From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Canadian music WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

About the parking lot. If anyone is curious about my change to "restoration" of the original lot, I suggest they check the minutes of the City of Toronto at the City Archvies. It is clear that the Palais Royale had a lot until April of 1966. Lostphd 17:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I never knew about that factor. Krupo 04:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that someone has put original research and unverifiable tags here. Everything here except the debate about the sprung floor can be verified, it's just been laziness that no-one has put the references in yet. No excuse, I know. I am not sure how this article can deal with the many claims and counter-claims about the floor, in an objective and verifiable manner. Lostphd 13:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope -- laziness is not an excuse. The section about the sprung floor was the chief thing that concerned me when I added the OR tag. It clearly is original research, and until it's fixed the OR tag is entirely appropriate; i have restored it. If the tag is removed again I would appreciate an explanation (I checked the history and I see it wasn't you who removed it). The tag is also a helpful incentive to people who are capable of fixing the section. Approximate Vicinity 02:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the OR tag. But the only people who can deal with the question of the floor are the current custodians of the property, and they haven't said anything definitive, except for modelling in on the Rainbow Room in NYC (which I was told about during a tour of the facility, and which probably can't be counted as a "source") Lostphd 14:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I think the stuff about springing the floor should come out. It could be added to this page, though, so that it isn't lost. I think Wikipedia is too strict about this myself – I don't know why personal experience can't be reported as long as it is acknowledged as personal experience, somewhat in the way that personal communications are cited in scientific writing. However, most people, at least when pressed, seem to agree with the rules for citation. Approximate Vicinity 14:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You can cite yourself. But you have to have a place to cite yourself from. :-) Alaney2k 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

In response to the debate about unverifiable material, I have begun to add some sources for this article. Please excuse the rough formatting, this is the first Wikipedia article I have ever attempted to add references to. The formatting gurus can correct these as required. In the process of checking my sources, I realized the Palais lot was actually removed by April 1965, not 1966 as I had originally stated. Lostphd 15:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sprung Floor

I have commented out the text on the sprung floor. I don't recall the exact source I got the original text from. It was probably a Mike Riley book. Other people added the Rainbow Room, etc. I think the best idea is to get the verifiable reference from the Riley book. It can be written in a NPOV way to omit that it was removed, etc. It seems that someone or some company did the removal 'on the sly', which seems to be another factor in the tragedy of the Sunnyside area. I am sure we can dig up info about the springs. Alaney2k 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. We will figure this out in time Lostphd 03:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not find any text about the sprung floor. The Star's Christopher Hume states that it is a myth. While some web sites mention it. I have gone to a concert there. I do not recall seeing any spring under the floor. The floor itself could have springy due to the amount of wood. It seems pretty clear that the floor today is entirely new, from the palaisroyale.ca web site photos. Alaney2k 18:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What we need now is some old-time Toronto dance expert from the 1940s or 1950s to chime in on this. Until then, we can let it rest. Lostphd 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Decline?

I think the concept that the Palais Royale went "into decline" is a POV. It was always used for dances, even after the Polish National Union took it over. That's why I took so much trouble to outline the history in my previous revision. But we can hash that out here in the talk page for the moment Lostphd

You're right. I've fixed that up. It was a poor way of bringing up the building was not maintained/improved during the PNU days, necessitating the Pegasus renovations. Alaney2k 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. That was your point. I see. Yes, the PNU didn't spend as much as Pegasus did on the property, without question. But, except for a short period when it was condemned by a building inspector (I would have to check my notes for a date) the building still stayed open under the PNU. I will look up the reference to the inspection and perhaps I will add it, so we all are on the same page. Lostphd 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)