013 Toronto will add a professional team to the American Ultimate Disc League (AUDL) called Toronto Rush (The Star ref)(AUDL ref) Audra454 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about adding the stuff about the club though.  I don't think they are notable as much as the Rush team.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying but the fact is that Toronto Rush doesn't even exist until next year, and the only reason it has the possibility of existing and being successful as a professional sports team in Toronto is because of the thirty years of ground work that has been laid by the Toronto Ultimate Club. Most people in Toronto have heard of Ultimate because of this league and the success of Toronto Rush will be depend on that. The fact that the TUC is the first ultimate league in Canada and mostly responsible for bringing the first professional ultimate team to Canada is something, especially in Toronto. Some of the players for Rush will come from this league.

I’ve included a few more websites to show this sports popularity.

https://canadianultimate.com/

http://www.usaultimate.org/index.html

I just found other areas of notability. Toronto Rush will be using Monarch Park Indoor fields for practice. TUC owns those fields. http://www.torontorush.com/

TUC is listed as a Founding Partner. http://www.torontorush.com/founding-partners

Audra454 (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop. If you have all this referenced background information create an article and don't waste your time with all this useless chat here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of people belong to golf clubs, we don't have every golf club listed here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wikipedia is not a directory of every single golf club or ultimate club.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK then you think it's not notable. Make an entry somewhere else about the team or organization to establish notability from all these references, rather stuffing it the main Toronto page. Then you can link via a redirect from the team name. You can't twist this both ways. There are other secondary articles about sport in Toronto. Get on with it! Not here! Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The Toronto article has made reference to every sport that is played in Toronto, I thought Ultimate considering how popular it is would be a good addition. Unlike golf clubs, the TUC is a league the only one in Toronto. Maybe you're right especially now that ultimate is going professional it deserves its own article, than a link. Thank you Audra454 (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 February 2013
Please change:

Population (2011)[1] • City	2,615,060 (1st) • Density	4,149/km2 (10,750/sq mi) • Urban	5,132,794 (1st) • Metro	5,583,064 (1st)

To:

Population (2011)[1] • City	2,615,060 (1st) • Density	945.4/km2 • Urban	5,132,794 (1st) • Metro	5,583,064 (1st)

The information on population density is incorrect, or misapplied. According to StatsCan, "In Toronto, the land area is 5,905.71 square kilometres with a population density of 945.4 persons per square kilometre."

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=535

I noticed this in comparing the data for Toronto to Istanbul. Istanbul has less geographical area, and nearly three times the population of Toronto, yet was reported on Wikipedia with half the population density of Toronto, which is presently listed at over 4,100 persons p sq km. I suspect this number was calculated by talking the greater metro population and applying it to the land area of the downtown... Fung Koo (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Population density is correct. You are citing the page for the Census Metropolitan Area, not the city of Toronto. No change is required.Mindmatrix 15:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Education
York University is not listed as one of the education institutions for some reason. It is most definitely, entirely within Toronto and needs to be put back on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.147.169 (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That will be done. I do not know how it got removed.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 13:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

