User talk:A.Roz

New Category
Note that as the Category:Beaux-Arts architecture in Canada is a sub category of the Category:Beaux-Arts buildings, the parent should be removed when you add this new one. -Secondarywaltz (talk)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll do that. -A.Roz (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at WikiProject Council/Proposals ! :) doncram (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now uploaded to Commons
I have independently uploaded images File:TTC Dundas Station Platform Level.jpg, File:Artwork by McElcheran at Dundas Station.jpg and File:Artwork by McElcheran at Dundas Station (2).jpg to Commons, which you previosly uploaded to Wikipedia. I have properly licensed and attributed the photographs, showing the links to the originals, which have been confirmed as authentic. In the Dundas subway station article all of those Wikipedia images have been replaced with the Commons version. I can help you if you need assistance in uploading similar photographs in the future. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for the message. A.Roz (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

TTC Commons Categories
I have created categories in Commons for several of the TTC subway stations, which allows images to be retained that are surplus to inclusion in the article. I have transferred images from Wikipedia. I have uploaded properly licensed pictures from Flickr. I have taken some photographs myself. If you would like to do something constructive, you could add the Commmons box, that you seem so insistent in using, to those articles that don't yet have a link to their category. Link showing the sub-categories created is below. I will continue to add and upgrade where required. Thank you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits are always constructive. I would be glad to help, and can only hope that you'll use the commons box when you add links in the future. After all, why would " External links" link to a page within the Wikipedia project? Also, be careful when you replace the digital renderings of station tiles with photos. Look at Lansdowne (TTC); the tiles don't even seem to be yellow in the main photo. (They look grey.) A.Roz (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! I've tried to fix the Lansdowne problem, but lighting in many stations makes capturing the tile colour difficult. Today's new version of the Lansdowne wall is a very suble tint of cream - trust me. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Davisville subway trains.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Davisville subway trains.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the image here. You can see that the photo has the license I noted when I uploaded the file. I didn't think permission was necessary when the CC license has been explicitly noted. Do you expect the general public to contact the Wikipedia administrators for permission to use Wikipedia content released under its respective CC license? A.Roz (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * we need to verify permission, in the absence of convenient link to flickr(that you just provided) we need a email from the author granting permission to use under x license(in this case cc-by-sa) emailed or forwarded to the email address provided.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Suburb
I appreciate your discussing this on the talk pages and not engaging in an edit war or a flame war at the article. I'm sure we can discuss our points and come to a consensus.

Suburb has a specific definition; I'm not going to say that I know the dictionary definition, but I know the common sense definition, and that is "it's a City or town or village or something that is just OUTSIDE of another larger city, to the point where its interests are connected, such as for workers of the city to reside in and commute from". As such, I don't think Queens is a suburb of Manhattan. I don't think the Bronx is a suburb of Manhattan. etc. They are all boroughs of New York City. To back that up, neither article suggests that the borough is a "suburb". They use the adjective "suburban", which is fine. But they are suburban boroughs.

As such, I propose (and you may or may not agree) that Scarborough WAS a suburb in 1988. In 2010, Scarborough is a district of Toronto, and part of the city, which may have "suburban" qualities, but is not a suburb.

Your edit said "Barenaked Ladies formed in 1988 in Scarborough, Ontario, a suburban part of Toronto.[1]" In 1988, Scarborough was not a part of Toronto. It was a separate... city, I think it was... that was a suburb of the city of Toronto. Thus, I believe your edit was not valid, as the sentence is talking about events in 1988, and should not therefore describe scarborough in present-day terms.

That would be like changing "Hudson came across Manhattan Island and the native people living there in 1609" to "In 1609, Hudson came across Manhattan Island, a borough of New York full of skyscrapers." It's not correct to the time period. Thus, I believe the proper information to convey is the state of Scarborough in 1988, which is a true suburb. Do you believe it would be beneficial to also include it's current state? (in a statement like "Barenaked Ladies formed in 1988 in Scarborough, Ontario, at the time a suburb of Toronto (later amalgamated into the city)."? I feel like this is not necessary in an article on BNL, and if someone wants to know about scarborough, they can link to the wikilink. In fact, I've considered whether the description of Scarborough is even neccesary, but I think that it's fair given that the band cites their suburban upbringing as important in the band's development, and it also helps geographically place Scarborough for the many readers who likely have never heard of Scarborough, but have heard of Toronto. TheHYPO (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your supposedly "common sense" definition. A suburb is a vague term that refers to an area outside a city centre. A suburb DOES NOT refer to a municipality. It does not even necessarily refer to a residential area, as there are "industrial suburbs" around the world as well. The bottom line is that the definition of suburb does not refer to a "city or town or village". That would be a "suburban municipality".

