Talk:The Beaches
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. |
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
Contents |
[edit] Boundary
I always figured the western boundary was Coxwell, not Woodbine. The beach itself, and the boardwalk, stretch to Coxwell. And everyone in the area between Coxwell and Woodbine always identify themselves as being in the Beaches or Upper Beaches. While those east of Coxwell don't. Nfitz 15:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I suspect that the boundary dispute is due to historical background and bias. Prior to the mid-90s the Woodbine Racetrack arguably was considered as part of a separate community, with the Beach-ers to the east of Woodbine. The Triangle region just north of that area had many long-time families in it, but was also considered (at the time) relatively low-rent compared to the rest of The Beaches proper -- there was a time when it was a popular area for U. of T. students to be. Now that the area has become gentrified and built over since the Racetrack disappeared, and the Boardwalk extended (in the 70s?) past Woodbine, it is now pretty much assumed that this area is part of "The Beaches" too. Certainly the Real Estate agents think so! ;-) A one- or two-line summary of this should probably be added to the article (and note that I do not have any handy references to back me up on this!) Captmondo 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have any references either ... and I've only been living in the area (just west of Coxwell) for a year). So much of the history is lost on me, and I only see what is there now. So what would/does one called the area west of Woodbine and east ofCoxwell. It's too far east for Riverside or Leslieville (whatever that is!). And south of the tracks isn't Danforth. Nfitz
- Had the chance to ask this question of one of the old-timers (lived in the area 50+ years) and he reported that the Triangle region has been considered part of this beaches as long as he's known, and confirmed that the area north of Kingston Road being called the Upper Beaches is a fiction devised by Real Estate agents in the past ten years or so. The area west of Coxwell is in fact part of Leslieville, which is confirmed by the Leslieville article on Wikipedia. He also answered the question to my satisfaction as to the "The Beaches"/"The Beach" controversy, which I have added to the main article. Captmondo 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, good research. But what does one call the area south of CN tracks from Coxwell to Victoria Park? I'd hate to think it was marketing, but I think Upper Beaches is catching on ... Nfitz 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- You may well be right. Am going more on historical precedent, and who are we to dispute increasingly common usage, no matter the originating source? ;-) I have been doing some historical research on the Beaches, and I suspect the real answer to your question has more to do with whatever village originally existed in that area. When I have the answer, will post it here (with references). And btw, my addition with regard to Beach/Beaches was reverted due to it being speculation not based on anything I could back up (yet). Captmondo 03:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, good research. But what does one call the area south of CN tracks from Coxwell to Victoria Park? I'd hate to think it was marketing, but I think Upper Beaches is catching on ... Nfitz 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Had the chance to ask this question of one of the old-timers (lived in the area 50+ years) and he reported that the Triangle region has been considered part of this beaches as long as he's known, and confirmed that the area north of Kingston Road being called the Upper Beaches is a fiction devised by Real Estate agents in the past ten years or so. The area west of Coxwell is in fact part of Leslieville, which is confirmed by the Leslieville article on Wikipedia. He also answered the question to my satisfaction as to the "The Beaches"/"The Beach" controversy, which I have added to the main article. Captmondo 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have any references either ... and I've only been living in the area (just west of Coxwell) for a year). So much of the history is lost on me, and I only see what is there now. So what would/does one called the area west of Woodbine and east ofCoxwell. It's too far east for Riverside or Leslieville (whatever that is!). And south of the tracks isn't Danforth. Nfitz
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, these are the boundaries: to the north, Gerrard St, to the south, Lake Ontario, to the west, Coxwell Ave, to the east, Victoria Park.Griffin Murphy 23:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
The Beaches → The Beach (Toronto) – The article refers to the neighbourhood as "The Beaches", although there is a section of the article dealing with the perennial Beach vs. Beaches debate. The local Business Improvement Association recently held a straw poll to decide which name to use on street signs, and "The Beach" won out. The article has been subject to fairly regular POV edits on both sides of the name issue, edits which appear to be increasing in number due to the renewed media interest in the debate. I do not care which name is chosen, as long as we achieve some consensus on one and stick with it. --Skeezix1000 17:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Earlier Discussion
Official street signs will use the singular: [1]
Does this necessitate a move of the article to a new title? Radagast 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Probably not. Even the BIA which held the vote was in the paper today confirming that it isn't going to change its own name from the Beaches Business Improvement Association. The vote was, as I understand it, to figure out whether the new street signs should say Beach or Beaches.