5th largest city in N.America
Various news outlets are reporting that Toronto has surpassed Chicago in population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.14.48 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A few users have tried to change Toronto ranking in North America from 5th largest to 4th largest citing the Star and Sun articles. Should we be adding this info even though they are just population estimates ? I can recall the people in Calgary going on and on about overtaking Ottawa as the 4th largest city in the country because of one of these estimates just to find out the estimates were inaccurate and the 2011 census showed them still at 5th largest behind Ottawa. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If only to avoid an edit war, it's probably worth noting that the city may have surpassed Chicago in population, preferably in a format something like "In March 2013, media began to report that the city may have yadda yadda." But you're right that we need to be cautious, due to the fact that these are population estimates rather than firm census figures, so it's indeed not appropriate for us to assert that Toronto has definitely surpassed its windy counterpart. The whole Calgary-vs.-Ottawa thing is exactly why we need to be cautious — although, just for the record, it was about their census metropolitan areas, not their city-proper populations; Calgary's always been larger than Ottawa by the latter measure, with Gatineau being what pushes Ottawa ahead in the CMA sweepstakes. (Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't toot my own horn to point out that even when that discussion emerged I was already sounding the caution bell precisely because of what could happen when the hard census figures came out — and what I warned could happen is indeed exactly what actually did happen, which is that the Calgary CMA was still in fifth because the Ottawa CMA had also grown faster than Calgary had counted on.) Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a note regarding this. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The estimate has a margin in excess of 70 000 residents which is enough to conclude that the city proper of Toronto is more populous. --Persistance (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When it comes to population data for a place, I tend to look at the statistical bureau for that country since it's the most reliable place to obtain this kind of data. Would it be possible to get a direct link from Statistics Canada?  Elockid   ( Talk ) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Who is doing these estimates ? When were these estimates done ? Also, as most people associate a city with it's metropolitan area, it would make sense if this is eventually added to the article down the road, to stress that this is for the city proper only, as the Chicago metro area dwarfs that of Toronto's by almost double the population. They aren't even comparable. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Metro regions would actually be much much more comparable if you compared the Golden Horseshoe to the Chicago Metro region, as the geographic size of the two regions are much closer than the listed geographic limits of purely the "GTA" as defined. Both regions are around 30,000km2 and would compare 8,759,312 people vs 9,729,825 to each other. Ourgo (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely false. 1) the Golden Horseshoe is not Toronto's metropolitan area, it is an entire region of the Province. 2) the comparable region of the Golden Horseshoe in Chicago would be well over 12 million. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the issue when comparing how Metro regions are defined in the US vs Canada. Under US standards the Golden Horseshoe would easily be counted as part of Toronto's metro region. Do you honestly think it makes sense to compare 1:1 one metro region defined as stretching over 28,000km2 vs one defined as about 7,000km2? Canadian metro regions are much more conservatively defined than in the US and likewise US metro regions are much more broad.Ourgo (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * False. The urban area of metro Chicago is smaller than the GTA. I think you are mixing up MSA's and CSA's. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What is considered metropolitan chicago with a population of 9.8 million is 28,120 km2 in size, that is a indisputable fact. What is considered the Greater Toronto Area has 6,054,191 people in 7,124.15 km2 that is also a fact. It is you who are confused on this. Ourgo (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an article on Toronto, not the GTA, and the various ways we can define metropolitan area is just a can of worms. We don't need paragraphs dealing with this one issue. We should stick with the stats we already have, and add one simple sentence that says that the City of Toronto announced in March 2013, based on population estimates, that the population of Toronto had surpassed that of Chicago, making Toronto (the city, not the metropolitan area) the fourth largest city in NA. Adding another whole discussion about metropolitan areas, and comparing apples to oranges, etc. is unnecessary. A fulsome discussion about how the GTA/Golden Horseshoe area compares to other metropolitan areas belongs in the GTA/Golden Horseshoe articles. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should mention the newly accepted ranking of Toronto's population in North America. List of cities in North America has reflected this change.  The estimate comes from a primary source (i.e. the City of Toronto) rather than a secondary source so the info is credible enough to include in the article. Like Skeezix1000 said, only the population information about the city should be mentioned rather than the metropolitan area, as we've got an article for that already.  EelamStyleZ   talk  17:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The information does come from a credible/reliable source, but the City of Toronto is not Statscan and the conclusion they drew is based on population estimates (and, IRCC, compares 2011 data for Chicago to 2012 data for Toronto). I think, given the comments above, the article should maintain the reference to Toronto being the 5th-largest city, based on actual official census data, and then add a sentence saying that the City itself now claims fourth spot, based on population estimates.  We shouldn't elevate this to more than it is. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Golden Horseshoe is a conurbation, not a metropolitan area. If we're going to compare one conurbation to another, Chicago's is closer to 11.5 million (Chicago and Milwauekee). Also, geographic size is a not a good comparison for comparing metropolitan area populations.  Elockid   ( Talk ) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here you go! http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-csd-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CSD&GC=3520005 Official number. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The bullishness of editors on this website has really gotten out of hand. When a governmental body (in an urbanized and democratic nation at that) releases statistical information, we are in no such position to say otherwise. Here is the the link to the figure which has the population for the CITY OF TORONTO well exceeding that of the CITY OF CHICAGO by over 70 000 people, which more than encompasses statistical error. http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/7017df2f20edbe2885256619004e428e/88678e26c2b5c0de85257b25007655dd?OpenDocument --Persistance (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because Toronto estimated it's up to date population against an out of date Chicago estimate doesn't make it a fact. Even a simpleton can see that. So please don't edit the article until a consensus is reached. Otherwise it is vandalism. Thanks. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Persistance, we are in a position to say otherwise — even the press release you're linking to there explicitly says that it's comparing an estimate of Toronto's population in 2012 to the census count of Chicago's population in 2010. I already said earlier that it had the potential to be a misleading X-to-Y comparison, and I hadn't even seen the actual details yet — so forget "misleading", that's actually a blatant non-starter of an X-to-Y comparison, and I hereby withdraw my earlier suggestion that we should acknowledge it even under a "maybe" qualification. Wikipedia shouldn't even touch that with a ten-foot-pole, actually.
 * Media literacy skills are an incredibly important aspect of contributing effectively to Wikipedia, just for the record. In order to properly distinguish good sources from bad ones, you really need to have a strong sense of how and when and why the real story might not be exactly as reported sometimes — and this is a textbook example. We can't make the claim on here until we have access to population figures that both date from the same year — the fact that a couple of media outlets happened to uncritically buy into a half-baked city press release doesn't change the fact that we require stronger verification than that. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with, population recordings from Chicago are as of the 2010 United States Census, while Toronto's is from 2012, an estimate as well. In addition, Statistics Canada has not released an update official census with information about this population, not very strong verification at this point. The structure of articles on Wikipedia is based on reliable information without possible factual errors from local newspapers or primary sources, thus I am against the addition or updating of this content at this time. I have changed the data at List of cities in North America based on this. TBrandley (what's up) 23:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the page you referred me to (Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities) is only a suggestion page. Also, there is nothing in the Manual of Style about only using census information. I cited my edit. As far as I am concerned it's a valid edit. You can't point to a "suggestion" page and use it as if it's an official wikipedia rule that must be followed. CanadaRed (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a suggestion. Please speak with UrbanNerd about this matter, as he is more experienced than I am.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 13:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style for Canada regarding population.Mindmatrix 14:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. Cheers. CanadaRed (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2013
add 437 area code