Look it up: The definition of suburb according to Merriam-Webster is: 1a: an outlying part of a city or town b : a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city c plural : the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town 2 plural : the near vicinity : environs

That's what a true suburb is. It doesn't have to be its own city or town.

Nonetheless, you've shown me that my edit wasn't 100 percent accurate either, as it could give the impression that it was part of the City of Toronto in 1988. I propose the following edit:

"Barenaked Ladies formed in 1988 in Scarborough, Ontario, a suburban city bordering Toronto at the time."

A.Roz (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect your points about the definition of suburb, but I would note that Wiki suburb opens with "Suburbs, usually referring to a residential area, are defined in various different ways around the world." - I'll say that my issue with the word is the same one you pointed out - the word "suburb" is vague. I think we can play with your above proposed edit, but I think it still needs something, because the order of the phrases might be confusing (did the city move and it doesn't border toronto anymore? What happened?) Perhaps what this dispute indicates is that we should just say "formed in Scarborough" and let Scarborough's article do the dirty work. I think we could take one more stab at it, seeing as how the duo's first show was in downtown Toronto... perhaps we should just do way with the word 'suburb' all-together and go with definitions.

"Barenaked Ladies formed in 1988 in Scarborough, Ontario (then a separate city, later amalgamated into Toronto)."

Or perhaps: "Barenaked Ladies formed in 1988 in the suburb Scarborough, Ontario (then a separate city, later amalgamated into Toronto)."

TheHYPO (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What about:

"Barenaked Ladies formed in 1988 in Scarborough, Ontario, then a suburban city just outside Toronto."

Actually, I don't see why any historic details about Scarborough are needed at the beginning of the Barenaked Ladies article. We want to get across simply that the group started in a suburban context, that they are from Scarborough, and that Scarborough is located in the Toronto area (because people outside this region are more likely to recognize Toronto). If someone is left wondering what happened to Scarborough (i.e. amalgamation), they can click on Scarborough. It's quite likely that readers won't care what happened to Scarborough because of the band's broad fan base, but will appreciate knowing that they're from the Toronto area of Canada since that's familiar and easy to remember. I've avoided using parentheses in my version because I find it doesn't look proper to have them in one of the introductory sentences in an encyclopedia article. A.Roz (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of your points in this post, which is why I'm having trouble coming up with something. I think that last one is fine (I'd lose the "just"), but I guess I'm just nitpicky because when I hear "suburb", the logical phrasing is "suburb of [city]", rather than suburb [period], and it's outside Toronto. "suburb of Toronto" flows so much better than "suburban city outside Toronto". I would love to use a phrase like "Scarborough, then a city-suburb of Toronto", but obviously, that's not a real phrase. It would be nice if it was.

I still think it's legitimate to say "...then a suburb of Toronto". Scarborough is officially amalgamated. It may still be a suburb, but it can't be a suburb of Toronto, because it's part of Toronto now... It's a suburban part of Toronto (as you suggested before) which is different than a suburb of Toronto which it was then, but isn't now. That's why I feel like "then a suburb of Toronto" as it is now is accurate, and as you said, if people want to know why it's not anymore, they can click the link... thoughts? TheHYPO (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, that when I think of Toronto, I think of downtown, and Scarborough still seems to be a suburb if Toronto is defined by its downtown. It's why a lot of people find the name "Scarborough" useful even though it technically no longer exists as a city. The name denotes the area's separation from the central urban area. But we can avoid the issues of ambiguity with the "suburb" noun by avoiding it and using "suburban"/

Hence the sentence shall be: ""Barenaked Ladies formed in 1988 in Scarborough, Ontario, then a suburban city outside Toronto."

