Talk:Toronto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Toronto has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Toronto is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

Contents

[edit] Terminology for sports teams

Recently, I reverted an edit by an anonymous editor who wanted to change the terminology used to refer to several sports in the Toronto article. The changes were as follows: "Football" to "Canadian football"; "Rugby" to "Rugby union football"; and "Soccer" to "Football". I left the following edit comment: "per Wikipedia convention, English terminology reflects the predominant usage (in this case, Canadian English)" - based on the Wikipedia convention that the dialect of English used in an article should reflect the nationality of the subject. Earlier this evening, the changes were restored and expanded, and I received the following message on my talk page (the all-caps and spelling are as per the author; the italic text is to distinguish it from my text):

== DO NOT CHANGE PROPER ENGLISH == PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE CHANGES IN THE USE OF PROPER ENGLISH LANGUAGE TERMS TO THE SPORTS SECTION AS AMERICANS AND CANADIAN ARE A MINORITY BUT THE WORLD WITCH LOOKS AT THE PAGE NEED NOT BE CONFUSED BY THE INCORECT TERMS THE WORD "SOCCER" IS AN ABREVIATION OF THE WORD ASSOSIATION AND WAS CREATED BY STUDENTS IN OXFORD UNIVERSITY AND USED AS SOCCERS WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO PLAY ASSOSIATION FOOTBALL BUT FOOTBALL IS ENGLISH AND WAS FIRST SO THE WORD FOOTBALL BELONGS TO FOOTBALL AND ALL OTHER ARE VERSIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH GAME SO

RUGBY UNION/LEAUGE FOOTBALL
AMERICAN FOOTBALL
CANADIAN FOOTBALL
AUSTRAILIAN FOOTBALL

AND ANOTHER THING CANADIAN TIRE IS INCORECT IT SHOULD BE CANADIAN TYRE TIRE IS A TERM OF YOUR STATE OF REST TYRE IS THE BLACK RUBBER RING YOU PUT ON A CAR AND FILL WITH ARE TO DRIVE ON

YOU ARE CANADIAN I AM CANADIAN USE ENGLISH NOT AMERICAN THERE SHOULD BE NOT HALF AND HALF WE SPELL THESE WORDS RIGHT SO WHY NOT THE REST AXE, CENTRE, COLOUR AND SOME OTHERS THE AMERICANS DECIDED TO DROP LETTERS TO SUIT THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE LAZY AND WANTED TO USE LESS LETTERS TO WRITE

THANK YOU —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.20.12 (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm moving the discussion here, since it pertains directly to this article. --Ckatzchatspy 08:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Canadians have played both rugby union and rugby league; see Rugby league in Canada and Rugby union in Canada. It seems rugby union dominates rugby league, so I don't know whether it is necessary to specify rugby union. The wikilink disambiguates to rugby union so it becomes clear anyway. –Pomte 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sports teams in Toronto

can someone create a column in the table and add thumbnails of the respective sports teams? i would if i knew how to. i think it makes the table nicer. Chensiyuan 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibberish

One sentence in the article contains gibberish. For instance the paragraph under the "History" section which starts with the statement "The city received new immigrant groups..." has garbage in the middle. I would deleted it but that would break the flow of the sentence and thus will leave it to some one more knowledgeable about Toronto to do the honours. We should all denounce vandalism.

Due to the increase in vandalism in this article, how about semi-protecting it? Johnny Au 03:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The article could still use a bit of work, so maybe we shouldn't put a rush on the semi-protection. Blackjays 10:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visible minorities chart

The largest visible minorities of Toronto in 2001: Chinese: 10.6%, South Asian: 10.3%, Black Canadian: 8.3%.
The largest visible minorities of Toronto in 2001: Chinese: 10.6%, South Asian: 10.3%, Black Canadian: 8.3%.

The aside pie chart image (exact same code from the mainspace article) is wrong, not just misleading as is, so it has been removed from the mainspace article so its author can repair it.