99.244.6.241 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Done.Mindmatrix 08:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Panorama
Can we either get a new panorama picture or delete it entirely? That photo is dated beyond belief.

And for that matter, the one in the top montage is pretty old too.
 * I agree that it is outdated, but it takes time to create a new one. I will not post a new image though, since I am too busy.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please at least date the panorama in the caption that appears in the article so that people know it's from 2004 and is 9 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.83.211 (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That should be done, but we need someone to upload free use panoramas of Toronto. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a picture that you can use in the article if you want. it was taken by me March 10.

Illicitsubstance (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh no! This is a very poor quality image. Don't you have something better? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty good considering how far away it was taken, and how much of the skyline it shows. I don't have a 10,000 dollar camera. It's better than nothing which is what you've contributed.70.29.83.211 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not asking that anyone put it at the top of the article or anything, but an inclusion in the pictures section wouldn't hurt anybody would it? There is a serious lack of up to date pictures of Toronto's skyline in this article.70.29.83.211 (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)illicitsubstance
 * Where are your pictures from Flickr? This is the only one you have uploaded to Commons. Perhaps if we had a couple of those they could replace outdated ones. I have actually uploaded hundreds of photographs, and you have only contributed this, so don't give me attitude! Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look for some CC pictures since the one shown is badly outdated. Here are a few that may be of use: http://www.flickr.com/photos/15609463@N03/8698064128/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockandrollfreak/8369552671/ Noonehasthisnameithink (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2013
Please change "[Toronto] is currently the fifth most populous city in North America" to "[Toronto] is currently the fourth most populous city in North America" because Toronto's population has risen in number over Chicago. See List_of_North_American_cities_by_population Thanks! LeoTrem