It's clearer, and after all this discussion we should have at least a slight improvement. A.Roz (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect how you think of "Toronto", but the fact is that Toronto is the entire megacity now. I definately use the term scarborough; to me it's the same as saying "Brooklyn" in New York. Brooklyn might be a "suburb of Manhattan", but it's still part of New York City. Few people would say "I'm taking a vacation to New York City" and have the other person think "does he mean he's going to vacation in Manhattan or Queens?" I think your last suggestion is the best one. Feel free to make it at the article and I'll support it. Glad we could work this out civilly. :) TheHYPO (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also glad that we worked this out through these engaging discussions on what originally seemed such a minor issue. A.Roz (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Annex
Hello. I didn't want to revert, but didn't quite know how to fix your edit. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with it? It's based on the simple reality of the built form. Ever been on Walmer or St. George in the Annex? A.Roz (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't preclude that young people in their 20s may be 'long time residents' of the Annex if they grew up there, and the possibility of another Golden Era within the century after the original wealthy residents started to leave and the present. A.Roz (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding "Station" to TTC station names
I think all of the sections would look a little better with the proper station names, so I'll get to work on that. Newb questions.., is it possible to change the stations from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_%28TTC%29 to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Station_%28TTC%29 for example? Or are we past the point of no return so to speak. I think it's also worth changing this redirection http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chester_station&redirect=no into a disambiguation page which includes our Chester, sound good? Also, no sure if I should reply on my talk page or reply here.. newb alert!! Must be doing this wrong because these tags did not autogenerate: Reid.H.Miller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC).
 * It is possible to change the article names. I support it, but I would ask at Talk:Toronto subway and RT since it's going to be a major change. For the signature tags, use four tildes at the end of your posts (~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces). A.Roz (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I happened to walk into this after the fact of the update, and point to this website in reference to each station being capitalized. The shorter version with "Sheppard-Yonge" is appropriate, not with "Station" applied afterwards.


 * --Allamericanbear (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The "station" ending on the rapid transit station names can be important to avoid confusion since these names are shared with street names or intersections. For practical reasons given this naming system used in Toronto and many other cities, "station" should follow the name. After all, it's a convention for railway stations and place names in general: "Union Station", "Queen Street West", "Quebec City". With repeated usage, "Station" can be dropped if it's clear that the station is the focus of discussion. That website doesn't seem to contradict this convention, accepting Penn Station. A.Roz (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for confusing, I agree that the station name should have the term "station" regarding it, but am trying to explain that in most cases, "station" should not be capitalized, since most signage used in the system does not sdd "Station" in its naming.


 * --Allamericanbear (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the example you give, the TTC treats Sheppard-Yonge Station as a proper name, although signage uses the Sheppard-Yonge short form. Also, as noted above, you may need to distinguish between the subway station and the street or streets that it is named after. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is where I think that (TTC station) is correct. The original author commented that it would "look better", but is it grammatically correct?


 * --Allamericanbear (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of this is important. It is content that really matters and I can see no great need for a bulk rename of articles that fit a generally accepted format, and if you are talking about how stations are refererred to withing an article, again that does not matter as long as it is clear what is being referred to. I have been trying to gradually improve the quality of all TTC subway station articles. A basic structure has long been established by A.Roz and, except when it might disrupt the logical flow of information, I have generally stuck with that format. Sometimes the story can be better told in a longer integrated section, rather than breaking it into sub-headings. I think we would welcome your help to source references and some additional information for the stubs. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Mississauga
Hello A.Roz,

Would you like to consider making a little change in section "Sports and Recreation" of "Mississauga" article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga )? I was reading it and thought that it would look better to convert "Kids indoor playgrounds" in a last sentence to external reference. For example, http://kidsindoorplaygrounds.com/directory/indoor-playgrounds/mississauga-ontario

Best regards, Boris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.187.55 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added it and improved the section's formatting. The new source isn't the best, but it will probably helpful to anyone looking for this type of recreation. A.Roz (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

