From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Downtown Categorization[edit]

IS wrong. Downtown areas: Downtown. NO... Downtown areas: CBD would be more accurate. Places like Corso Italia, Little Italy, or Greektown are not dwontwon either. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs) 13 Aug 2006

Stay Safe or Not[edit]

The stats are not specific to the victimization of tourists and the stats need some sourcing to check for accuracy and currency. If you're going to give any stat, it should be how many visitors per 100,000 are the victim of a crime, including vehicle theft, assault, robbery, murder, etc. Produce those figures for Toronto and the cities that you want to compare. For example, while NYC might have a higher homicide rate, the rate is not even across the entire city - the boroughs where the rate is high are not where tourists usually traverse unless they're intending to visit a high crime rate area. Also, if you're going to compare, how about comparing Canada to Germany - Canada's rate of murder is 3 times that of Germany. A fair comparison should indicate where Toronto is in relation to the lowest to the highest rates; by comparing only to the higher rates, you're giving a false impression. Also, don't compare to all the cities in the USA - do one major city from several different countries and perhaps compare Toronto to Montreal and the national rate. 00:50, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

So you're comparing Toronto to the whole country of Germany? Berlin, a similar sized city in Germany, has a considerably higher homicide rate at 4.4 per 100,000.—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs) 13 Aug 2006

Yes, I suck for changing "harbour" to "harbor". If someone has a better plan for spelling, please give it on Project:Manual of style. -- (WT-en) Evan 23:14, 7 Oct 2003 (PDT)

Yes, you suck. First, you can't change the name of a place, so Pearl Harbor is spelt that way no matter how silly it is, and Toronto Harbour is spelled *that* way no matter what you think. Second, do you really think Americans are going to be the main audience for wikivoyage? Don't they have far more ways to find out what to see or visit? I'd rather suspect it would be those who don't speak much English desperately using web translator services and printing this page in a net cafe...

I agree that proper names should use their local spelling ("Harbour Centre" shouldn't be changed to "Harbor Center"). But that doesn't mean that when they're used outside of the proper name ("at the center of the harbor is...") we shouldn't follow our guidelines.
Do I think Americans are the main audience? No. But that's not why we use American spelling. We standardize on American spelling for consistency, and to avoid pointless edit wars. If you have a problem with the spelling policy, propose something different on Project:spelling.
Do I think that Americans have other sources for travel information? Of course. People in every country, who speak every language, have travel resources at their disposal (some good, some not so good). But they're not free, they're not realtime, and they're just not as good as ours.-- can you direct
I'd like to think that eventually we'll have different guides in different languages, so that people who only speak Navajo will still have quality travel information. --(WT-en) Evan 10:47, 19 Dec 2003 (PST)

Real real big "Eat" section[edit]

I wonder if it's time to separate Toronto into district articles. --(WT-en) Evan 10:50, 19 Dec 2003 (PST)


Is it "Mövenpick" or "Movënpick"? The hotel chain is called "Mövenpick", which is much more common on Google. -(WT-en) phma 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Toronto to Chicago train[edit]

I do not think this is a very short trip.

This train is no longer running.—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs) 29 Dec 2005

I'll make this change for you, but in the future please do feel free to edit the actual article. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:48, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)

Robbery Rates[edit]

"Toronto also ranks low, with 115.1 robberies per 100,00 people, compared to Dallas (583.7), Los Angeles (397.9), Montréal (193.9), New York City (490.6) and Washington, DC (670.6)."

Is this 115.1 per 10,000 or 100,000? per 100,000. However, only a Canadian, American, or someone from a crime plagued third world city would call that low and even find it "acceptable". Many European cities of similar size have robbery rates of 20 to 30 per 100,000 and they think of it as a huge problem! Same applies to murder rates and car theft which are a fraction of Canadian rates. But hey, as Canadians we tend to only compare ourselves to anyone we are "better" than, and ignore the rest.

Errr. Wrong. Our murder rates really are quite low for a city of our size ANYWHERE, although there are obviously places with lower crime yet. Our overall crime rate would be comparable to a moderate Western European rate. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs) 13 Aug 2006

updated crime rates:

Stay Safe Statistics[edit]

Is there updated murder rate available for Toronto? It's 6 years old and it's probably a lot higher. kingjeff


There are a number of local web sites offering reviews on Toronto restaurants, try:

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Elgaard (talkcontribs) 17 Dec 2005

Kensington Hostel[edit]

It should be noted that the Kensington Hostel is not open and is reportedly moving to a new location, per their website. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs) 29 Dec 2005

  • Now deleted, as website says no more than Kensington Castle is moving to a new, bigger, better location! Details coming soon. Please note that our old location on Bellevue Avenue is now CLOSED. Please add to relevant district page when new address is revealed - thanks. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs) 10 Mar 2006


If districts weren't counted against it, I think that this would be a guide. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 21:27, 12 March 2006 (EST)

From a practical point of view, this is a terrible article. I'm in Toronto for the first time for a few hours tomorrow and I'm having trouble finding anything (a sight to visit or a restaurant to eat at) that sounds interesting — and I doubt this is the city's fault. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:49, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Airport hotels?[edit]

What district do hotels immediately around the airport (eg. this) belong in? (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Hotels around the airport (Lester B. Pearson Airport... the main one, not the tiny island airport) are NOT in Toronto or any district of Toronto. They (and the main airport) are located in a city called Mississauga. Mississauga is just outside of Toronto (ten minute drive to downtown Toronto) with a population of over 650,000 people. - July 4, 2007

Given that I've gone through the airport and slept at a hotel there without ever hearing the words "Mississauga", this legal hair-splitting doesn't seem very useful to travellers -- especially as Mississauga proper appears to be 30 min away by car from the airport. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:23, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Let me make this simple for you. Pearson Airport is located in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area - THIS IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE ACTUAL CITY OF TORONTO). It is clear - to anybody who knows the area - that the airport is located in Mississauga, not Toronto. I will compare it to London, England - Stansted Airport is NOT located in London, it is in the Greater London Area, and therefore is usually referred to as a "London Airport". Mississauga can be as close as 10 minutes to downtown, although it is very rare that with city traffic, you will make it in 10 minutes.
Aeroport is situated on the Mississauga side of the border between City of Toronto and City of Mississauga. Some hotels are on the Mississauga side, but most are actually in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke, clustered around Dixon and Highway 27 intersection). (WT-en) RJ CG 16:25, 28 February 2008 (EST)


Hi i thinking about staying at the GLOBAL VILLAGE BACKPACKERS TORONTO prior to my semester in Ryerson. I really dont know if it is a great hostel or what... any comment?

Add external links?[edit]

Should we add external links to Toronto travel and tourism websites, especially the official one,

Only the official link is permissible per Project:External links, and that should come right after the word "Toronto" at the top of the article, thanks ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:47, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
You should note, you should only have one external link, just incase you didn't know :)! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:00, 24 October 2008 (EDT)


Why is there no recognition or mention of Torontos huge and thriving gay village and club scene.

Why not add it yourself? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 18:10, 15 November 2008 (EST).

Confusing geographies[edit]

The geographies Central Toronto, North Toronto, East Toronto, West Toronto, etc. don't make sense since locals don't use these neighbourhood/district names. You're more likely to hear Downtown, the West End, the East End, and Midtown (for North Toronto).

Just because the locals are wrong doesn't mean this has2 b. In Edmonton, Oliver is considered apart of Downtown which is a common mistake. It is it's own neighbourhood. Also in Edmonton, you'd call the Southwest district, the south side, but that is just a generalisation. Also, on WT, we make the districts to suit the TRAVELLER not the CITIZEN. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 14:09, 17 November 2008 (EST).