LeoTrem (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Leo. You may want to look at the discussion above on this very point.  It seems like the growing consensus was that the recent proclamation that Toronto had surpassed Chicago in population was based on an apples to oranges comparison.  Hope that helps.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that many newcomers keep making edit requests regarding Toronto's population rank in North America, so I created a comment on the top to direct them to this discussion. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In short, ❌, except to create a note. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 22:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

As of 2013 (March, I think) the population of the city of Toronto passed the population of the city of Chicago making Toronto the 4th, not 5th, largest city in North America. This information is already reflected on wikipedia's List of Cities in North America page and the intro paragraph of the Toronto page should be updated. (NB: the Chicago metropolitan area is still much larger than Toronto's) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.84.36 (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Read above discussions.Mindmatrix 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Did you read the visible comment that is on top of the table of contents? This has been the fourth time a newcomer created a new section for Toronto's population ranking, ignoring the huge discussion that is ongoing. I have added this to WP:BITE regarding newcomers creating new discussions on discussions that are already ongoing. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Chicago area is not much larger than Toronto. Keep in mind that we go by different standards and by American standards, they are literally the same.TheCanadianGuy123 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

so whats the deal here? there is too much to read through at the top - why does toronto's population and north american ranking not reflect recent data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.69.152 (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take your time to read it. The explanation is that long. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2013
Please change: Toronto played host to the 95th Grey Cup in 2007, the first held in the city since 1992. To this: Toronto played host to the 95th Grey Cup in 2007 the first held in the city since 1992. Later in 2012, while hosting the 100th Grey Cup but also participants, they won the game to the delight of the home fans. Easily verifiable: check any news source OR

70.24.109.52 (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

American Standards
I believe it is worth nothing somewhere in this article that Canada and the U.S.A both go by different standards for metropolitan areas. It should be stated near the beginning (in my opinion) that, when going by American Standards, the Golden Horseshoe is Toronto's metropolitan area and the population of such is around 10 million residents (fastest growing area in North America). TheCanadianGuy123 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a matter of personal opinion/analysis which isn't allowed in articles. Other users, not just here have used the idea that if so and so had the same standard as the US, then the metropolitan area would be X million. I highly doubt that GTA is the fastest in North America. Developing countries like Mexico come to mind that are faster growing. If we're talking about Northern America, I believe Greater Austin is faster growing.  Elockid   ( Talk ) 01:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not a personal opinion, it is fact, but okay then, I can see where your coming from. Also, I am referring to Canada/U.S.A without Mexico involved as they are Central America. And I mean Toronto is the fastest growing area for a city over 2 million. I am referring to strictly numbers, not percentage growth. However, would it maybe be fair to put the size and population of the GGH in the information chart to the right?TheCanadianGuy123 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * North America includes Greenland, Canada, The United States, Mexico, and Central America. It may also include the Caribbean, not sure. (That was to "TheCanadianGuy123")--a bloddy pangien (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Climate?
Shouldn't there be information about the climate. Most cities on here have a colored chart stating the average highs/lows, the record highs/lows, the avg precipitation, and how much daylight the city gets. --a bloddy pangien (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

??????

Moxy (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Added a rudimentary weather box (max & min temperature, average precipitation, and average rainy days) for the city just now. Unfortunately, I tagged it as a minor edit -- force of habit. Feel free to expand it. andyJSD 04:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsdecepida (talk • contribs)