White is the definition of not being a visible minority in Ontario (Toronto too) so it has no place being in the chart. Once removed it will document visible minorities properly and we'll actually be able to see them instead of most of the chart being taken up by all that isn't a visibile minority in Ontario: "of white skin". --S-Ranger 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that whoever made the chart was trying to show the overall composition of Toronto rather than mislead people, however I agree that the chart could be misleading, perhaps the title could be changed to "Ethnic Composition of Toronto" or something similar. Basser g 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone would have to rename the graphic, if that's what a .png is, from "Visible Minorities of Toronto.png" to "Ethnic Composition of Toronto.png" to get the title changed. I have no clue how to even find the graphic let alone rename it. Anyone else? This is all there is to the code that creates the table aside or above (depends on one's video resolution):
[[Image:Visible Minorities of Toronto.png|thumb|The largest [[visible minorities]] of Toronto in 2001: Chinese: 10.6%, South Asian: 10.3%, Black Canadian: 8.3%.]]
I can only see "Visibile Minorities of Toronto" in one place, next to the Image: parameter above. It also has no verification. It's probably based on (if anything) the most sensible source, which would be Statistics Canada: 2001 Census, Community Highlights, City of Toronto. But who knows?
And even with some link claiming verification, without all percentages listed in the legend there is no way to know if the data/percentages in the spreadsheet (likely) that created the chart are correct or not. —S-Ranger 03:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Visible Minorities of Toronto.png just mentions that User:StatGraphs created it, most likely from that table you linked. I assume good faith since this user has multiple such charts, though there was a concern about his labelling here. An earlier concern for this graph was brought up here, also about categorizing ethnicities, something Stats Canada chooses to do that we can't control. This is similar to your concern - White is not included in the visible minorities table. Image:Visible Ethnic Groups of Toronto.png is an old image created by User:StatGraphs that includes White, but a huge "Other" label. I can make a new chart based on new census data, if there is consensus that the graph would be okay, but I guess not judging from these discussions. However, if we are just going to list the ethnic percentages in the article, a chart can do the job better. –Pomte 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I know I have stated elsewhere that it's impossible to assume good faith around the Toronto article but that doesn't apply to anyone but the obvious trolls. It's not the issue above and I could call POV on your assumption of good faith based on your own original research of the user. :) I'd lose because assuming good faith is a wiki-policy but the issue here is misrepresentation (the title of the table) and total lack of verification.
What you or I happen to think personally shouldn't affect the article's verifiability and I'm all for a chart; as long as the percentage column (in the spreadsheet) is included with the 'Minority Group' (whatever) name column to show up in the legend (like <little square of color> Chinese (259,710[1] * 100 / 2,481,494 [2001 Census pop, Toronto CSD same source] = 10.465872575150293 or) 10.5% rounded not 10.6% as the text below the pie chart above claims and one error, no matter how slight, is all it takes to throw the whole thing in the garbage. Not that all the math should be displayed in article view mode but it'd be nice to have variables to assign strings or ints or floats in and to be able to do some basic math in the source code, though it would be rather complicated (impossible) to do around chart of any sort in an image. It's just the math I'll be doing to check and if the percentages don't match reality (total population of whatever, not whatever anything StatsCan't misses and doesn't bother to mention how or why, goes into a row called "Unaccounted" or the like and that is either represented in the chart or it's somehow explained that the number of people claiming Chinese/whatever ethnic origin(s) isn't applied to the actual (census or estimated) total population of the CSD, CD, CA or CMA, region, whatever.
There is a number above the Visible Minority Status table at Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, Community Highlights, City of Toronto beside the row "Total population by visible minority groups" but so what? The section covers everything, including All others but doesn't manage to come up with the total 2001 Census population of the City of Toronto. It states 2,456,805 beside "Total population by visible minority groups" but the total is very clearly documented in the first table on the page and if you add up all of the people in all of the age groups, that section somehow comes up with one more person than the total population of the City of Toronto and it's not "Total - Population 15 years and over". That number checks out, so there is one extra person (not enumerated in the total 2001 Census population of the City of Toronto) in the Age 5-14 or Age 0-4 row(s).
To create proper percentages, the proper total has to be used; not some number Statistics Canada or whatever else sticks on some table proving that they lost (2,481,494 ["Population in 2001", first table at the source above, first column and in lots of other 2001 Census tables and documents regarding the 2001 Census population of the Toronto CSD/municipality of type C=City as well] minus 2,456,805 [beside "Total population by visible minority groups"] =) 24,689 people who aren't even included in the "All others" row. They're just plain not included (and the number in the Immigration Characteristics table beside two numbers, "Immigrated before 1991" = 697,995 , "Immigrated between 1991 and 2001" = 516,630. Add the two numbers and I get 1,214,625 every time: not the alleged total StatsCan't, which is called that for many reasons, posts as the total in the "Foreign-born population" row claiming 1,214,630. How did they lose 5 people simply summing two numbers? It's StatsCan't, that's how and none of its math should ever be trusted; just base numbers.
But with percentages listed, as long as they match up with mine (after triple-checking at least), it's verified and anyone who goes to the source to check it out will get the same percentages and that's that. Whether they happen to be in an ugly table or on a nice graphic is irrelevant to me; though I wish we could upload XLS files and have the wiki-software create tables, charts, etc., and keep the XLS around so I/anyone can download it (only in edit mode or having to go to the page the image is on) to check that all of the base numbers are correct (according to the source cited) and that all formulas creating information from the base data are correct.
In thumb view (as it should be if/when it's corrected and can be verified properly) it'd look like a mess but that's why it can be expanded with one click; and expanded again with another click at the page the image is on. Then (what current data are you referring to?), it's still a bit long to wait for the 2006 Census data for anything like this:
Release no. 2: Tuesday, July 17, 2007
  • Age and sex
Release no. 3: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
  • Marital status (including common-law status)
  • Families and households
  • Housing and shelter costs (including dwelling characteristics)
Release no. 4: Tuesday, December 4, 2007
  • Language
  • Mobility and migration
  • Immigration and citizenship
Release no. 5: Tuesday, January 15, 2008
  • Aboriginal peoples
Release no. 6: Tuesday, March 4, 2008
  • Labour (including labour market activity, industry and occupation)
  • Place of work and commuting to work (including mode of transportation)
  • Education
  • Language (including language of work)
Release no. 7: Wednesday, April 2, 2008
  • Ethnic origin and visible minorities
Release no. 8: Thursday, May 1, 2008
  • Income and earnings
  • Housing and shelter costs
Source: Statistics Canada: 2006 Census, Release topics and dates
It'll be another year and change before Ethnic origin and visible minorities data are published; if StatsCan't meets the deadline. —S-Ranger 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvement

  • I know there's a tool or five out there (no clue how well they work) to scan a page and auto-apply the same style of reference/citations/verification to all cites. Whether it'd work with the mess of cites (including my own) on the Toronto article I don't know. But if someone knows of which automated tools I read about many moons ago and don't recall anymore, it could be an easy way to get all or most of the references/cites into one format so that the References section isn't a mess.
  • I don't know if it's any wiki-policy as such, but the introduction to an article should set the flow of the sections/article below to be expanded upon in a logical and consistent manner. Please see my response to Boffob in the responses section below and I wasn't putting any official vote to the previous rant about the (an example, though Demographics/Culture (population) comes up in the introduction (of the Toronto article first, if not latitude/longitude possibly making Geography the most logical first section) moving the Economy section to the top, anything but the History section because the intro is pretty good but then everything fizzles out with the History section, that has nothing to do with the article because "Toronto, founded in ..." isn't how the intro is laid out, with history as the first point. [It's just here so the reply to Boffob below makes some sense to anyone who has the time to read.]
  • There is no mention of the "fiscal loonacy scam" (fiscal imbalance/gap) the Ontario and confederate feds run on the City of Toronto every year, that so much NGO research (Non-Governmental Organization a.k.a. "independent research" to governments) has been done that it's difficult to know where to even begin. Perhaps just post all of the documentation in a stub with, "Please read all of this..." or the like to link to. How else anyone is going to understand it (and know the facts, not be speculating about anything) I don't know. But there is no more important issue, period, to the City of Toronto. I'd have to weed through lots of reports to get the number as of 2005-06 (and worse; open Acrobat; or 2004-05 around most because Ontario and all other "provinces" have to be figured out first, which means going through the provincial accounts and nothing for 2005-06 has been published yet, or had been when the research was done) because the last anything I'm going to believe is a politician. I don't have to with the documentation around, but if anyone saw Miller on The Mayor on CP24 last Tuesday and caught his uncertainty (without documentation in front of his face and before the host interrupted a very important and potentially long answer with ice cream; the "news" media around here is worse than the BS that comes out of the mouths of politicians; but that's the same everywhere), regarding the fact that the City of Toronto only gets to keep 5 or 6 cents (it was 2 cents in 2004, but I can't remember if it was 2003-04, probably, or 2004-05, I don't think so) out of every 100 cents (100 cents being one very aptly-named "loonie" for the Canadas, as is) -- which is 94-95% taxation.

    The rest of our public revenue money goes to the "Ontario" feds (there are five Ontarios at minimum but that's another book or ten that involves restructuring all of the Canadas to the standard of whatever the population of the largest city-state of the Republic of <something plural> of Canada has and either fixing representation (and separation) and confederate feds, never to be seen again: here.