I am more concerned about process, however. Given the controversy over the name of the neighbourhood, if someone believes that the article should be moved to "The Beach (Toronto)" (I think "The Beach" is already taken), then we should go through a proper "Requested Move" process and seek consensus before any move is undertaken. I do hope that today's news does not lead someone to unilaterally move the article. Skeezix1000 19:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I see someone did move the article. That's what I was afraid of. Skeezix1000 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I was the one who unilaterally moved The Beaches -> The Beach (Toronto). Apologies, I wasn't aware of a "requested move" process -- my bad. But given the recent vote it strikes me that retaining the old name for the page would now in and of itself be considered POV-ism, considering that the name (for good or ill) has been decided upon. True, the poll was informal, and the area itself will undoubtedly still be called "The Beaches" by many, but to keep the name in the plural when a consensus seemingly has been reached necessitates the name change for the article, in my opinion.
For the record, I voted for the plural form, so this is not coming from someone who has an axe to grind with regard to the name or the naming decision. It just seems wrong to retain the plural form as the name for the article when a majority of residents have opted for the singular version.
And yes you are right, The Beach is already taken, and arguably should be made into a disambig page if we go with The Beach (Toronto). Captmondo 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was the one who unilaterally moved The Beaches -> The Beach (Toronto). Apologies, I wasn't aware of a "requested move" process -- my bad. But given the recent vote it strikes me that retaining the old name for the page would now in and of itself be considered POV-ism, considering that the name (for good or ill) has been decided upon. True, the poll was informal, and the area itself will undoubtedly still be called "The Beaches" by many, but to keep the name in the plural when a consensus seemingly has been reached necessitates the name change for the article, in my opinion.
-
-
- No worries. I usually learn about these things the "hard way" too.
But your comments on whether retaining the old article name is POV goes to the very point I was making -- others may diagree that the BIA vote represents any kind of consensus, and that is something for which there should be discussion here on Wikipedia before any move is undertaken. Personally, I have never really cared either way about this name debate, but have erred on the side of caution to retain the title as "The Beaches" because (a) that's how the article was originally written, and more importantly, (b) that's how it is designated by all levels of government (the riding and the ward). The BIA undertook a non-verifiable, unscientific poll to decide the name to put on street signs. Nothing more. I do believe that there are a number of good, debatable reasons to move the article to "The Beach", but the BIA vote, in my opinion, is really not one of them. See? We disagree on even the initial premise of whether or not the vote means a darn thing or not. And you and I usually see eye-to-eye on this article. I can only imagine that there are others who will also have strong opinions.Skeezix1000 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- No worries. I usually learn about these things the "hard way" too.
-
-
-
-
- I also have reservations about the BIA vote as well, an actual plebiscite would be more compelling than the "if you know how and where to vote, you can do so" approach they took. But it was well-publicized (the issue was hard to miss in any of the local papers) and people arguably have only themselves to blame if they do not feel they were counted. Given that the larger Canadian press has been reporting on the topic, and come the Fall there will be street signs bearing the "official" name of The Beach, I would argue that over the long term, we're going to see more usage of the singular form of the name rather than the plural, hence we should consider switching over to using a article whose name matches the singular form. I can't help but think that doing anything else would not be considered POV-ism and stubbornly obtuse (typical Wikipedia user: "why is the article called "The Beaches" when the residents have agreed on the singular form?)
I also don't think Wikipedia as a whole should offer any judgment on the BIA vote in terms of its process, though it would be prudent to note how it was carried out.
And just as an aside it is amusing to note how local reporters are obviously taking a peek at the article as a basis for their own stories. (I had *never* heard of anyone using plural/singular form instead of "Beaches"/"Beach" prior to it being used here. Check out today's copy of Metro News to see it used liberally throughout the piece. ;-) Captmondo 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the issue is that others may disagree with your presumption that the the name on the street signs is the "official" name (the BIA can choose the name it wants on the signs that it is helping to fund, but has no authority to determine the official name of the neighbourhood), or that residents have "agreed on the singular form" for the neighbourhood (arguably they agreed on the singular form for street signs only - no more). Therefore, it's open to debate whether the existing name is POV or keeping it is obtuse. You can't assume that from the start. That's why there should not be a move until it has gone through Requested Moves.