 * I removed the box because there was already one on the page for the exact same area of Toronto. Also the data used was from 1971-2000 and the current data is 1981-2010. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you check to see if the citation for the weather box that remains works? I think the link is an ftp string.  Too, why does that weather box say "The Annex" when the data from Environment Canada is collected at Pearson International Airport?  Maybe relabel it? ajsDecepida 10:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Annex weather station is used to provide data for Toronto because using Pearson Airport would be wrong as it isn't in Toronto. The weather at Pearson can be completely different to the weather in Toronto, especially when it comes to temperatures. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This comes up in other Canadian cities as well. Edmonton and Vancouver are good examples where the main airport is out of the city and there are other weather stations in the city. There are 8 weather stations listed for Toronto. Of these only Pearson and the Annex are WMO certified. So it's better to use the Annex rather than one of the others as it is in the city and will have the best data. As to the link it is correct. The link takes you to and FTP site but does not automatically download anything. Right now Environment Canada has the information but it's not available as HTML pages just as database. By the way look at Geography of Toronto which shows the weather for the Annex and Pearson. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I suppose it's fine to allow multiple in one but not on another although it may seem inconsistent and arbitrary to some. I'll defer to your judgment.  The ftp link causes an error message in Firefox and IE.  Google Chrome causes a prompt dialog for a userid and password.  Is that the desired effect for the link provided?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsdecepida (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In Geography of Toronto, have you noticed the weatherboxes are repeated under the Statistics section? Shouldn't those be excised since they're under the wrong heading?  Am not touching it... not now :) ajsDecepida 19:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsdecepida (talk • contribs)


 * Each of the weatherboxes corresponds to a different location and time-period, so I think it's appropriate to leave them as is, unless you want to tidy it up a bit (but not delete any of it, for the reason I've said). Therealdavid (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't proposing deleting the multiple weatherboxes in "Climate" for Geography of Toronto. I was just mentioning that those were allowable there but not here in "Toronto".  However, I did mention that two additional weatherboxes occur under the "Statistics" section of "Geography of Toronto" and I wondered aloud if that was a mistake/oversight.  Glad you folks vet each other so well.  But I'll stay out of it for hereon.  Cheers.Ajsdecepida 19:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsdecepida (talk • contribs)

Strange the link worked the other day when I tried it. But you are right both FF and Chrome give errors. I think I've corrected it so let me know if it's still a problem. I think this article only needs the one due to the size of the article. The geography article isn't so big so having multiple weather boxes isn't a problem. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. One weather box should be shown on the main article as putting more would make the page too large (most city articles usually have one weather box, not two or more). I agree that the geography article is not that large so putting a lot of weather boxes would not be a large problem Ssbbplayer (Talk) 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Colours
Should the Toronto weatherbox use green colours or blue colours. The reason is that with the blue colouring, there is too blending of the blue colours and secondly, looking at this weather box, it makes the climate appear much colder than it should be. Which one is better? Need outside opinion then I can make the changes. Here is the one with green colours.

Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For the green colouring, the one for snowfall should be green as well. Perhaps a set of statistics can be purple as well (probably for average precipitation days, average rainy days, and average snowy days). Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 21:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That was placed in one of my edits before standard colours were/currently used. It is similar to other comments from other users where the precip/rain/snow should be the same colour. I agree that it should be changed to green. I am okay with changing the precip/rainy/snow days to any colour because it usually does not result in that much blending (outside of Canada, I rarely see these three lines). However, blue is the best colour scheme for these lines because green colours will make the values and colours look all the same. Changing the precipitation colour should alleviate this issue. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed snow to green colours. I think it is better than the blue colouring as blending is reduced. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the norm for this ... is this the only article to have this color?Moxy (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally I have seen green colours in many Canadian cities other than Toronto before it was recently changed to standard colours and green colours were pretty much the norm in most Canadian cities. After this, most cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Quebec city, London, Ontario, Windsor, Calgary, etc (actually, any page that I have edited in the past even if it not related to climate) have blue colouring (all had green colours before). Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that a vote is needed to reach a consensus to avoid any more edit wars on this. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Would changing it to green solves this problem? If a majority supports it, I will change it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Toronto's Population
Dear all,

May I suggest the total population for the 'Golden Horseshoe' being added? The 'Golden Horseshoe' is the Greater Toronto Area and the surrounding cities such as Hamilton and the Niagra area. Although it is not part of the official Greater Toronto Area, it does make up the wider urbanized region of Southern Ontario, and is therefore de facto part of the Greater Toronto area, or the greater urban area comprising of Toronto and its surrounding smaller cities.

The 'core area' population of the Golden Horseshoe is 7,005,486. So perhaps this figure could be added to the population area of the infobox for this article.

What are your thoughts on this?