TTC station articles
I'm willing to work with you on this, but you don't seem willing to create anything new. Most of these articles are unreferenced or not properly sourced and all you seem to want to do is revert things to your format. They need real work! St Patrick was edited, prior to my recent flurry, to hide information from view that you had previously added under "Subway infrastructure in the vicinity". Look at the edit history for yourself. Here is an example of an entry that might be sourced and expanded and should be integrated with the previous tunneling information on the page to make a better reading paragraph. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. If you like, you can put together a list of priority articles. A.Roz (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are so many. Start with the ones you know best or those that should have references because of special developments there. For example, that tunneling information you added to St. Partick should be easy to reference and then add to all the affected stations on that stretch of University Ave. For my first phase I'm starting from Rosedale slowly working north to Eglinton, where the only references are those recent ones. I may randomly go wherever research, or the train, takes me. Your format works best when each section is expanded beyond one line. I think that sometimes the differentiation between those sections blurs and we might be better to consolidate the information in one place. The tunnel construction in the example above is part of the "Architecture", "Infrastructure" and "History", but would read better if written as one comprehensive paragraph. There is no rush, because I don't think anybody is going to nominate unreferenced TTC subway stations for deletion, but civic pride says we could do better. What do you think? Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree. Just overhauling the articles to their present state was very time consuming so I focused on other things for a while, but they could still be improved substantially and I think it's a worthy task. I may not be able to much for the next month because I'm going on vacation out of the country. Over time we can agree upon new formatting, but for now, let's just build the articles up that are underdeveloped. Then we'll have a better idea of which sections we can't do much with and which could be merged. "Architecture and art" probably won't cease to exist as its own section since the stations which merit this kind of treatment are the ones where a notable investment was made into art and design that merits a write-up. A.Roz (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Uno Prii
Thank you for adding the great photos. Uno Prii rules. Ground Zero | t 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that someone noticed. Uno Prii is often forgotten in spite of his unique and well-executed architecture. I hope to get a shot of the Prince Arthur Towers soon, my favourite Prii building. A.Roz (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Facadism
This is not your personal essay, it's an encyclopedia article, and you need to beef it up with some citations - right now it has exactly one footnote, which is not sufficient for an article which is basically entirely analysis. You need to get some cites in there soon, or I will be nominating it for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I withdraw these comments -- when I made them I thought you were the primary author of the article, which is not the caae. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Pecaut Square
Thanks for the work on editing Pecaut Square. No problem with your revert of my references edit, but be careful: some information was lost, for example the values for the,   and   parameters in the cite book templates. Also, in case it is useful, if one has to cite the same reference multiple times in an article, one can use a unique name parameter in the first instance of the reference in the opening ref tag, e.g., and then using   alone, without a closing   tag, for subsequent instances of the same reference. More info at Citing sources. I have consolidated the duplicated references at Pecaut Square in this fashion. Hope this helps, and hope you take these comments in the friendly spirit with which they are intended. --papageno (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thank you for the good edits to the article. The end result of our edits on the reference formatting issue is quite satisfactory. The links to the book are better, the references have more details like the ISBN, and the duplicates are gone. I look to implement the code to avoid duplicate reference entries and also note ISBN in future editing for stronger reference formatting. A.Roz (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

TTC stops
You asked for it - you got it. You have multiple choices here. If you need something special - just ask me and I will see what I can do. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The photos are very much appreciated! I'll add them to the article later today. A.Roz (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my incomplete edit
I missed that ... my bad! Thanks for the fix. Leptus Froggi (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. A.Roz (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In appreciation
Thank you for checking my edits to TTC Stations. I know you are not as active as you used to be, but I do appreciate you keeping an eye on things, copy editing and giving me a little direction. Many of these still lack references and I am trying to selectively give them an upgrade when I can find something more than the usual blogs. Thanks again. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have them all on watch, so I always check the edits that people make. I'm not that active with the station articles as I used to be, but you've done a lot of good work, and I've paid more attention to the articles because of your edits and noticed various details to improve that don't require much time. Keep up the good work. I also have some significant editing work on my mind to at least a couple of station articles, which I hope to do soon. A.Roz (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be watching for your updates. If Victoria Park is one of them I have just uploaded some new pictures to Commons. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)