Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 20 July, 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
Toronto was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
For population, add the following below City and above Density:
Estimate (2022) 3,025,647
Not done We only use official census data from Statistics Canada, not population estimates, not even from official municipal websites or non-census population estimates from Statistics Canada, per WP:CANPOP. Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 TR Both Classes
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Simranmaan238 (article contribs).
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove Big Smoke Burger from this sentence. It is not a prominent company.
Other prominent Canadian corporations in the Greater Toronto Area include Magna International, Pizza Pizza, Big Smoke Burger, Mr. Sub, Celestica, Manulife, Sun Life Financial, Toyota Canada Inc., the Hudson's Bay Company, and major hotel companies and operators, such as Four Seasons Hotels and Fairmont Hotels and Resorts.
Change this to:
Other prominent Canadian corporations in the Greater Toronto Area include Magna International, Pizza Pizza, Mr. Sub, Celestica, Manulife, Sun Life Financial, Toyota Canada Inc., the Hudson's Bay Company, and major hotel companies and operators, such as Four Seasons Hotels and Fairmont Hotels and Resorts. 142.126.237.219 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The only reason I ask is that they do have some level of prevalence, enough to be enough to warrant an article, and they are headquartered in Toronto. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 00:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
To clarify on the above comment, the OP requested the addition of various companies headquartered in the 905 region rather than in Toronto proper. Companies based in the 905 region are outside the scope of this article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I like my photo and think it suits the article. The background is blurred because of the depth of field when I took the picture. It improves the experience for readers of the article since it shows what winter life is like in Toronto. User:Moxy, why do you dislike the photo? Félix An (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Completely disagree..... can barely see the hill in question. I suggest you get a third opinion. I would suggest that it be removed from Earl Bales Park as well. Not the place for self promotion. If you have an actual image of the park that would be great. We're not here for you show your friends you got a picture here. Moxy🍁 03:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not for self-promotion. Unfortunately, I'm not in Toronto right now, and I won't return until 2026 at the earliest. I'll dig through my archives for a better photo that shows more of the hill, but I'll keep this one until then, as I think it's better than nothing. Félix An (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and remove this from all over the place. Do not re add it without other editors input. I'm sure you're aware there's other better images available as you removed one from the main page and added a beautiful image of yourself.Moxy🍁 03:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Regardless, it is very bad practice to put a photo of yourself in a Misplaced Pages article not about yourself. Good photos of natural places such as Earl Bales Park should avoid having people in them, especially if it is yourself. Misplaced Pages is not Instagram after all. Even UrbanToronto strongly discourages photos like this. I strongly recommend that you find a photo of the park not with a specific person in focus, especially yourself, someone you know, or even a photobombed person. The photo that you uploaded only belongs on your user page and nowhere else on Misplaced Pages. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
As I said I would after closing the ANEW report ill-advisedly opened on this, I am adding my thoughts on this over here.
TL;DR: The image isn't a good fit for this article, at least. And it has an issue that, while easily corrected, could require its deletion. But there are flawed arguments on both sides here.
While Felix is right that it's better to show this in winter than summer, this is not the winter picture we need. Yes, the slope is visible (and the blur is not so serious that we can't see what it is), but Felix himself is the subject. You would be hard-pressed to see this as anything but a picture of Felix. A picture of the ski slope should be a picture of a ski slope, not someone standing in front of it.
Nevertheless, though, there is nothing wrong with having people in this picture. I would expect a picture of a ski slope in the wintertime to show people skiing on the slope. What, otherwise, would be the purpose of having cleared the area and built a lift? To say that it shouldn't have people in it because it's in a "natural area" is again to miss the point. Alpine skiing is intensive-use outdoor recreation that very often requires substantial alterations to the land (like, clear-cutting it); it would be very hard to call the resulting ski slope "natural".