Regards, Shadytheif20 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems perfect as many larger American cities go by the standards for their metro's as Ontario uses for it's subregion. For the chart, I put the population of the GGH instead of the GH and added in the GTAH. I do not quite know how to put the land area for the GGH and GTAH into this chart as I am still new to wikipedia, but if somebody could do so on it that would be great. The information for what I would like input is as follows: GGH land size = 31,561 km2, and GTAH land size = 10,000 km2. Thanks in advance! TheCanadianGuy123 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ^Like TheCanadianGuy123 said, could somebody perhaps edit this in. Thanks
 * Shadytheif20 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure on doing this. The article is about Toronto, not the Golden Horseshoe or larger area. After all it really isn't anything to do with Toronto in any official capacity. We don't include the population of Ontario, but Toronto is still part of that. Canterbury Tail  talk  17:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Point taken.
 * Shadytheif20 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is true, but it should be noted somewhere in the article, perhaps the beginning, that Canada and the U.S.A go by different standards.TheCanadianGuy123 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Do we call out that Poland has different standards than Canada? US standards are irrelevant to a Canadian article, US standards don't rule the world. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this proposal, this article is about Toronto and the metropolitan region, not the Golden Horseshoe. We are not going to note that standards are different in Canada than in the United States, it is irrelevant. Population figures for all regions Toronto is considered to be part is not going to be added. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 14:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You two are right, but shouldn't the population of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area at least be put on the side chart as it is part of the Stats Canada metropolitan area? I can understand why the GGH would not make sense, but the GTAH on this chart does make sense. TheCanadianGuy123 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with TheCanadianGuy123 that the GTAH area should be displayed, as many residents of Hamilton consider themselves to be part of the Greater Ontario Area at least on a de facto basis. However I am also in agreement that the Golden Horseshoe population should not be present on this article. Shadytheif20 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also strongly oppose this. The Golden Horseshoe is a region, and has litle to do with Toronto as a city. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But, do you oppose the GTAH being included?TheCanadianGuy123 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I oppose GTAH, Golden Horseshoe, Southern Ontario, Great Lakes Megalopolis, or any other non CMA grouping. As per every other article. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because this article is about Toronto, not the GTAH which is just an area that Toronto happens to be included in. Once you get outside the census metropolitan area any further designations are just larger and larger groupings, where do you stop when they're not about Toronto anymore. If this was an article about population spread around the horseshoe area then sure, but it's not it's about the city of Toronto and Hamilton and the other outliers just aren't anything to do with it in any meaningful way. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Toronto article should not include populations beyond its post-1998 metropolitan area. This is done to prevent someone from being tempted to put the population of the Earth on it eventually (given that Toronto is a city on Earth). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about Toronto itself, not about the Golden Horseshoe or Hamilton. I oppose including population data for the GTAH, Golden Horseshoe, basically anything beyond its post-1998 metropolitan area. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll leave it at that then. Shadytheif20 (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

unprotecting this article
Can we please have this article unprotected? Lots of people want to add recent pictures but can't. in the meantime the article is stuck with pictures that are over 8 years old and show nothing of the recent building boom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.14.174 (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding images has nothing to do with . Currently only IP addresses or brand new accounts are blocked. Once you have an account and made a few sensible edits that restriction is lifted. That being said I'm willing to lift the protection levels on the article and see what happens. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  has nothing to do with being too lazy to add images and does not own this article. Please be sure to read WP:NPA. However, if the page is unprotected, then it should be Pending Changes then. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

largest city on great lakes
It might be useful to inform people that toronto is the largest city on the great lakes. That could be included in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.14.174 (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please read the header, in that the only reason Toronto is the "largest" city on the Great Lakes is because its unofficial 2012 estimate shows Toronto having a larger population than Chicago's official 2010 census population (which is also the latest figure for that city). It is not fair to use unofficial 2012 stats against official 2010 stats.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It needs to wait until there are official population stats that are based on equivalent areas. Canterbury Tail   talk  12:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2013
Seems someone bunged up the sports club section (Toronto). I can't edit it due to protection, so could someone fix this? --208.114.148.169 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Canterbury Tail   talk  16:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)