    I'm not proposing any political campaign at all: that's up to the businesses, guilds/"colleges", unions, people and politicians (lastly) and certainly doesn't belong anywhere in an encyclopedia: just the facts with verification. Like in the Politics section, "The number one political issue in the City of Toronto is what politicians of late call the "fiscal imbalance" or "fiscal gap". Then a wiki-link to a stub with the absolutely outrageous details. But it's a big project (and semi-fluid, as "fluidic" as worthless medieval elected "parliamentary" dictatorships can be and not just parliamentary in general: Canada has the worst/most out-dated medieval messes of parliamentary insults to the words "medieval political systems and structures" on the planet around alleged democracies, other than perhaps where it came from but even they're not so insane that they penalize economic success to the point of "Killing the Golden Geese" to reward failure [political failures for the most part] with billions of our dollars a year with less than zero common sense and no accountability at all; no other country on the planet has the mess of confederate "transfer systems" the Canadas does, which is what causes the fiscal imbalances in the first place). But anymore than that I'll have to leave for the talk page of a sub/stub for the topic if anyone thinks that the #1 political issue of all time in Toronto is worth mentioning. ;)
  • Be much more bold. Don't let bullies/trolls remove (or force others to cave in and remove) vital and correct and verified anything on the mainspace article. Too bad if others don't like reality; this (the Toronto article and this talk page) is not a discussion forum and as long as everything has proper verification (and in a consistent format if anyone ever wants FA-status) just tell them to take whatever their inferiority complex little trolling complaints (because many things about truly "little" Toronto are quite difficult to believe; but facts are facts when properly verified according to WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Attribution and tough titties if some pinhead doesn't happen to like the sound of reality; once everything potentially' contentious is verified there will be NO FURTHER ARGUMENTS ON THIS PAGE ABOUT ANYTHING other than screwed-up verifications like broken links, updated data at sources, etc.), sorry long bracket, whatever their bitching, moaning little complaints are to the sources.
  • It is not our job to do the work or explain the sources. If anyone has a question, complaint or is simply trolling around looking for fights (ignore the trolls that show up around here or at most make one copy/paste of the sentence below to answer all of them), all that should ever be stated in reply is, "Please take your questions/concerns up with the source(s) cited after reading them and, if you still have questions or complaints then find the source's contact info. We do not create the sources or source data/information because that would be against WP:OR, no original research is allowed here, only facts from credible sources as per WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Attribution. Have a nice day and thank you for your feedback -- you stupid worthless waste of our time and energy." (well maybe not the last part).
  • Please mark every part of every sentence that does not verify whatever is being claimed with {{fact}}. Just two left braces/curly brackets, the word fact (no spaces), then two right curly brackets, after punctuation with no space between the comma, period or whatever and {{fact}} other than in parentheses. If something is claimed in parenthesis with no verification then {{fact}} goes right after the unverified text (like so{{fact}}), so that others who know how to do research and spend the time finding free public sources get proper verifiability in to replace the {{fact}} tags. I'm not going to show what it looks like "wikified" because it'll mark this page as a page that doesn't cite its sources. It displays [citation needed] but with the text as a wiki-link explaining the policy. Please be prudent using it and all other verification-related tags. It's true that the picture of what is alleged to be Toronto, showing the alleged CN Tower, could be some city in Russia for all anyone who has never been here knows, but such trivial things are easily solved with a link to a Google search, the City of Toronto and lots more would have to be in on "conspiracies" about nothing.
  • Please do not remove {{fact}}, {{verify source}}, {{Failed verification}} (something is cited but the source states nothing about whatever is being claimed in the article), {{or}} [original research?] or any other verification-related tags without replacing them with proper verification. But if you add one where it's not necessary and it gets removed, click on the history tab at the top of the page to find the "edit summary"/explanation as to why the tag was removed. If you don't find proof as to why a verification-related tag was removed then make a post on this page pointing out the section, paragraph (table, sentence, whatever was involved) so that others know what you're talking about and ask why a verification or original research tag was removed and not replaced with verifiability.
  • If you think something is original research, like someone claims that "everyone" in Toronto (wherever) does or says or thinks (etc.), seemingly (good enough) based on their impressions (or some lame poll they claim to have taken; any original research at all) with no verifiable source to back it up then mark it as above (after punctuation, no spaces) with {{or}} (again it's in tags that prevent Wiki from expanding it to what the template states, basically [original research?] but with a link as "original research?" explaining that absolutely non-negotiable policy.
  • Note that when you edit a section (click on the edit link just above the section name and horizontal rule if it's a main section heading) you'll see the name of the section in C/C++ comment-style such as /* History */. Please leave that intact and put your edit summary after it with no space or anything else. It allows others to see which section you've edited and are hopefully documenting the reason(s) you made a change as opposed to having to weed through the whole article or using other methods (history pages, etc.) to find out what was changed, by whom, where and why: namely from history pages.
  • Why the above? To create reality for the Toronto article without a care in the world who has disagreed with anything and everything, because with properly-verified sources/cites, no better than any other city is going to get and often quite a lot better than is cited in other city articles (just advertising/marketing out of their city halls or county/regional governments, stating no sources for any claims, which is why it's not only important, particularly on the Toronto article, to verify every single potentially contentious statement made (as opposed to avoiding documenting potentially contentious facts with proper verifiability) but to also actually check, for those inclined and qualified to, all of the references/cites to ensure that what the article claims is what the source (cite/verification) documents/verifies.

It's rather difficult to state what FA status/rank/class articles require, not just verification but consistent verification as in no <ref ...>[whatever.url Description for the reference section]</ref> and <ref ...>{{cite ...}}</ref> are to be mixed in the same article. Pick one reference format and stick to it and preferably the cite.PHP style, with lots of help below in replies (mostly the links).

Thanks in advance for your usual feedback and help in discussing these suggestions and hopefully consensus so I and others can take action and get (if nothing else) at least the references fixed up.

And as always, you don't have to address the ref/cite issue (particularly given that it's all be answered below) but if not, perhaps you have an opinion on one or more of the other bullets/points above. --S-Ranger 16:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to "Suggestions for improvement"

