Talk:Toronto/Archive 7

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 I've no objections to the image contents (it's a little outdated perhaps), just the quality of it.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support, per above. Blackjays1 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Indeed, the canoe should be removed. Blackjays1 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So canoe skyline it is (without the canoe of course). Will be uploaded later tommorow! EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done, Congratulations everyone, we have our own new montage! EelamStyleZ (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. It is a myth. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 04:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is already mentioned (implied). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's arguably a level of detail that doesn't belong in the lead. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

But why? Where does that principle come from?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(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))[reply]

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)[reply]

U of T is ranked highly as a whole, not just individual programmes. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was just about to post virtually the same thing skeezix. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic seems to generate so much uncivil debate, generally against Dbrodbeck. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was asking, because I thought that this topic may be controversial. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It should be updated. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Rock championships

Can you put that Toronto Rock has 6 championships now? Stanley2toronto (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 19:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]