"Just because the locals are wrong" seems like a silly thing to say. Any traveler attempting to use those terms in the city would just get a blank stare if asking a local for directions. Doesn't that undermine the whole 'usability' argument?

Are you suggesting changing the names, or moving the districts. In either case, propose what you have in mind, see what other people have to say, and proceed along with the consensus. Sure, the traveller comes first, but the local names often align with what the traveller needs - directions, other guides, referencability etc.. --(WT-en) Inas 20:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)
"Because the locals are wrong" -- totally boneheaded comment. The geographical description of the City as presented here drives me nuts, and has no basis in either politics, geography or culture either historical or current. "West Toronto" does not exist in our local lexicon. The article draws a boundary at Dupont, when everyone here knows that the major north/south boundary is Bloor. This article has inspired me to get an account and dive in here, Toronto's a fantastic place to live (as I do) and visit (as millions per year do).
I agree one hundred percent with the above comment. The long, long, long rambling descriptions of the city into four random areas (without any paragraphs!) is useless. You can't read it and you can't use it. It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in reality. It's like claiming that midtown Manhattan begins at 100th street because there are about 200 streets, or calling Shinjuku in Tokyo by the name West Tokyo instead. 13:12, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
Would you be interested in proposing something different? See Project:Geographical hierarchy#Districts in cities if interested. You could also take a look at other huge cities with proper district divisions, like San Francisco, for example, for inspiration. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:42, 25 May 2009 (EDT)
Why not just use the names we use for neighbourhoods and divide them up accordingly? Smaller neighbourhoods can be grouped under big names. For example, Queen West, the Financial District and Kensington Market would be part of Downtown. The Beaches (or The Beach, whichever you prefer), The Danforth and Leslieville would go under East End, and so on.
Sounds like a decent plan. Perhaps you could write up a full proposal here, with the district names, and the neighborhoods that would be included within those districts. That would help get the ball rolling. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:05, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree that the geographies don't make sense, and if a traveller were to mention these districts to a local, they would probably get a lot of blank stares. I propose that we set up the districts as such:

Downtown - roughly bounded by Bloor Street/Dupont Street in the north, Bathurst Street to the west, the Don Valley Parkway to the east and the lake to the south. This area would include the following neighbourhoods: The Annex, Kensington Market, Chinatown, the Entertainment District, Yorkville, the Financial District, St. Lawrence Market, Church and Wellesley, Cabbagetown, the Distillery District and any other neighbourhoods that fall within this geography.

Midtown - roughly bounded by Bloor Street/Dupont Street in the south, Bathurst Street to the west, Bayview Avenue to the east and Lawrence Avenue to the north. This area would include Rosedale, Yonge and Eglinton, Lawrence Park, Forest Hill and any other neighbourhoods that fall within this geography.

West End - roughly bounded by Bathurst Street to the east, the lake to the south, St. Clair Avenue to the north and Jane Street to the west. This area would include Koreatown, Little Italy, Little Portugal, West Queen West, Parkdale, Roncesvalles Village, the Junction, Corso Italia, High Park, Swansea, Bloor West Village and any other neighbourhoods that fall within this geography.

East End - roughly bounded by the DVP to the west, Mortimer Avenue to the north, Victoria Park Avenue to the east and the lake to the south. This area would include the Danforth, Riverdale, Leslieville, Little India, the Beach/Beaches, and any other neighbourhoods that fall within this geography.

Then, we could add separate district articles for Etobicoke, York, East York, North York and Scarborough since locals still use the old municipality names even if they don't technically exist anymore.

I think most locals would agree with these geographies. What do you all think? 01:20, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

That sounds like an excellent, small number of districts to start with (I can't comment beyond that, since my knowledge of the city is shallow). I'd be happy to draw up a draft map based on these proposed boundaries, and should be able to finish that sometime this week. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:40, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
Thanks, Peter! Any mapping help you could provide would be most appreciated! I also think a visual representation should help to illustrate the idea a little better. BTW, I love your maps. (WT-en) Darkcore 14:39, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
Maybe we could merge East York into the East End and York into Etobicoke, since both East York and York are pretty small geographically, and have little to offer the average tourist. Plus, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Torontonian who knows where, say, Etobicoke ends and York begins, or where "old" Toronto ends and East York begins. (WT-en) Darkcore 14:59, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Using the Chicago article as a guide, I've come up with a revised "district" section. I think the article should move away from talk of amalgamated municipalities; your average tourist is not going to know or care about this, and it's my sense anyway that locals are caring less and less about it too as time goes on (it has been 11 years after all). People still identify with their "old" municipality but in name only. In any case, comments and suggestions are welcome. (WT-en) Darkcore 16:13, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

[[Image:<--! Toronto districts.png -->|thumb|401px||Districts of Toronto]]
Downtown (Queen West, Harbourfront, Chinatown, Church and Wellesley, The Annex)
The city's economic and cultural heart, and where most of the city's popular tourist destinations are located
Midtown (Forest Hill, Rosedale, Yonge and Eglinton)
Upscale neighbourhoods with grand old mansions housing the city's moneyed and elite, beautiful parks and ravines that extend for kilometres
West End (Little Italy, West Queen West, Parkdale, The Junction)
Ethnic enclaves, dive bars, and hipsters abound in this rapidly gentrifying part of town
East End (Riverdale, The Danforth, Leslieville, The Beach)
The West End's quainter, quieter alternative, with low-key neighbourhoods and nice beaches
An economically diverse suburb with some undiscovered gems along Bloor Street and near the lake
North York
Pretty far off the beaten track, this district is largely suburban but has something to offer the casual tourist including the largest urban park in Canada, not to mention the best bagels in the city
This much-maligned eastern suburb of the city has lots to offer, including the Scarborough Bluffs, authentic (and affordable) ethnic cuisine and the Toronto Zoo
Two things: 1) flatten the hierarchy & 2) don't create too many districts too quickly:
We should not have a two-layered hierarchy of districts—none of the districts should overlap in any way. So if Chinatown is part of Downtown, we should not have both a Chinatown and a Downtown article. The Annex, Harbourfront, and Chinatown all have reasonably well developed articles, so I'd say it does make sense to have Downtown broken up at this stage. Could you suggest street boundaries for the five you are proposing?
For Midtown, West End, and East End, I don't know that we should break them up into pieces just yet. Rosedale can be merged back into Midtown, Leslieville and The Beach into a new East End article, and possibly Little Italy, WQW, and Parkdale into a new West End article. We could then separate those articles back out as we get more content (unless you are interested in plunging forward and writing them now...). The main point is that it won't be useful to create 19 nearly empty articles right off the bat, even if we plan to eventually have them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:36, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
Downtown can be subdivided into many different neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods in Toronto (especially Downtown) tend to be relatively small, only a few blocks or so, and combining them could be problematic. For example, I could see combining Chinatown and Kensington Market into one article because of their geographic proximity, but I wouldn't want to do that because they are very distinct and deserve their own unique articles. Anyway, I agree with your reasoning for Midtown, and the West and East Ends. As for Downtown, here are the neighbourhoods that I know (boundaries are, of course, very rough):
  • Kensington Market - Bathurst to the west, College to the north, Spadina to the east, Dundas to the south
  • Chinatown - Spadina to the west, College to the north, University to the east, Queen to the south
  • The Annex/University of Toronto - Bathurst to the west, Dupont to the north, Avenue Road to the east, College to the south
  • Yorkville - Davenport to the north, Avenue Road to the west, Yonge to the east, Charles/Bloor to the south
  • Queen West/Entertainment District - University to the east, Queen to the north, Spadina to the west, Front to the south
  • Financial District - University to the west, Dundas to the north, Yonge to the east, Front to the south
  • St. Lawrence, Corktown and the Distillery District (three different neighbourhoods that could be combined) - Yonge to the west, Queen to the north, Gardiner/DVP to the south and east
  • Harbourfront - everything south of the Gardiner between Yonge and Spadina
  • Cabbagetown, Regent Park and the Garden District (also three different neighbourhoods that can be combined) - Queen to the south, Jarvis to the west, Bloor to the north, DVP to the east
  • Church and Wellesley - Jarvis to the east, Bloor to the north, Yonge to the west, Carlton to the south
Let me know what you think. (WT-en) Darkcore 01:08, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
I think we should have this finished at least when the CotM ends. These amount of neighborhoods does seem a bit of overkill though. Obviously Toronto/The Annex and Toronto/Chinatown are cool, but how shall we divide the rest of Downtown? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:20, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
I've taken the liberty to break down Toronto by its districts, which is how I feel it should be. If you look at large cities, aka, New York City, they clearly break down the Boroughs, then the neighborhoods inside those.