Well, that was a lot. It probably deserves to be split into two discussions - how to improve the article, and how to mark citations. Anyway, regarding your last point, editors should clearly distinguish between authors and publishers. In the case of Statistics Canada or City of Toronto, the citation using the cite web template would be publisher=[[Statistics Canada]]; the braces could be omitted for entities which have no Wikipedia article about them. Dates can be formatted using the parameter date, which can obviate the need for year and month. The template page for cite web, cite book, and cite journal offer decent examples, but if you need more elaboration, ask on the template talk pages and someone will surely answer. Regarding which reference format to choose - well, that's probably a matter of taste, but I use the aforementioned cite templates. I do agree that we should be consistent in their use throughout the article. Also, I don't think everything needs to have a citation, especially obvious things that are generally observable (eg - Toronto is in Ontario). I agree that we more citations for certain claims in the article, and better sources in some cases. Mindmatrix 16:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy and always helpful feedback, Mindmatrix. I thought I stated (clearly enough; but I trust your word over my own around here) not to stick {{fact}}, etc., after the obvious as we certainly don't need that, but I should have assumed the usual, that nothing goes without saying around the general public. I just thought that I made it clear, while being more concerned with getting this article into shape once and for all (well, never, it'll always be improved upon I hope) and there's no way to do it without, well I've already said more than enough about that. Thanks for the help and links. --S-Ranger 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I wrote this before the above response, but I have to go right now so I'm not reading it. Any repetition, ignore it. I have skimmed chunks of that original text, so sorry if I misinterpret anything: As stated on Template:cite web and Template:Cite news etc, authorlink does not work with URLs. That is why you see Statistics Canada in it - because it automatically links to that Wikipedia article. When I have time, I will go through and systematically standardize every single citation. Don't worry about it, as long as the citations have all the correct information. There isn't really a need to link to the home page of the source, because the url usually already links to a page on that site. Also, the massive amount of homepage links detracts from the real ones to click on. If someone adds an obviously fake source to an article, it will usually be detected. For sneaky sources, those who are actually interested in the specifics will click on the reference and see for themselves. The citation system you have described sounds quite complicated and it is uncertain how much it would help. To see when a citation was added, you can check through History, but I don't see what that has to do with its credibility. Many would argue that usernames don't belong in an encyclopedia article. Reliable sources is a problem, and it is being tackled constantly. I have seen a number of sources contested at length as to their credibility and whether the contributor has correctly interpreted the source, withholding personal bias. Are you familiar with going to the History page to look at the diffs between edits? When someone vandalizes the article, undo their edit, go to their Talk page, and add {{uw-v1}} or {{uw-v2}} or {{uw-v3}} or {{uw-v4}}, depending on how many other similar messages you see there. Please do not change the order of the sections unless there is consensus to do so. History is first section according to WikiProject Cities. But this article doesn't actually follow the order given there, and it looks like they are working on changing it anyway. If you feel really strongly about the order of the sections, we'll discuss it here and come to a decision. If you have any questions about Wiki syntax, you can ask them on my Talk page. Don't get too frustrated. Pomte 17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap. What can I say? Thanks very much. How much do I owe you? :) But the statements above will have to be verified. ;) --S-Ranger 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops. I forgot to address the rest. Fixing every cite on the Toronto page, well, I'd like to be with you to see how you do it and I don't care either which format is selected as long as it's one/consistent and turns the References section into a non-mess as opposed to the mess it is now.
As with Mindmatrix, thanks much for the links and explanations.
I have no problems with history pages, it's just easier when edit summaries actually state what's done, even when looking at diffs because there can be lots of diffs between the time I see a change and look at a history page. And sometimes, as difficult as it may be to believe given how terse I am (gag), I fill history pages with my own edit summaries but I also know how to look further back and it's a pain. <bitch, moan, bitch ... me not you :)>
I'd much rather just right-click on something I know has been changed and get the author and edit summary up of who/whatever (IP address) made the edit and why (if there's an edit summary and if not, I'll probably change it without a care in the world other than the usual around here in articles; not a care in the world about the editor who couldn't be bothered adding an edit summary for a semi-major or major change) than weeding through history pages. Can you change that too please? :) It doesn't have to be right-click, but it would be nice if we could just select text, right-click and get all relevant edit summaries (with or without comments as on history pages) up regarding the selected text, table(s), whatever. Maybe next century.
If a cite is added a year ago, I'm not weeding through history pages and diffs to try to figure out when, who, why made whatever cite. It should be built into a proper citation system, given that it's the #1 problem of Wikipedia but there isn't even a "main page" for <ref ...>{{cite ...}}</ref> (I know the main pages, plural, but a template that takes input, a Javascript or something has to pop up and start with a dropdown of what type of cite it is, then change the fields appropriately so that they can be filled in easily and also be manipulated by wiki-software to add hidden tags, nothing visible, other than if a user chooses so, much like a watchlist) to look at the cites on a given page; maybe next century).
I totally agree, who cares about the home page? But who cares about 2002-05-01 either? What is anyone supposed to find out by clicking on that stupidity? ;) Trivial pursuit.
Thanks much for your help and feedback. --S-Ranger 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I get you about the edit summaries. Chances are, those who do not write edit summaries are not going to read this to know that you want them to write them.
  • Why does it matter whether a cite was added a week or a year ago? You can verify it regardless, and if it is bad, remove it. If you need to talk to whoever made the cite, leave a comment on the Talk page of the article. Chances are, there won't be an edit summary associated with the cite, or the reason was just "adding a citation", so you will never know why it was added in the first place.
  • Someone probably has written a JavaScript to do that. I haven't looked; what I do is have the code below in a quick handy notepad for copy and pasting every time I need to make a citation. You can leave the citation like that, line by line; won't affect the page.
<ref>{{cite web
| url = 
| title = 
| author = 
| publisher = 
| date = 
| accessdate = 2007-02-14
}}</ref>
  • I don't know if you said that in jest, but the reason for linking dates like 2002-05-01 is that it renders the date into either May 1, 2002 for us Canadians or 1 May 2002 for the British. Pomte 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed reply, Pomte but I've tried to respond to the above three or so times so far and just end up with, well it'd probably fill this discussion page so won't be posted and it doesn't belong here anyway (Wiki this and Wiki that in general; which is related to every article but this isn't the place to discuss it). And I don't know how else to explain the rather large can of worms (to me) that I opened with my already far too long, well I hope it doesn't come across as any "lecture" because they're just suggestions to be taken or left, to each his/her own (aside from the rules and un-bendable policies for quite common sense reasons).

Those who don't pay any attention to Wikipedia at all most likely don't know much of anything about it, let alone read anything on it. Those who don't read the "Four Pillars" at minimum don't, so probably don't know what they even are so aren't following them, and of course those who don't read this page won't see anything on this page period, including your statement that they won't be reading it (which kinda goes without saying; no offense taken or intended).

Whether a cite was added a year ago is irrelevant. When it was last verified/checked, not just checking a link (if it's a cite web and has a link) to see that it's not a 404 (page not found; which is for others who might be reading, I'm pretty sure you know what a 404 is) but to read the entire document if that's what it takes, to make sure that whatever is alleged prior to or after (around some tables) the cite is actually correct according to the source cited.

To me, it's more a question of why those interested in helping with the #1 problem Wikipedia has (lack of credible cites is what makes Wikipedia, in general, according to Wikipedia not I, an unreliable source of information) wouldn't want the date each citation was last checked/verified and by whom and when. After a while of it, we'll recognize good "verifiers" and if we know when they last verified what the article states is what the alleged source states, it'll make verification of cites much easier, for those interested.

I'm using "Retrieved on" to mean "Last verified/checked on" (given that Retrieved on is totally irrelevant) because Wikipedia doesn't bother addressing its #1 problem. Who cares when some cite happened to be made? All we need to know is the date on which whatever is being cited was last published/updated/modified (if the source hasn't changed since the cite was made there's nothing to verify if it's already been done by a reliable "verifier") and when what is alleged in articles was last checked and by whom, when, by doing whatever is necessary to verify that what the alleged source states is what is stated in the article and accurately without adding assumptions (original research) or whatever else that the source does not state.