So I really don't have any objections (and neither should we) to a picture of a ski slope including people. Ski slopes are built for people to use. They should be in pictures of ski slopes. I don't even have a problem with Felix being in this image. But if he were to be, he (and probably others) should be shown skiiing, not standing at the top of the slope looking cool.
This leads me to a larger issue that Moxy (did I meet you last fall at WCNA 2023? I vaguely remember your username on a lanyard) brought up. I think it's rather extreme to tell people they can't put pictures of themselves anywhere on Misplaced Pages save their userpages. Yes, we don't want to be the Instagram of encyclopedias, but to say that any picture of oneself cannot possibly have any encyclopedic value is to take a rather blinkered view IMO.
Firstly and generally, I think we should assume good faith here that Felix was seriously trying to improve the article and not accuse him of promoting himself.
What if an editor has, say, a visible medical condition that would effectively illustrate the article about that condition? Should they not take a picture of it? (I have a rather large scar from a bowel resection 15 years ago on my abdomen. I haven't added a pic of it to the article only because it's rather difficult to take that kind of picture of oneself with a digital SLR). The editor who wrote side grip used two photos of his hands holding guns to show the difference). Should he not have?
And that latter image brings me to the most significant issue here IMO. As is, this image should be deleted from Commons. Felix uploaded it as "own work" but it should be obvious from the first glance that it cannot be his own work, since he's some distance from the camera and both of his hands are visible. Therefore he was not holding the camera used, much less pulling the shutter. Copyright on that image thus (I should think in Canada as much as the U.S.) belongs to whoever actually took the picture ... they are the author of the image, they have the rights to freely license it, not Felix.
If the photographer was someone you know, Felix, you can cure this by getting an email from them saying that they agree to license that image under CC-BY-SA-4.0 and forwarding it to VRT on Commons. Otherwise we would have to delete it. (And in the future, you can solve this problem by paying whoever shoots the picture a token sum like a dollar—that will make it a work for hire and you will own the copyright).
Hi User:Daniel Case, it was my dad (Harry An) who took the photo. But my dad let me use it however I wanted to, since I requested him to take the photo and send it to me with his phone that day when I was skiing. I can assure you that there are no copyright issues. Félix An (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hang on, I'm paying my dad CNY￥5 now so that there are no "ridiculous copyright issues" (it really is just a family photo where nobody cares about copyright LOL). I will show the screenshot of the payment and consent after I am finished. Félix An (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Done! See the screenshot. (Copyright is pretty ridiculous. It sucks that I have to prove this even between family members...) Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. Félix An (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
OK! Just go to Commons VRT per the link I provided and forward that to them (you have to do that yourself as the uploader). Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
On a related note, the photos at the Cycling kit look very handsome, and the uploader was also the model in the photo. Therefore, I reasoned it was okay to include photos that contain yourself in an encyclopedia article if they enhance the reading experience for the reader. Félix An (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The lede is woefully inadequate without a mention of Toronto's ascendancy at the expense of Montreal. If not for the Québec nationalism, Toronto would still be the Second City. Glaring omission, and if I trawled the history, I bet it used to be there... 142.126.140.83 (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Exactly! Though Statistics Canada officially publishes data in both languages, most provinces of Canada are officially monolingual in either English or French. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done There hasn't been another census since 2021 so we don't know what the population is. We don't use guesstimates, only census figures. Canterbury Tailtalk18:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I was looking at the weatherbox for the climate of Toronto here when I saw that it said that Toronto had less precipitation than rainfall in August and September (august had 71.9 mm of precip but 81.1 mm of rainfall, for example). This seems illogical because rainfall contributes to precipitation totals, and thus is a part of it. Can someone check this/check the resource? Antarctican2606 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done We only use official census data from Statistics Canada, not population estimates, not even from official municipal websites or non-census population estimates from Statistics Canada, per WP:CANPOP. Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Simranmaan238 (article contribs).
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done QuietCicada chirp 17:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
.jpg){kind=link}