Toronto is definitely large and diverse enough to accomplish this. We could use the City of Toronto's official break down for neighborhoods, but it would add up quickly. Grouping together neighborhoods might be a better solution, as long as we can agree on what to merge. Each neighborhood is very distinct in many cases though, and it's just required time and effort to make this happen. (WT-en) Jlankford 15:24: 28 July 2010 (EDT) —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Speaking of confusing, why did you sign the post as a user you're not logged in as, with a date from two months ago? (WT-en) LtPowers 17:10, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Toronto districts revisited[edit]

I'd like to restart the Toronto district discussion again. It's really a mess with too many districts (28! Of which 25 are outlines), too much overlap and not enough content. I like what Darkcore and others were working towards in Talk:Toronto#Confusing_geographies above, so I'm proposing we build on that as follows:

  • The old boroughs of Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke remain as districts
  • The outer neighbourhoods of the old City of Toronto are broken into three districts: West End, Midtown and East End. Existing articles for neighbourhoods in those districts (e.g., Rosedale, West Queen West, The Beach, Little Italy) would be merged into the appropriate district article.
  • East York would be covered by the East End district and York would be covered by the Midtown district
  • Downtown would be broken into seven districts

This would leave 13 districts, which could be expanded as we get more content. The proposed district structure in more detail is:

Central Toronto

Districts of Toronto
Toronto/Yonge St and the Financial DistrictToronto/Yonge-Dundas (content from Toronto/Yonge Street and Toronto/Downtown)
Yonge St and the Financial district The shops and theatres along Yonge & Victoria Streets, the Eaton Centre, Yonge-Dundas Square and City Hall.

Boundaries: from College, Bay & Charles to the north to the RR tracks sound of Union Station Queen St in the south, and from University Ave in the west to Yonge, Gerrard and Jarvis in the east

Toronto/Entertainment and Financial District (or maybe Toronto/City Centre) (rename of existing Toronto/Clubland plus most of the content from Toronto/Downtown)
The entertainment and financial heart of the city. Includes the club and theatre district to the west of the Financial district, the CN Tower, Rogers Center and the ACC, and Union Station and the Hockey Hall of Fame. Also includes the Fashion District west of Spadina.

Boundaries: everything west of University, the RR tracks and Yonge to Spadina Bathurst in the west to Yonge in the east, and from Queen in the north to the Gardiner Expwy in the south

Toronto/Harbourfront ((includes the existing Harbourfront and Toronto/Islands guides)
The harbourfront area south of the Gardiner Expressway/railroad tracks, including the Toronto Islands.

Boundaries: everything south of the Gardiner Expwy between Parliament St and Marilyn Bell Park (including the Toronto Islands); plus the triangle of land north of the Gardiner, west of Spadina and south of the RR tracks (i.e., Fort York)

Toronto/Yorkville and the Annex ((includes the existing Toronto/The Annex, Toronto/Bloor-Yorkville and Toronto/Discovery District guides))
The boutiques of Yorkville and the museums and student energy of the Annex and University neighbourhoods.

Boundaries: the RR tracks and Davenport Rd to the north; Church, Charles & Bay to the east (note - anything on Bay would be in Yonge-Financial District Yonge-Dundas); College to the south; Bathurst to the west

Toronto/Church-Wellesley and Cabbagetown (combines the existing Toronto/Church-Wellesley and Toronto/Cabbagetown articles)
Toronto's gay village and the older, grittier neighbourhoods of Cabbagetown, St James and Regent Park

Boundaries: everything north of Queen to Bloor; Yonge/Gerrard/Jarvis to the Don Valley Parkway

Toronto/Old Town (rename of existing Toronto/King Street East and St Lawrence Market)
The St Lawrence Market, Distillery District and Corktown.

Boundaries: everything east of Yonge to the Don Valley Parkway, and from Queen in the north to the Gardiner Expwy in the south

Toronto/Chinatown-Queen WestToronto/Kensington-Chinatown (combines Toronto/Chinatown and Toronto/Kensington Market and some of Toronto/Yonge Street Toronto/Fashion District guides)
The bustling Chinatown centered Dundas and Spadina and the nearby Kensington Market , Queen St West and the shopping of the Eaton Centre/Dundas Square. and the chic of the Fashion District.

Boundaries: everything west of University Jarvis to Bathurst and from College in the north to Front, Spadina and Queen in the south

Outside Central Toronto

Outer districts of Toronto
Midtown (combines Rosedale, Toronto/Deer Park with existing Midtown article)
Upscale neighbourhoods with grand old mansions housing the city's moneyed and elite, beautiful parks and ravines that extend for kilometres

Boundaries: South - St Clair Ave, Ossington, RR tracks and everything north of Davenport and Bloor; East - Bayview Ave; North - Lawrence Ave; West - old boundary of Etobicoke (roughly RR tracks)

West End (combines Little Italy, West Queen West, Parkdale and Koreatown with the existing West End article)
Ethnic enclaves, dive bars, and hipsters abound in this rapidly gentrifying part of town

Boundaries: everything west of Bathurst, RR tracks and Ossington to the Humber River; everything south of St. Clair Ave to Lake Ontario as far as Marilyn Bell Park and then following the Gardiner and RR tracks around Fort York

East End ((combines Greektown, Leslieville and The Beach with the existing East End article))
The West End's quainter, quieter alternative, with low-key neighbourhoods and nice beaches

Boundaries: Don Valley Parkway to Victoria Park Ave; Taylor Creek to Lake Ontario

An economically diverse suburb with some undiscovered gems along Bloor Street and near the lake
North York
Pretty far off the beaten track, this district is largely suburban but has something to offer the casual tourist including the largest urban park in Canada, not to mention the best bagels in the city
This much-maligned eastern suburb of the city has lots to offer, including the Scarborough Bluffs, authentic (and affordable) ethnic cuisine and the Toronto Zoo

Quite a few neighbourhoods get combined in this proposal (hence the clunky names) -- but given how little content we have for most of the current districts, I think this makes it a better guide for now. As we get more content, more districts can be created as we've done in other huge cities.