A year is arbitrary with that system around other than that if allegations made in an article and allegedly (always until verified) "proven" by a reliable source according to WP:RS hasn't been done in a year it's probably time to take another look at that cite (particularly around "geographic" articles, city articles, etc., claiming all kinds of things and all kinds of stats) because the stats have probably changed if a year goes by.

It'd be nice if we could define rules along with the above. Like for any cites of the 2001 Census it'd be nice if we could tell the wiki-software that there is a census in Canada every 5 years and define release dates of 2006 Census data so that when the data are released, and if a user bothers to click on a "verification" tab (which would just build a <references /> section, but the editor enters the number of days on the verification tab (not that it exists; yet) to only see cites that are X days old (like 365) so might need to be checked on again to see if the source cited still states what is alleged in the wiki-article.

But there is no parameter that means "this cite was last verified against the allegations in the article that alleged the cite by <user> on <date>". So I'm using the "Retrieved on" date to mean "Last verified/checked on" and if a verified_on parameter were added and auto-filled with ~~~ (no need for the time) then that tag would be ignored when generating the references section and would only show up on the verification tab, for those interested in verifying that sources actually state what articles do.

There should be a button on the wiki-editor for cite source that pops an input box up with a dropdown or listbox as the first control to select the type of cite (web, news, journal, etc.) to then change the input fields below to the proper format for that type of <ref>{{cite ...}}</ref>, but without sticking what looks like complex "computer programming code" in anyone's face. Again, given that lack of reliable sources to back up allegations made in wiki-articles is the #1 problem Wikipedia has, it wouldn't be much work for the results it could obtain.

It would also allow input to be validated (proper date formats, proper links, do a quick check of the link to make sure it's not a 404 right off the bat; and add tags that only show up on the verification tab as described above) instead of sticking code that isn't even documented properly as evidenced with the numerous links above when there should be one main article for {{cite ...}} that all new incarnations link to -- at the very least but that isn't even done.

None of it makes any sense while Wikipedia's #1 problem is that it's not considered to be a reliable source, entirely due to lack of reliable sources and far too complicated "code" for those who know about lots of things but computer code (markup or not and it's not just markup) given how simple it would be to add a Cite button to the wiki-editor to run a Javascript or anything else to get the input properly and in a user-friendly format.

Thanks for the template but if that's Wikipedia's "strategy" (not stating it is or that you did; it's just what I got and everyone else reading got) to get proper sources cited then it's never going to happen. And cite web is not always the case so you need a few templates that will spin the heads of anyone who's never even seen HTML "code".

But the most obvious solution to all kinds of problems around here is a proper WYSIWYG editor with context-sensitive online help as opposed to the messes of cryptic (not to me but I still remember how utterly dazed I was around AppleBasic, 18 or 19 years ago) links to wiki-encyclopedias, not even a proper reference manual in reference manual format; which only coders with a clue would be able to comprehend anyway, which leaves all of the people who don't care about any "computer code" (so spend their time learning other things; as they certainly should be around this place) and never have and never will, totally out of the loop, unable to create a proper sentence in any article because they have no clue how to cite sources.

It seems a bit, um, mentally retarded on Wikipedia's part to me given how easy it would be to add a Cite button to the online editor.

As for the dates, the rendering for different date formats I know about. It's the fact that they're turned into wiki-links that, if clicked on, simply stick up a massive list of every article that happens to mention that date. Trivial pursuit, totally worthless IMO. There are much better sites for "important dates in history" and "what (worth mentioning) happened on this date in history".

Sorry for the length but I hope that explains what I was getting at and that was proven (no single page of documentation for the most important thing there is around Wikipedia; not that it would help much if all of the {{cite ...}} code were all linked to one main page due to the below). And it's certainly directly related to the mess of cites I'm cleaning up manually with much tedium and I'm finished for now. I got the intro section verified, now others can start working on other sections. Or not and just ignore the #1 problem Wikipedia has, due to its own stupidity in what I would hardly call "design"; I'd call it one very big mess that needs a re-write after it's properly re-engineered by software developers who know that average people don't like looking at or dealing with computer code of any sort. Who writes Word documents in a text editor, entering all of the cryptic formatting and other codes? It's what this place amounts to as of now; totally self-created problems and no kidding it's not a reliable source and it never will be until the online editor is re-written at the very least. —S-Ranger 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously very enthusiastic about the citation problem, so you should discuss it where people decide these things, possibly at WT:RS or WP:VPR or m:Talk:Cite/Cite.php. There is a proposal for alternatives to date-linking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I'm going to reply to some of those non-Toronto-related points on your talk page. I said above on March 1 that I would go through these citations, but I haven't yet simply because it's just not as interesting as adding/formatting actual content. However I will do it soon. –Pomte 02:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Pomte. I did want to see what editors of the Toronto article thought about the various suggestions for improvement but for what I'm really into and trying to discuss, it's gone beyond the scope of this page and I was going to ask you/everyone who reads this page if they knew where I could make suggestions properly, around people who might be able to do something about it (or not; feedback is just feedback, take it or leave it). Thanks again for all of your help and I've got a massive "document" in my text editor in response to what you posted on my talk page but I think I'll just thank you there and leave it at that and then post in the proper articles now that I know what they are. --S-Ranger 17:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother moving the economy section. Look at articles such as Detroit, Chicago, New York, Paris, London, Los Angeles, Montreal, Boston, etc. Notice that nowhere is the economy section the first section of the article.--Boffob 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The Economy section needs quite a lot of improvement before it's worth moving anywhere, IMO. The main point, to me, is that the introduction states things in a specific order, in brief, then the sections below expand on what the intro states. The introduction should set the flow of the article. So if history is going to be the first section (it matters not to me personally; I use the TOC to get to sections), perhaps the article should start with "Toronto, <founded as/when | established as/when | incorporated as/when> ..." (| meaning or), so that History makes some sense as the first section and flows with the intro, expanding on it in a logical manner.
Population is up next in the intro so the next section(s) would expand on that with the Demographics/Culture sections, economy comes next in the intro so the Economy section would follow that expanding on the intro in a logical manner with a logical flow.
The Chicago article has been trying to get FA-class for years, has applied many times and just got turned down again so it's not a very good example to be citing as a guide to anything. Only articles that have achieved FA status are worth citing (not that the "feature" part matters, I may have seen the home page/"featured" article of Wikipedia once and probably by mistake; it just means that it's written properly and is covering all the bases that have to be covered and mainly has neutral points of view and reference sources).
And the last time I looked at the Detroit article, Economy was the first or second section and it was very impressive but lacked credible, neutral sources. It's actually where I got the idea of moving the Economy section of Toronto to or near the top.
Anything but History as the first topic. It breaks the flow of the whole article, but that's just one opinion. —S-Ranger 19:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. I've done it before around other (alleged) articles about cities that tend to grow to the largest possible "region" quickly but I just did a bit more research based on the last feedback by Boffob (but it's not a personal reply Boffob or I'd put it on your talk page so please don't take "you" to mean you personally, as any references to "you", "we", "us", etc., always means my video display unless otherwise stated given that it's all I'm looking at and have no idea who, if anyone will read this) and as I was saying:
From the Detroit article (as of whenever I copied it a half hour ago or whatever from the date of my sig below)(underlining by me):
Detroit (IPA: [d?'t????t]) (French: Détroit, pronounced [det?wa] (help·info)) is the largest city in the U.S. state of Michigan and the seat of Wayne County. The city, founded in 1701 by French fur traders...
The only thing mentioned before history in the intro is largest city in Michigan, with no verification in wiki or any other links (the Michigan link doesn't verify it), but that sentence doesn't require its own section to expand upon (other than Demographics/Culture, just about everything to do with the statement made), just a proper citation.
So it makes sense for history to be the first section because it's the first (truly second after various "big/large" population allegations) major topic touched on in the intro that needs a section to elaborate in.
And Detroit is an FA-class article as well, so is worth a look.