I agree with you that no one should undertake any original research in questioning the BIA vote (e.g. "was there ballot-stuffing?") for inclusion in the article, but Wikipedians are entitled to consider the significance of the vote (or lack thereof), the verifiable facts as to how it was conducted, and how much weight they attribute to the vote as compared to all the other facts in the great Beach-Beaches debate. The consensus may be that the vote if the best piece of evidence available, and is therefore determinative, or that it was meaningless.
I might be overstating the potential controversy over the proposed move. It may be that most Wikipedians don't care, or that a clear consensus emerges right away. However, given the history of this issue in the neighbourhood, and the history of some inappropriate edits to the article, there is potential for controversy, so it's best to move cautiously. --Skeezix1000 13:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the issue is that others may disagree with your presumption that the the name on the street signs is the "official" name (the BIA can choose the name it wants on the signs that it is helping to fund, but has no authority to determine the official name of the neighbourhood), or that residents have "agreed on the singular form" for the neighbourhood (arguably they agreed on the singular form for street signs only - no more). Therefore, it's open to debate whether the existing name is POV or keeping it is obtuse. You can't assume that from the start. That's why there should not be a move until it has gone through Requested Moves.
- I also have reservations about the BIA vote as well, an actual plebiscite would be more compelling than the "if you know how and where to vote, you can do so" approach they took. But it was well-publicized (the issue was hard to miss in any of the local papers) and people arguably have only themselves to blame if they do not feel they were counted. Given that the larger Canadian press has been reporting on the topic, and come the Fall there will be street signs bearing the "official" name of The Beach, I would argue that over the long term, we're going to see more usage of the singular form of the name rather than the plural, hence we should consider switching over to using a article whose name matches the singular form. I can't help but think that doing anything else would not be considered POV-ism and stubbornly obtuse (typical Wikipedia user: "why is the article called "The Beaches" when the residents have agreed on the singular form?)
-
-
[edit] Survey
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support - I believe the recent local plebiscite in the area that favoured the singular version of the term, and the subsequent press coverage in the local media makes the need for the change necessary. In the long term, it seems likely that the singular version of the term will become the one mostly commonly used. Captmondo 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've alwways known the area to be "The Beaches". The differences in the name is already discussed in detail in the first section. --Madchester 02:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] "Desirable"
POV-ful... suggest rewording. elpincha 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The word "class"
I think the word class shouldn't be used, like upper-middle class. It has a very negative tone. Perhaps it should read something like... The Beaches is a neighbourhood which is inhabited by mostly upper-middle income families. xero 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- The reference to "uppper middle class" shouldn't be there at all, absent a source, otherwise it violates WP:OR and likely WP:NPOV. Skeezix1000 17:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notable people
This section has always been problematic.
First, I propose that the section be limited to those persons that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Thus, we avoid (or at least can reverse) the addition of persons who are of questionable notability. I'm tired of people adding their own names, the names of their friends, or the names of locals that they deem to be notable. We need an objective standard, and meriting inclusion in Wikipedia is a good one.
Second, the section needs to be sourced. Editors (mostly anons) routinely add names to this section, and it is impossible to tell whether or not these persons are actually from the Beaches/Beach or not. I've tagged the section as unreferenced for now. At some point, names that can't be verified should be removed, until someone can provide a source.
Third, and finally, in my opinion alumni lists for Malvern Collegiate belong in the article on Malvern Collegiate, not in this article. Heck, a lot of people believe that Malvern isn't even located in the Beaches, given its location north of Kingston Road. It may serve the Beaches neighbourhood, but that doesn't mean that its students who aren't from the Beaches suddenly become "notable people from the Beaches" by association with fellow students who happen to live in the Beaches.
Thoughts? Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've started to add sources to the section. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I have added the sources that I can. In the end, I weakened and kept the high school references (I suppose that Beaches residents who went to high school with Keifer Sutherland likely feel that Keifer has a connection to the neighbourhood), although the specifics of who attended what high shool belong in the school articles, not here. I could not find any references to support the fact that Dan Hill or Alannah Myles lived in the area, or that David Wilcox attended an area high school. As for the Barenaked Ladies, I also could not find any sources, and we would certainly need to know the names of the specific band members. Skeezix1000 13:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] When was the last time
YOU GOT WASTED AT LEUTY? YOOOOOOOOOOOO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatsketch (talk • contribs) 09:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