Anyway, thoughts? Do the boundaries look right? -Shaundd (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, keeping in mind that I have only a simple tourist's perspective of the city, the divisions look beautiful. I recently was introduced to the Bloor-Yorkville-University area and was stunned at how different the feel is, yet still recognizably Torontonian. I have a couple of concerns, though.
  • I recognize the need for conglomerated district names, even though I think they're ugly. But I really would like to have an alternative to "Yonge St and the Financial District". It's too much for what is probably will be the most important and most-read of the district articles. Can we name it "Yonge-University", after the subway line? Or even just "Yonge Street"? I think it's gotta be something short and sweet, if there's any way we can swing it.
  • The title "Church and Wellesley-Cabbagetown" is confusing; is it "Church" and "Wellesley-Cabbagetown" or "Church and Wellesley" and "Cabbagetown"?
  • The division between Yonge-Financial and the Entertainment district feels a bit artificial to me, but I can see some value. Do you think there's enough to support two separate districts here?
Overall, some much-needed sanity. I continue to feel that our Toronto articles are our biggest embarrassment, but that's simply because no one has had the stamina and knowledge to clean it up. I will help however I can. LtPowers (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree some of the names are ugly. My thoughts are:
  • Just "Yonge St" works for me, although it bothers me a little bit since the district covers more than that. Other names I thought of were "Yonge-Bay" and "Downtown Core". I'm hesitant to use University in the name, because there's an actual University neighbourhood that isn't in the district.
  • It's "Church and Wellesley" and "Cabbagetown", them being the two most prominent neighbourhoods of about five that are being combined in the district. I'm not sure what to do about this name. It's not high profile, so right now I'm inclined to leave it clunky and hope we get enough content to split them up someday.
  • I definitely think there's enough content for the Entertainment District to be separate. I haven't walked around there for a few years, but I recall there were several live entertainment venues, clubs, lots of restaurants plus the CN Tower and the biggest pro sports teams. It has a different feel than the Financial District too, which is very business-focused. University Ave is the dividing line that I've seen used (Yelp, Wikipedia) so I was going to use it here.
My plan is if the discussion goes well, to draw up an implementation plan and see if we can get it done over the next few weeks. All help will be welcome! -Shaundd (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Clunky is fine, but it has to at least be clear. What about Toronto/Church & Wellesley and Cabbagetown? Or Toronto/Church-Wellesley and Cabbagetown? For Yonge, "Yonge-Bay" might work. LtPowers (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
"Church-Wellesley and Cabbagetown" works for me (the "&" symbol isn't supposed to be used in titles, I think, otherwise I'd use that option). -Shaundd (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

After giving this some further thought and starting to draw a map and place attractions on it, I'm proposing some changes. The most significant ones are below (and I've striked out the corresponding parts in the original proposal above).

  • Get rid of the Financial District-Yonge St district. I don't think too many people visit Yonge St from Bloor to Front, and its character changes as it makes its way to the lake. I think it's better to incorporate Yonge St into the other districts that are already proposed.
  • Combine the Financial and Entertainment districts. I don't know what to call this that is short and sweet, but it makes sense from a visitor's perspective since the attractions are mostly close together. This district would focus on King and Front Streets.
  • There is another clump of attractions around Queen West and Yonge-Dundas so I'm proposing to combine those with Chinatown which is a few blocks further west along Dundas St. This district would focus on Queen and Dundas Streets.

Any thoughts on these changes? -Shaundd (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough to comment on the particulars, but the lower number seems good. Looking at Wikivoyage_talk:Geographical_hierarchy#Optimal_districts_schemes, the Toronto comparison is:
City Total bytes Districts Population Land area Bytes/district
Toronto 410548 12 2.6 mil 630 km² 34,212
That's actually a pretty comfortable ratio of content to districts. But having looked over the Toronto content, it's pretty underdeveloped for such a cool, "travel-dense" city, so I expect that number could climb pretty easily to something more like 60,000+ per district, when approaching something like a finish line. That should be OK too, and it looks like you've already identified potential splits if certain articles get too long. I say go ahead once you feel comfortable with the scheme! --Peter Talk 16:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we're approaching something workable here -- in particular, I like having the Rogers Centre, CN Tower, Convention Center, Union Station, and Hockey Hall of Fame all in one district. All that stuff along Front Street feels like one location to me. On the other hand, there's Yonge. While splitting Yonge among six districts accurately reflects its centrality to Toronto, something about it just feels wrong to me. The stretch from Carlton/College down to Queen (and maybe even Bloor to Front) all feels like one area to me, not three. But again, I'm not an expert, just an occasional tourist. LtPowers (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be more natural to have Yonge St from below Bloor to Queen in one district. Splitting the Chinatown - Dundas district in two and adding the Yonge and Bay corridors to the eastern part would create a district focused on Yonge and Dundas Streets, which I think makes a lot of sense. The western part would be Kensington-Chinatown. That article will be small to start but should have enough shops and restaurants to fill it in overl time. -Shaundd (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Note - I've updated the downtown map and district descriptions to create a separate Yonge-Dundas district that would put all of Yonge St between Yorkville and the Financial District into the same district. I'm hesitant to put all of downtown Yonge, the Financial District and the Entertainment District into one guide though because I think it would be overwhelming. It covers a large area and there would be a lot of content to wade through. There is a clump of attractions around Front St, another around Queen/Yonge/Dundas and a third along Bloor -- so I think there's some basis to break Yonge St up along those lines. -Shaundd (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and I'm fairly happy with this latest set of divisions. Nice work! I have two remaining questions (and they are just questions). 1) Does the Fashion District (currently the easternmost part of the Entertainment district) fit better with the attractions like Rogers and CN Tower and Hockey Hall of Fame, or with the shopping/retail/restaurant districts of Chinatown and the Kensington Market? 2) With the current divisions, is the Hummingbird Centre in the Entertainment/Financial District or the Old Town district? LtPowers (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
1 - Yeah, I keep flip-flopping on the Fashion District. Longer term, I think it could get paired with Toronto/West Queen West because I see more similarities with it than the Entertainment District or Chinatown/Kensington Market. It would also put most of Queen St West in one district. However, there's almost no content in West Queen West (or the Fashion District - most of its content is already in other districts) right now and I'm trying to avoid having those empty articles. So, in the interim, I'm not sure. If I'm leaning somewhere, it would be Kensington-Chinatown so the Fashion District stays with Queen St. Any thoughts/suggestions are very welcome!
2 - Sony Centre for the Performing Arts (as it's now called) would be in the Entertainment-Financial district. Because so much stuff is on Yonge St, I've been using Victoria St as the boundary (it's one block east of Yonge).
I've been thinking about Yonge St some more. The way it's split between districts (as proposed) makes sense, but with some work, I think Toronto/Yonge Street would make a fantastic itinerary that could pull the street and nearby attractions together, a la Along the Magnificent Mile. Maybe we can get Peter to live in Toronto for a few months and polish the article off? :-) -Shaundd (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I had a similar thought before. Yonge is much longer than a mile, of course.  ;) LtPowers (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


I drafted a list of things to do to finish off the district reorg at Talk:Toronto/District Implementation. I'm going to start working on this over the next few days as time allows, if anyone wants to jump in and help, go ahead. And if there's anything missing from the to do list, please add to add it! -Shaundd (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As I'm working through this, I'm finding that the eastern downtown districts (Toronto/Church-Wellesley and Cabbagetown and the Old Town) are really quite small. I'm thinking it would be better to combine them into a Toronto/Downtown East district for now rather than leave them as two small districts. The boundary between Downtown East and the Financial District would be about Church St. Any thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Except for the line of shops/restaurants along the Esplande, I'm not at all familiar with that part of the city, so it's hard to say. Moving the boundary to Church would pull in those shops (like Old Spaghetti Factory) into the Ent/Fin District, which I think is fine. I like "Old Town" as a designation, but if the district's too small, so be it. LtPowers (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Jabs at the United States / Anti-Americanism[edit]

"The overall violent crime rate in Canada, and particularly in Toronto is much lower than that found in major cities the United States, but is still higher than the rate in some European countries such as Germany."