The Montreal article intro gets to history quickly with: "Originally called Ville-Marie (City of Mary), the city had come to be known as Montréal by the 18th century, a name derived from the French Mont Royal..." as the first topic worthy of being expanded upon in the introduction and it has A-class article status, which is just below FA and above GA (good article, what Toronto is now; a C-grade article below FA and A).

The Boston article states (from the top other than redirect-disambig/infobox code) "Boston is the capital and most populous city of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Founded in 1630, it..." again with history as the first topic in the intro worth expanding upon (other than population, which is Demographics, Culture by whatever section labels).
It too is an FA-class article, so is worth a look.

Chicago, New York, London (3rd section is History after two main sections and four sub-sections) Los Angeles states "Los Angeles was founded in 1781 by..." in its introduction (though not as the first item to make the History section the most logical first section to expand on the introduction with, so that needs fixing as well) only have good article (GA) class, as in passible, like getting a C on a paper.
The relative importance of cities (which is bias) themselves means nothing around here other than bias. For examples of good articles about municipalities, urban, metro, etc., etc. political and geographic areas that relate to the Toronto article and improving it, finding the best FA-class articles, regardless of what anyone happens to think about the importance or anything else about a municipality, region(s allegedly "inter-connected") of multiple municipalities, etc., is the only way of citing well-done, above-average (FA-class) articles worthy of looking at as potential examples. —S-Ranger 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Maintained}} template

I found this template at the top (after {{ArticleHistory ...}}) of the Boston talk page:

{{Maintained|???...}} ("???" meaning so what's the format to enter usernames and "..." meaning more of the same for the second, ninth, fourth, etc. username [not necessarily in that order] and what if any the limit there is for user names (10, 20, by character length of whatever follows the first pipe? There has to be some limit, not that many people are into verifying alleged verifications because it's quite tedious) and it looks like this wikified:

Maintained The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
S-Ranger (talk), example account (talk), and some other dude (talk) as of March 2007
If you would like to add yourself to this list, feel free to do so.

This is a test and I know it should be in a sandbox but how would others know what it looked like if I did that?

Unfortunately there was only one [[User:<handle>]] parameter in it (after the pipe/vertical bar) on the Boston talk page, so I don't if that's how it was or is supposed to be entered.

Anyone else ever heard of this {{Maintained|...}} template or have any clue how to find the documentation and/or "source pages" (and the usual connections, discussion tab, etc.) for templates in general or this one in particular? —S-Ranger 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • See Template talk:Maintained for "best usage". I don't think we need a subpage like that; it's easier to update this manually right here. I have updated the look using {{user4}} to show the (talk • contribs • email) links, and an as of date as the bottom line. So now all let's see if anyone else would like to be on the list. –Pomte 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks (and certainly agreed regarding the bogus "wiki-documentation" above), Pomte: and also for showing me, and everyone else who sees it, how a template reference goes into a header properly.
MindMatrix posted lots on my talk page before I came here to test (um, the "Show preview" button is a fine sandbox for me; I only hit "Save page" when there's something to demonstrate around this template) before I saw your post, I went through the whole bit, created S-Ranger (talk • contribs • count) by putting {{subst:user2|S-Ranger}} on my maintenance page as instructed at the template documentation above and it shows up just fine in the template as illustrated above. But if I put what I'm supposed to be putting in the maintenance template according to its rather complex "documentation":
{{Maintained|{{User:S-Ranger/maintenance}}, {{user4|your_handle}}, {{user4|another_handle1}} <br> as of 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)}} or even {{user2|S-Ranger}}.
All that shows up is {{{1}}} as the entire list of my and example user names. It also got rid of every other example user name (thanks very much for formatting that) and the date/time (I don't think we need the time and would prefer [[YYYY-MM-DD]] instead but) you also cleverly added to the template, were all gone and replaced by {{{1}}}.
I prefer the user2 template because I don't publish any email address in my user account so the user4 template may be "recommended" (it doesn't state that it's mandatory) but that format is only useful to those who stick an email address in their user accounts, which I haven't done and have no immediate plans of doing given that I have a talk page here for anyone to "email" me at. But even trying {{user2|S-Ranger}} in the template above does exactly what {{User:S-Ranger/maintenance}} does (replaces all data after the pipe with {{{1}}}).
Sorry to anyone who thinks this is personal and should be on user pages (no reference to your help on my talk page, MindMatrix) and so forth but this template belongs at the top of this talk page with some simple instructions for others to add their user names, if up to speed with the rules of at least WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Attribution (which replaces the separate WP:VERIFY, WP:RS policies and lots more) and users who add their usernames know how to do what the template above states they are doing and are capable of doing.
Everyone who comes to this page has to know what the template above (that will be at the top of the top page) is for and that I wasn't "appointed" by some admin who stuck the template tag on this talk page (because even if my username is the only name in the template and I simply wasted my time with "wiki-documentation" as usual; the template is still going to the top of the talk page, perhaps with HTML comments explaining how to add a user name; because I do verify sources around the Toronto article and have no immediate plans of stopping either -- but not all references and best of luck to anyone knowing all of it at an expert level).
Others who see the template have to know that I did it myself (well, just than an admin didn't) and that others are free to add their usernames as well; if they can figure out how to do it and using any of the user templates at Template:User. Sorry, no frustration (if it leaked out) is directed at you or anyone in particular. —S-Ranger 20:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Got rid of the email links. Using {{user0}} now instead. Not sure if contribs or count need to be linked as well, because if someone reads that notice and needs help, then they will ask on your Talk page, and wouldn't be concerned about your other contributions or edit counts. Also, I really wouldn't worry about using a /maintenance subpage because this works fine. Changed the date/time to a month, so the list can be checked/updated monthly to reflect whether the users are active. Move this up to the top when you are ready. –Pomte 21:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Great! Thanks very much, Pomte. I thought that the user0 template was quite more than enough for the purpose of this template as well, when looking the user templates over. So all I'm going to do is remove the examples, document how to add one's username in an HTML comment below the template ... and it's off to the top of the page, but with a copy until this section is archived, deleted, whatever or it'll make no sense with the template gone and I'd kinda like others to know/read about it over time, but whatever.
I hope it helps and hope that others, even if they verify one link every six months, add their usernames so that we (or I anyway) can start confirming that the usernames listed are actually doing what they claim to be doing.
But please don't hesitate anyone. Verification of sources (or even one source you know about will do) is not anything regular let alone some full-time job. And whenever anyone verifies a link, please update the accessdate= parameter in cite reference (or fakes/equivalents) because it means "Last verified on:" not "Retrieved on:" in Toronto article verification/references). I hereby declare it to be so (and Pomte too in a suggestion to me on my talk page), with no clue how to do that either, so that that it stays on the talk page indefinitely as a little comment at the top.
It'd be better if we documented "Infobox" or "Intro" or the sentence or table, whatever section or partial section(s)/subsection(s) we each allege to be verifying (with due sanity; not even once a month after they're all verified or dumped/replaced with proper verification) for proper sources to back up what the Toronto article states and also for our own organizational purposes. But it's a good start compared to nothing. :)
As always thanks to all for all of the help and feedback and if this section is now obsolete (along with the Feedback section that I still need to split into two sections; the ref/cite issue has been addressed but it could still help lots of others).
"Those qualified to" should feel free to archive the "Feedback..." and Responses to feedback and this section to clear up the talk page here, given that it was just archived/cleared up and I clogged it up (again) rather quickly. I'll see what I can do with my own edits first but I'm not sure if I should remove anything because I have no idea who might read it and find it helpful (or annoying or anything in between :0) but I'll give it a shot when I have a chance; unless I'm "superceded" by someone with more experience of course (another way of saying, "Unless anyone else wants to clean up my messes for me). :) —S-Ranger 23:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Latitude and Longitude: Why are there two different sets of co-ordinates cited for the city? 43°39′ N 79°23′ W at the top, and Coordinates: 44°10′ N 79°55′ W lower down below the map?