"One exception to relatively low crime rates is that both car and bike theft are comparable to other large North American cities."

"Toronto has a larger homeless population that many other similar-sized cities because there is a law allowing homeless people to remain on the sidewalk, as long as they are not aggressive." (nice excuse but no, there's a well known lack of affordable housing - nice to leave that bit out eh?).

This is a problem I find with anything Toronto related on the internet, whether it be here, another wiki or on travel forums, and it's mostly a result of the ridiculous amounts of hubris exerted by many Torontonians. There always seems to be a desire to compare Toronto to other cities, especially American cities, as well as excuses for real problems in Toronto, as a way for Torontonians to somehow justify that their city is superior or not as rough as it actually is in parts.

This article is about Toronto, Ontario, Canada (i.e. NOT affiliated with the United States or Germany, or any other country). Can someone then explain to me why the editors of this article feel the need to, as with most Toronto articles, throw in jabs at American cities? The U.S. articles don't mention comparisons to Canadian or other international cities. The Mexican articles don't mention comparisons to U.S. or Central American cities not in Mexico. Vancouver has *lower* crime than Toronto yet Vancouver's article doesn't have comparisons. Care to explain this? I think the comparisons need to be removed.

—The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Toronto is being compared to other cities because that is something people can relate to. Raw statistics don't mean much without a comparison. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Crime Rate Lies and False Impression[edit]

Canada has almost TWICE the violent crime rate of the USA...Fully 1 in 4 Canadians have been a victim of a VIOLENT CRIME.

This entire article is a joke and should be deleted.

—The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

I'm guessing you're the same person who wrote the "Anti-Americanism" rant as well? (WT-en) LtPowers 21:37, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

NO, the article states that one in four Canadians is the victim of a crime, NOT a violent crime. 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

Our image policy discourages the use of montages, which is what the current lead image is. Can we find a single image to use instead? (WT-en) LtPowers 21:41, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

Yes, I removed the montage. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 01:35, 5 December 2010 (EST)
Well, to be honest, I kind of prefer the montage to nothing. But I'll see what I can find to replace it. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:41, 5 December 2010 (EST)

To be moved to district articles[edit]

These two listings where found in the article underneath the blind note -- (WT-en) felix 09:03, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

  • The Feathers Pub 962 Kingston Road (416) 694-0443 is possibly Toronto's most British pub, and has approximately 300 single malt scotches available at reasonable prices.
  • The Brazen Head 165 Liberty St. East (416) 535-8787 is a large three-storey Irish Pub located in Liberty Village, built on the foundations of a WWI munitions factory, inspired by the same named Pub in Dublin.

Beggars or Panhandlers?[edit]

An IP editor changed three instances of the word "panhandler" to "beggar". The latter word strikes me as somewhat pejorative in North American English; 'panhandler' is the more usual term. My reversion was itself reverted by the IP editor. Thoughts? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:39, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Beggars, "Panhandlers" is for the same but south of the border. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
I'd vote for panhandlers; beggars is certainly a pejorative and not too helpful in a warning about homelessness. Both words could indeed mean the same thing, but locally "panhandler" seems to be the more common (polite) way to refer to the stereotypical "homeless" looking person waiting for spare change. A beggar is someone who generally asks or money; this would include everyone from the people who sell chocolate bars outside the Eaton Centre, to the people who try to sell cheaper TTC tokens outside automatic subway entrances. These people probably are not "homeless", and I don't think there is any reason to warn of these people here. --(WT-en) Smgreg 22:50, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Wait, is 115.87 claiming that "panhandlers" as a term is not known in Canada? (WT-en) LtPowers 11:03, 9 February 2012 (EST)
My experience is that 'beggars' is used in Canada, and not necessarily pejorative. I've only seen 'panhandlers' in US newspapers, magazines & books. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
Your experience seems idiosyncratic. A Google search seems to indicate that the term is widespread, even in Canada. (WT-en) LtPowers 18:33, 15 February 2012 (EST)
Google search? WTF?!?!?! As a Torontonian I agree with previous contributors, and can assure you 'beggars' is common useage and it is 'panhandlers' that more unusual. I would also note that it is not for an American, as I assume you are, to conclude what is idiosyncratic language in Canada. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
And a Google search for 'beggar' far exceeds that for 'panhandler': Beggars > panhndlers —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
My friend told me about this discussion, and Ive come here as I am disgusted. How dare an American declare that a Canadian is wrong or idiosyncratic for using a word that differs to what he uses. The word I am familiar with is beggar, and panhandler only from US TV shows & movies. Canada is a country, and is not the 51st state of the US -> we speak how we choose and not how Americans try to dictate. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
As a Canadian, from Toronto, I've head both panhandler and beggar. Panhandling in more official, legal or neutral conversations, begging in more casual or pejorative uses. Maybe we can agree that both terms are used in Toronto, and accept that since that the point of this paragraph is to warn of "aggressive panhandling", we can replace beggars with "aggressive panhandlers"? (WT-en) Smgreg 13:02, 26 February 2012 (EST)
As another Canadian also from Toronto I disagree that beggar is used in any pejorative sense: it is the more common term, and I would suggest the standard. On the other hand panhandler is far less common, and is US word that should not be used for a Canadian article. I am against any use of it here, including "aggressive panhandling". It should be simply "beggar." Thanx, Steve.
Panhandling is not a universally understood (English language) term, whilst "beggar" is. WT articles are international in readership. There is no need to use US idiomatic terms in the articles, even in the US articles as it may lead to confusion amongst an international readership. Perhaps the use of begging for money, or asking for money from people passing by may be less pejorative and therefore less controversial. Perhaps consider using this instead:
  • Toronto has a visible homeless population, many of whom will ask you for money. If you do not want to provide them with money, simply look the person in the eye and say "No thank you" or just ignore them. If you do give them any money, they usually leave you alone. There have been occasional occurrences of aggressive requests, with one resulting in a fatality. If a person demanding money becomes aggressive, move away quickly and alert a police officer. -- (WT-en) felix 14:42, 29 February 2012 (EST)
What utter claptrap. "Panhandler" is not a "US word"; it is an English word and a perfectly legitimate one at that. The number of professional Canadian writers who use the word is uncountably high, as a simple Google search demonstrates. Pull the other one, it's got bells on. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:20, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Interesting that you refer to what I wrote above as "claptrap". I recalling your efforts to 'inform' me sometime back last year on the contemporary use of the term "Aussie" to collectively describe an Australian person, outlining that it was not at all offensive to Australians and had no pejorative aspect to it and no contemporary derivative racist usage, despite the fact that it does. This was done with the benefit of a view apparently unobscured by the several thousand kilometres of ocean that separate the US from Australia, both geographically and culturally. I recall you readily overlooked and dismissed my own opinion readily derived from my own considerable amount of time spent in that country.
So now you are apparently striving to 'inform' Canadians on appropriate linguistic interpretations in the Canadian articles.
Though I do not have a lot of experience living in the US myself I have most certainly visited there, several family members live there and I have many friends who are either resident there or expatriates abroad. I am not entirely unfamiliar with the place, though I most certainly am an outsider and do not consider myself an expert on either American society or US English colloquialisms. So therefore I will need to rely on what I trust are acceptable authoritative resources.
The term panhandler has mixed and slightly confused origins but is clearly of American derivation, with some possible Spanish influences.
It's linguistic origins are readily attributed to references such as the 'panhandle' of Oklahoma and the figurative relationship between an outstretched arm, and a panhandle. If you read some John Steinbeck it may make some sense in the concept of the dispossessed who may turn to begging in some circumstances. Other influences may be attributed to gold panning practices to seek money, and the Spanish "pan", meaning both bread and money.
You mention "Canadian writers" you might find their use of the word is contextual and may have more to do with a seeking broader general North American linguistic market appeal than anything. Language inarguable does cross national borders, especially land borders. "Aggressive panhandling" is a legitimate (US/American) term and is used descriptively in an ordinance context when defining an aggressive behavioral characteristic of begging. The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series, No. 13 tackles the issues of panhandling. They describe "aggressive panhandling"; "Generally, there are two types of panhandling: passive and aggressive. Passive panhandling is soliciting without threat or menace, often without any words exchanged at all–just a cup or a hand held out. Aggressive panhandling is soliciting coercively, with actual or implied threats, or menacing actions. If a panhandler uses physical force or extremely aggressive actions, the panhandling may constitute robbery."