[edit] Olympics?

There should definitely be information about Toronto's bid for the 2008 games, as well as prospective games it could hold in the future. --RPaleja 09:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If so, then no more than a mention of failed bids for the 1996 and 2008 games, and link to Bids for Olympic Games; We don't need brutal detail here. Although it's interesting that Toronto got the "Olympic Spirit" as a sop for not getting the games, and guess what... it's closed already. Flyguy649talkcontribs 16:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Further specific links are 2008 Summer Olympics bids, and 1996 Summer Olympics#Selection. Flyguy649talkcontribs 16:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous has reverted a brief sentence mentioning the failed bids, with no reason given. Someone can re-add it if there is consensus to do so. –Pomte 03:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population references

I have removed the following references:

  1. 2006 Census community highlights, City of Toronto. Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population (2007-03-13). Retrieved on March 13, 2007.
  2. Population and dwelling counts, for census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations, 2006 and 2001 censuses - 100% data. Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population (2007-03-13). Retrieved on March 13, 2007.

in favour of this one:

This last table contains both City and CMA numbers for 2001 and 2006, so now we don't need separate references for each.

I have started an attempt to attribute every number in the population table to a link. What I didn't like was that although there were citations at the bottom right, it was unclear which numbers came from where. For example, I have removed this link that is not used at all; its numbers are rounded unlike the actual numbers in the table:

Are some of the older numbers taken from offline copies of the census? –Pomte 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I had used the Community highlights page is that eventually, it will be updated with information from all subsequent census data releases, which would provide a single reference for most demographic data about the city. For example, see the 2001 community profile. I suppose we can switch back to this once all data releases are incorporated into the profile. Mindmatrix 14:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As Mindmatrix stated, we're going to need the first link for the Demographics/Culture section once the data are released it'll go onto the Community Hightlights page/tables source. I'm not sure if I stuck a link to it in the Demographics section (commented out for now) yet but if not I'll add it; not that it's difficult to find but the URL is only a tiny part of a proper citation. —S-Ranger 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population reference link formats

Whether this should be a WikiProject Canada and/or WikiProject Ontario I'll leave up to those who know something about both to copy or move to wherever. For now (and I wouldn't count on any data from Statitics Canada about future data releases, but the information is available from the 2006 Census page, Release topics and dates) by far the most useful link to editors is:

Statistics Canada: Population and Dwelling Counts: Highlight Tables, 2006 Census.

It's the main 'index' or 'home page' for the population and dwelling (first major release) data by just about any which way one wishes to view it. CSDs are municipalities (of whatever type, including First Nations/Aboriginal Reserves even though they're not municipalities), CMAs are "metro areas" with an urban area population (see UAs) of at least 100,000, CAs (census agglomerations) are smaller sort of (still use the metro_ tags in infoboxes, etc.) smaller CMAs that have to have a (combined if there is more than one main urban area) urban areas with at least 10,000 through 99,999 people.

UAs (urban areas) are the combined populations of the main urban area(s) in a CMA or CA.

The above is about the only sort of tricky one I can think of (for whatever geographic area/type you want/need municipal breakdowns for) because you're starting with CSDs (municipalities) then moving on up to CMAs and CAs (more than one CSD, pretty much based on commuting patterns that show socio-economic dependencies/integration and such; or the lack thereof to exclude a CSD from a CMA or CA) or CDs or UAs or rural/urban populations/areas, etc.

You always have the back button on your web browser if you get a page you don't understand and for those questions, we need a place to answer them. The Statistics Canada 2006 Census Illustrated Glossary (of census terms with plain-English definitions and more detailed explanations for those who want them) should be able to help most with the usual (or any) census geographic labels/terms like CSD, CD, CT (census tracts for CAs with more than 50,000 in population and all CMAs is kinda optional but won't kill anyone to try to sort of understand with the short explanation) CMA or CA ("metro" areas), UA.

I've come up with four ref/cite templates so far to use in infobox templates primarily but also, with the name="<label>" labels it makes it very easy to reference the main sources (2006 population, 2001 population, % change, private dwellings, total and occupied, land area in km2, population density, 2006 and the national rank in population for the CSD, CD (census division, equivalent to a county) of a CSD, CD, CA, CMA, UA or whatever one happens to select to look at from the first link above; in the rest of the article.

It's not up to me to set any standards for reference name tags (like "2006CensCSD" in the first ref tag below) but standard <ref name="label" ...> label names for the basics would be handy if we had any (or create them).