  • World English Dictionary

panhandle 1 (ˈpænˌhænd ə l)

— n

1. ( sometimes capital ) (in the US) a narrow strip of land that projects from one state into another
2. (in a South African city) a plot of land without street frontage
panhandle 2 (ˈpænˌhænd ə l)

— vb

informal ( US ), ( Canadian ) to accost and beg from (passers-by), esp on the street
[C19: probably a back formation from panhandler a person who begs with a pan]
panhandler: from Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition, 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins

  • See also: Panhandler:

"Panhandler" is said to derive from the Spanish "pan", meaning both bread and money (just as the American slang "bread" does today). But though it is supposed to have been first recorded in 1890, the earliest quotaton I am able to find for it is in the humorist George Ade's 'Doc Horne'(1899): " He had 'sized' the hustler for a 'panhandler' from the very start". However, the fact that Ade put the word in quotation marks probably indicates that he did not invent it, as has often been claimed. QPB Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, by Robert Hendrickson

  • Panhandle:

something resembling the handle of a pan," 1851, especially in ref. to geography, originally Amer.Eng., 1856, in ref. to West Virginia (Florida, Texas, Idaho, Oklahoma also have them). Meaning "an act of begging" is attested from 1849, perhaps from notion of arm stuck out like a panhandle; verb panhandle Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
I stand by what I wrote above; "Panhandling is not a universally understood (English language) term".
The US and North America is not the sum of the English speaking word, nor is the Americanised linguistic variation of English the guiding global force in English language usage worldwide. This Canadian legal definition serves to describes it quite well... from an area to the geographic area immediately north of the US-Canada border
However, WT is an international vehicle and the language used needs to be sufficiently understandable and free of linguistic intrigue, parochial artifacts and slang that it may be readily understood, also if a term is unnecessarily pejorative to a group of people then it should be expressed in a different but still descriptive manner. There is no readily identifiable need to stigmatise or unecessarily generalise concerning "homeless" people in Toronto or elsewhere in Canada by the use of the term panhandler as It is highly subjective to consider them all to be "beggars" or "panhandlers". As those who are engaging in activities where money is asked for or demanded may not be homeless at all it is better to just describe that process alone without a subjective qualification. Indeed many beggars worldwide are not homeless, many do it as a money making pursuit using emotional manipulation or implied threats to gain money from others.

There is no doubt that 'panhandling' has Canadian usage, there is even an Ottawa Panhandlers Union (though that is a recent thing-2003), and the term is used to describe 'begging' in some legal statutes. That does not mean that it lacks a pejorative context and if it is controversial to use it here in an article there are readily executed alternatives, such as the edit suggestion I made above that can easily avoid any potentially controversial interpretation whilst remaining sufficiently descriptive. I do not appreciate the response that my in good faith suggestion is "claptrap".
By the way "claptrap" is generally considered to have emerged in early 18th century England, a clap trap was a cheap, showy line guaranteed to 'trap a clap' from the audience. The word claptrap went on to refer to any line guaranteed to generate applause or appreciation, first appearing in print is in Nathan Bailey's dictionary of 1721. It is generally defined as:
1.contrived but foolish talk
2.insincere and pretentious talk: politicians' claptrap
[C18 (in the sense: something contrived to elicit applause): from clap 1+trap 1].
In short the clear meaning is that I have written a piece of contrived nonsense. I find your general tone in that regard is overbearing condescending and really quite offensive.
I am not in the habit of writing "claptrap" and do not appreciate the claim that I have here. Try to remember that 'America is not the world', there are other things going on outside that nations borders. If you are hearing bells ringing on you legs LtPowers then maybe it not someone 'pulling' your leg, maybe it is tinnitus, or the bells on your rocking horse, best see a doctor for both those issues. -- (WT-en) felix 02:14, 3 March 2012 (EST)

The more I read the 'Stay Safe' section, the more I disliked it. I just finished a quick edit to the section, to remove some warnings about things that aren't really safety issues, like getting lost in the PATH, or the weather (which is already addressed just fine in the climate section). I left the paragraph on homeless as-is due to this discussion. I don't want to start another debate, but I really don't think homelessness/panhandling/begging or whatever you want to call it is that big of a deal in Toronto. It's certainly not big enough of a deal to warrant the amount of attention it is getting here. In at least the Toronto context, these people are no more dangerous than anyone else on the street, and the solution is common sense; if you feel unsafe, call the police. I'm inclined to re-write that section to be a little bit more specific about the type of situation someone is bound to encounter:
Giving Money
Like most cities, you'll find people on the street and in public areas asking for money, for one reason or another. The most vocal type is often found around Union Station and TTC stations when a subway collector is not on duty. They will often claim to need another few dollars to buy a train ticket, or will offer to sell you a subway token. If you do not want to offer anyone money when they ask, simply say "No thank you" or ignore them. If you are concerned for your safety, simply leave the area. It's illegal for them to block your path or follow you, but if you feel threatened, call the police.
Wording issues aside, my experience tells me this is a more accurate description of what to be aware of in Toronto. (WT-en) Smgreg 15:34, 3 March 2012 (EST)
(WT-en) Smgreg, the article appears to benefit from that clarification. I am not sufficiently familiar with the city to edit these sort of details so I will not but it is good to see someone doing it. -- (WT-en) felix 02:07, 4 March 2012 (EST)
I have a sense that panhandlers are slightly more visible on Toronto streets than in other major cities, but
One of your sources specifically identifies the word as both "Canadian" and "US" in usage. You seem to now be saying that we shouldn't use the word because it's not universally known... but before that you said that it was a "US word". Using that phrasing implied that the word was not used in Canada, which I hope I've demonstrated to be completely and utterly false. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:16, 5 March 2012 (EST)
The word is clarified clearly as being of US origin, as indicated by the cites I provided. That is not to say that it does not have either contemporary or past Canadian usage and I have endeavored to indicate that with the further cites, also above; namely the example of a central south Canadian provincial statute that specifically uses the term, plus pointing to the Ottawa Panhandlers Union, in addition to one of the dictionary references that mentions it as being; "informal ( US ), ( Canadian ) to accost and beg from (passers-by), esp on the street" - Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition, 2009.
There is no inconsistency to be found in the information I have provided above, rather it clarifies the words use in both a Canada and US linguistic context and describes it's origins Amer.Eng., 1856, in ref. to West Virginia (Florida, Texas, Idaho, Oklahoma also have them). Meaning "an act of begging" is attested from 1849, perhaps from notion of arm stuck out like a panhandle; verb panhandle-Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper.
However that does not determine that it is universally understandable across the English speaking world. Indeed if you read the information above you will see that for example in South Africa it has an entirely different meaning. US English, or Canadian English is not International English and we need to avoid where possible the use of colloquialisms and idiomatic language in the articles, other than where they are describing the meaning of a particular local term for the benefit of travellers reading the material.
It is not appropriate to assume that usage in the US, or adopted use in Canada qualifies the meaning outside that geographic area.
Many parts of the world do not even use the term pan for the common cooking vessel, rather they define it more deliberately, as in frying pan (not frypan as in US English), or saucepan. Some may even interpret it as pan; to express a totally negative opinion. Pan pan can also be interpreted as a call for (emergency) assistance if made by radio broadcast, or the in the movement of a camera, the handle attached to the camera head being called the pan handle. In many parts of the world the WC pan or lavatory pan is called a pan and they sometimes have a handle, and guess what, it's called a "panhandle".
Again I state as I did above, we should not assume that America is the world. Not everyone outside North America understands the various linguistic idiosyncrasies and idiomatic language of the people of the United States.
Additionally in this case the phraseology is clearly contentious and it is clearly not necessary or particularly useful to the article to describe the activities of people seeking money by demand or begging as either "homeless", "panhandlers" or even necessarily as "beggars" if there is a more suitable method of description available. I believe (WT-en) Smgreg has already provided a suitably descriptive and eloquent solution to that apparent dilemma.--(WT-en) felix 09:35, 6 March 2012 (EST)
As a French-Canadian who lived for many years in Toronto, although recently moved to Paris, I add my full support to the use of <beggar> and the exclusion of <pan handler>. This because <beggar> is the word I heard and used for years in Toronto, and <pan handler> only on the TV or from visiting Americans. Oh, and despite what others my claim <pan handler> is an American word: OK and fine, but don't claim it is otherwise and don't try to force its use into Canadian articles -> I find some of the attitudes and opinions expressed on this discusion page by the proponents of <pan handler> to be objectionable, and some of those expressing such to be rude, patronising and arrogant: please could Americans not try to dictate how we speak and write.


1. TTC streetcars
2. Toronto skyline
3. CN Tower
4. The arches at Nathan Phillips Square
4. Nathan Phillips Square

Thought it would be good to have a discussion about the pagebanner for Toronto's main page as there are a few possibilities that could capture or convey "Toronto". I've posted the current banner plus a few I've put together.

  1. The current TTC banner - it's not specific to any part of Toronto (which is generally good IMO), but I don't think the streetcars are iconic enough to convey Toronto.
  2. The skyline - I think we overdo skyline banners, but Toronto's is distinctive so I think it's reasonable to consider it. I really like the image and the text places well on the banner. On the downside, it looks kind of funny with the top of the CN Tower missing and, well, it's another skyline banner.
  3. CN Tower - Probably Toronto's most famous landmark and an interesting perspective on it (IMO). Very specific to its district and could be used as a banner there.
  4. Nathan Phillips Square - A couple of different perspectives of Nathan Phillips Square (same photo though). I like the top of the arches photo since it combines the more modern architecture of the Square with the old building behind it (the old city hall, I think?) as well as the office towers. It may be a bit too abstract though and the image isn't as sharp as the others.

Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The skyline photo is very, very good. I think a higher crop would solve most of the problems; do you want to give it a try? I'd also be happy with the CN Tower banner. LtPowers (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I cropped the photo a little higher so more of the CN Tower shows. I have another crop even higher, but once you add the TOC you mostly see sky so I don't think it's very good. How does this one look? -Shaundd (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that's an improvement, and a whole lot better than the streetcars. =) LtPowers (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Beach?[edit]

Both this article and Toronto/East End use "the Beach". Should it be "the Beaches"?

I'm an Ottawa boy who has visited Toronto fairly often. The term has always been plural when I've heard people -- mostly Torontonians, & including two friends who live in the area -- use it. Have I just missed something here? Are both terms used for different things? For the same thing? Pashley (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The east end lakeside neighbourhood is named "The Beaches". The singular, if used as a proper name without naming a specific beach (such as one of the ones on the Toronto Islands), is likely a typo. Admittedly I'm a +1 613'er too, but have worked in Toronto and Mississauga many years ago. K7L (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Both names appear to be useable, according to Wikipedia. They have a summary of the confusion/controversy over the name on their The Beaches page. Tourism Toronto refers to it as "The Beach". It seems like a good topic to cover in an infobox in the East End page, while on the main Toronto page I guess we could use both to reduce confusion. The singular use does seem weird though since I always heard it referred to as The Beaches until a few years ago (but I'm from Peterborough, so I'm not a resident or expert either). -Shaundd (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Weston, York (borough), East York[edit]

There was a question on Toronto/North York as to why Weston (former village in borough of York) is listed there... should it be in Toronto/Midtown? We don't seem to have a "York" or "East York" district in our metro Toronto article set. K7L (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a difficult spot to fit into our district structure. It's a bit of a stretch to say it's part of either Midtown or North York. I'm inclined to say leave it in North York, but have a line somewhere that says this North York travel guide includes part of the old boroughs of York and East York. Unless a case can be made that York should be a district. -Shaundd (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
One option would be to rename the page, Toronto/North (currently redirected to Midtown for some reason), Toronto/North York, York and East York or something. Creating a section for "York" or "East York" in the North York article might be an option, much like Napanee or Cobourg have sections for a list of tiny speck-on-a-map villages with only one thing to see (a really big wooden apple roadside in Colborne, an unincorporated village just west of the +1 905/613 area code boundary, for instance). Normally, if one divides Toronto into districts, one starts with the six boroughs - but that leaves relatively little in tiny East York and not much more in Weston. K7L (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears the former city boundaries were largely ignored when the districts were set up; only Scarborough appears to be coterminous with its namesake. But that does make sense; the former municipal boundaries have little meaning to the modern traveler. Powers (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Our coverage of Scarborough and Etobicoke seems to follow the original boundaries (the Humber River to Etobicoke in the west, Victoria Park Ave to Scarborough in the east). Toronto proper is multiple districts. That just leaves tiny East York and York (Weston) as former boroughs which don't fit our districts well. K7L (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think they don't fit our districts well because they don't seem as useful from a traveller's perspective. My impression from friends who have lived in Toronto (particularly in the old City of Toronto and East York) is that the neighbourhood was the real identifier for people. For East York in particular, I don't think it makes a very good "district". It was split across the Don Valley, and for all intents and purposes, was two different parts -- Leaside and Old East York. I think if you were going to describe Toronto for a traveller, it would make more sense to include Greektown and the Danforth (old East York) with the rest of the East End than with Leaside north of the Don River -- notwithstanding there used to be a line that said the two areas were part of the same municipality.
Anyway, here are my thoughts after thinking about this a bit more and looking at a map of Metro Toronto pre-megacity:
  • Include Weston in Toronto/Midtown. The rest of York already seems to be included in Midtown, so let's put all of it there. If there is enough content someday to support a York district, then it can be split out.
  • Split East York between Toronto/East End and Toronto/Midtown. Parts north and west of the Don River go to Midtown and parts south and east of the Don River go to East End.
Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the Danforth ever was in East York, the boundary was at least four blocks further north (Milverton Blvd, IIRC?). From w:East York#History "For many years, the borough did not allow serving of alcoholic beverages in restaurants. The result was a heavy concentration of alcohol-serving restaurants and bars on Danforth Avenue, a main street in the city of Toronto running east-west just south of East York." EY was also tiny by Toronto standards, population 110 thousand when Metro Toronto was 2542 thousand, so 4% of the total +1-416 population. Todmorden Mills Heritage Museum and Arts Centre is the only travel landmark which comes to mind. K7L (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking at a better map, the boundary was indeed a few blocks north of Danforth (it looks like between Milverton and Springdale for a long stretch of the way). My point was more that a significant part of East York lies south and east of the Don Valley, and is quite tied in with what we're calling the East End. If you're visiting Todmorden, you're probably coming from the Danforth and not north of the Don Valley. And if you're visiting Leaside, you're probably coming from Midtown or North York. As such, I think it makes much more sense split to East York in two (as it is now) -- particularly since it doesn't exist anymore. -Shaundd (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
A search for "Leaside tourism" turns up little of interest, there's a golf course but the bulk of anything of interest for travel in East York will skew closer to Toronto/East End than Midtown. Weston in Toronto/Midtown, leaving Todmorden in the East End looks reasonable. K7L (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I updated the map and moved the Weston info to Toronto/Midtown. Also updated the district description in the intro to the Midtown article to include Leaside and the borough of York. -Shaundd (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Harbourfront / Islands[edit]