_____________________________________________________________________________
CSD - Census subdivision (municipality of whatever type) w/all of the above
(2006 population, 2001 population, % change, private dwellings, total and
occupied, land area in km2, population density, 2006 and
the national rank in population).
_____________________________________________________________________________

<ref name="2006CensCSD"> {{cite web
 |url=<all CSDs in Canada, click on the down arrow to sort by 2006 Population
       then get to the page the CSD is on and copy/paste the URL>
 |title=Population and dwelling counts, for Canada and census subdivisions (municipalities), (land areas, population density, national population rank and other data) 2006 and 2001 censuses - 100% data
 |work=[[Statistics Canada]], 2006 Census of Population 
 |date=[[2007-03-13]]
 |accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD}}</ref>

After defined, reference with: <ref name="2006CensCSD" />

_____________________________________________________________________________
CSD - Census subdivision (municipality of any type) COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS
You get to these tables from here: 

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/index.cfm

If you enter Toronto beside Place name: and select Ontario as the province
you'll get the options:
   Toronto, Ontario (City)
   Toronto, Ontario (Census metropolitan area)
   Toronto, Ontario (Census division)
These tables will eventually contain all of the information (at minimum)
that the 2001 Census Community Highlight tables all contain. These types of
refs will be useful when age group, sex, etc., data are added from 2006 Census
data (Demographics sections, for example).
_____________________________________________________________________________

<ref name="2006CensCommun">{{cite web
 |url=<URL after entering the name and selecting the province of the
       <whatever> and selecting CSD or CMA/CA or possibly Census Division
       ("county") or something else if <whatever> entered isn't in a CMA or
       CA>
 |title=Community Highlights, <whatever was selected>
 |work=[[Statistics Canada]], 2006 Census of Population
 |date=[[2007-03-13]]
 |accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD}}</ref>

After defined, reference with: <ref name="2006CensCommun" />

_____________________________________________________________________________
CMAs (one each) - POP & DWELL TABLES
_____________________________________________________________________________

<ref name="2006CensCMA">{{cite web
 |url=<after doing as instructed above to get the CMA and all CSDs in it onto
       one table with all of the usual information (not Community Highlights),
       and clicking on the down arrow beside 2006 (population) to sort it
       so that it means something, copy/paste the URL in here>
 |title=<enter the title of the table and add, "Winnipeg CMA" or the like>
 |work=[[Statistics Canada]], 2006 Census of Population
 |date=[[2007-03-13]]
 |accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD}}</ref>

After defined, reference with: <ref name="2006CensCMA" />

_____________________________________________________________________________
ALL CMAS - POP & DWELL TABLES
This is used to back up claims that so-and-so is the X[th] largest "metro
area" or the like, not usually [[census metropolitan area]], in Canada.  It
lists all CMAs, sorted by 2006 population, descending.
_____________________________________________________________________________

<ref name="2006CensAllCMAs">{{cite web
 |url=http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=205&SR=1&S=3&O=D&RPP=33
 |title=Population and dwelling counts, for census metropolitan areas (ALL), 2006 and 2001 censuses - 100% data
 |work=[[Statistics Canada]], 2006 Census of Population
 |date=[[2007-03-13]]
 |accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD}}</ref>

After defined, reference with: <ref name="2006CensAllCMAs" />

_____________________________________________________________________________
URBAN AREA - select Urban Areas (UAs) 

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/SubTables.cfm?T=800

from the main Population and dwelling counts link (first one) cited above.
_____________________________________________________________________________

<ref name="2006CensUA">{{cite web 
 |url=<the usual after getting the proper table up and sorting it properly, copy in the
       URL from your browser and replace this with the real URL>
 |title=Population and dwelling counts, for urban areas (land areas, population density, national population rank and other data), 2006 and 2001 censuses - 100% data
 |work=[[Statistics Canada]], 2006 Census of Population
 |date=[[2007-03-13]]
 |accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD}}</ref>

After defined, reference with: <ref name="2006CensUA" />
_____________________________________________________________________________

You get the 2006, 2001 populations, land area in km2 to work out population density (I never trust StatsCan math because it's usually wrong: population density is just the population of <whatever>, CSD, CD, CA, CMA, UA divided by the number of square kilometers stated on the same table(s) in the same column as the 2006 population), which is enough to fix an infobox up with 2006 Census data and references, then with the reference names, just cite <ref name="2006CensCMA" />, etc., as above (not all, it depends what the infobox/article state about 2006 anything) in the rest of the article wherever they're needed.

It could/should be expanded upon (I've only updated a few pages so far but the templates above have been pretty much it so far) a bit and probably written more clearly but it's a start. —S-Ranger 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] alternative, music or criminal subcultures

Toronto has many active alternative or music subcultures which are not mentioned. for example the gay subculture, goth subculture, fetish subculture and rave. I can not speak for gangsta but I assume it exists, and others, such as punk subculture. Sports are mentioned as well as mainstream music outlets (like I would expect in a tourist pamphet) but nothing is mentioned of anything other than what you expect in a tourist pamphlet. Shouldn't there be a subsection of culture main section devoted to documenting the activity of various alternative subcultures one will find in Toronto? Lets not forget criminal subcultures (although looking at the crime statistics I now wonder if there is in fact no criminal subculture whatsoever). In any event the way it reads right now is a very inaccurate depiction of true culture the city. If this is consensual I'll add a subsection with a comment that it is incomplete and needs contributions. I can't see any basis for not including this unless it has already been done and I just can't see it. I wont go in and just do it however, because I haven't been following this page closely. Its just an idea I had this minute.TheDarknessVisible 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas of where to find independent sources that talk about which alternative subcultures are most prominent? Details belong in Culture in Toronto, so once it is added there, there can be a summary here. There's no mention of TO Live With Culture either (though all I encountered were the huge subway ads). There are some areas of the city reputed to be more dangerous, and Toronto may have an image of low crime compared to American cities (does it?), but hearsay needs to be backed up as well. –Pomte 07:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the statistics from statistics canada already cited (link still works) in the article: Toronto has a low crime rate compared to Canadian cities! I'll try to think of where I can find something about subcultures tommorow. I know where to look for stuff on some. once the section starts I'm sure other people will come forward and want to describe their subcultures or whatever is missing.TheDarknessVisible 09:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates at the bottom

Why do some of these templates use light blue (#c8d8ff)? It'd look a lot more organized with them all being one colour, either light blue or light purple, which is the default. Also, why was the Toronto municipalities template using orange? I've changed it to the default, but maybe I've missed some essential connection between Toronto and orange.

Would you rather the headings say just Toronto, or Toronto, Ontario? On any article using these templates it should be pretty clear which Toronto is in question, but for formality's sake, the province may be useful. –Pomte 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There already was a discussion over the Toronto, Ontario issue, and it was decided that it would remain simply Toronto. No other Toronto comes close in terms of notoriety, and the article clearly states that it's in Ontario. Blackjays 02:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeless

Why is there no mention of the homlessness problem in the city? The issue is certainly notable enough to be here; a lot of people think it's worse than the New York homelessness problem was before Rudy Guliani took care of it. It's also one of the reasons that Toronto lost the 2008 Olympic bid. I could put a little blurb inside the 'demographics' section but if there is another contributor that knows more about the issue, that would be great. -Enviroboy (Talk|Contribs) 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/r/Talk%7EToronto_06bd.html"