Was there really so much information in the Toronto/Harbourfront article that the Islands needed to be split out? I think they should be merged back together. The Islands are nice, but the article's pretty sparse. Powers (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Toronto/Islands. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Malton airport[edit]

This section (Toronto#Toronto Pearson International Airport) should be cut back in size as the Mississauga airport has its own article at Toronto Pearson International Airport. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:9B 23:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Public transit[edit]

This section is way long. I've tried cutting it back, but transit fans keep adding details back in. I think it's time to fork this section into a separate article, which could have loads of details, and keep a higher level of information for the main article. This would be similar to articles like Driving in Italy and Rail travel in Italy that have been split off from Italy. I propose Public transit in Toronto. Comments? @Ikan Kekek: @AndreCarrotflower: @TheTrolleyPole: @LtPowers: @Hobbitschuster: Ground Zero (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ground Zero - Toronto, almost as much as Manhattan, is the kind of place where you really, really don't want to be saddled with a car if you can help it. So it's natural enough, I think, that there would be more information on public transit than the average Wikivoyage article. That being said, yes, it is excessive, but not so much that we'd need to spin the information off into a travel topic. I think that a multipronged approach of:
  • shortening the prose and simplifying the sometimes unnecessarily fine-grained detail in the "Fares" and "Transfers and proof of payment" subsections
  • devolving specific information on streetcars to the district articles (or eliminating it outright - Toronto streetcar lines are essentially analogous to bus lines, and we don't feel the need to describe each one of those in minute detail, right?)
  • devolving information in the "Connecting public transit services" and "GO Transit" subsections to Greater Toronto Area#Get around and Niagara Peninsula#Get around
would, along with vigilance in watching this page to guard against excessive information creeping back in (when reverting, you can refer to this talk page discussion in your edit summaries), be sufficient in addressing the problem you describe.
Hope this helps.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't actually like taking detail out, as it will be useful for someone - that's why I would prefer to transfer it to another article. Transit fans are wonderfully generous in contributing information to Wikivoyage and Wikipedia, but sometimes lose sight of the big picture. The problem with streetcar lines is that they tend to be very long, so the information on them doesn't lend itself to being moved to a district article. And the only way to manage to information-creep is through eternal vigilance, which diverts time energy from more productive endeavours. Ground Zero (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Aside from the 501 Queen, which is "an attraction in itself", I would agree with deleting the description s of all the streetcar routes if we don't create a separate article. Ground Zero (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Ground Zero:
First off, it bears emphasizing that there's no city in the world that has a Wikivoyage travel topic dedicated to its public transit system, even those with the most extensive such networks in the world - New York City, London, Tokyo, Shanghai - so the fact that we're having a conversation about spinning off our coverage of Toronto's transit system, which isn't even in the top 20 of the world in size, says unambiguously to me that there's too much information included. I expect that any such article would probably end up with a merge tag on it sooner than later. Believe me, I sympathize with your desire to include as much information as possible - ask around about my reputation for wordiness and exhaustive detail - but you do have to draw the line somewhere. But don't worry: our readers are big boys and girls, and even if they don't have every conceivable bit of information spoon-fed to them ahead of time, they'll survive. In fact, they'll probably be grateful you didn't give them reams and reams of information to digest.
Not to mention the fact that a travel topic article wouldn't necessarily solve the problem of overzealous transit geeks re-adding previously excised information. Who's to say they wouldn't just steamroll over your friendly invitation to "see Public transit in Toronto for more information" (or whatever) and simply add everything back anyway? Then you'd have two articles with redundant information that you'd have to merge together - talk about taking time away from more productive activities. Sadly, in scenarios like this there's no real way around the more tedious aspects of vigilance, but in the end, it's a lot easier than you make it out to be in your comment above. All you have to do is click "Undo", and maybe provide a wikilink to this talk page conversation in the edit summary. A process of maybe 15 seconds, less if you cut and paste the edit summary. Just because transit fans add accurate information in a good faith manner doesn't mean they need to be given extra leeway when it comes to deciding what stays and what gets cut. As you said, they sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture. There's no shame in getting one's edits reverted, and as long as you don't bite the newbies, no one will fault you either for doing what you need to do to keep our articles within the bounds of Wikivoyage's scope.
As for the streetcars: you could simply delete them, but the reason why I made the suggestion above is because that's how I handled Buffalo's Metro Bus lines. Take Bus 23 for instance, which has a route shaped like the number 7 that snakes through four separate districts: check out Buffalo/West Side#Crosstown routes, Buffalo/North Buffalo#Crosstown routes, Buffalo/East Side#Crosstown routes, and Buffalo/South Buffalo#Crosstown routes to see how I did it. As for the 501 Queen, I'd say you might have an argument for converting that one into an itinerary article for those who want to treat it as "an attraction in itself", while treating it the same as the other streetcar lines for those who simply want to use it to get from Point A to Point B.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
We do have an article about Public transit in the San Francisco Bay Area, so I see no reason to reject a spinoff out of principle as I cannot see such a principle. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but there's a demonstrated lack of consensus about whether that article should exist, and in fact transit systems are specifically called out in wiaa as an example of something that should not be given its own article. I think just because there's one controversial exception to the rule doesn't mean the floodgates should be considered open, especially when there's a perfectly viable alternate plan spelled out above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Andre, your suggestion for 501 Queen is a good one - I'll look into implementing that.
On the question of what is an article, for every rule there is an exception. In this case, the policy you cited also says, "A good rule of thumb is that information about attractions, sites, events, and transportation should always be initially placed into an existing article, and only when that information becomes too large and complex (more than 3-4 paragraphs) should a new article be considered." We're well past 3-4 paragraphs. The list of examples provided does not include an urban transit system, but the exception type specifically mention "transportation", and articles have been created for "Rail travel in..." and "Driving in...."
In a project that it still in its adolescence, that something hasn't been done before is not a good argument for not doing it now. There are transit fans out there, and they will travel to explore transit. is evidence of that.
With regard to London and New York City, I would argue that the transit sections of those articles are way too long and detailed, and would benefit from having a lot of the detail branched into separate articles so that people who walk or take cabs don't have to scroll down past a very long block of text.
Finally, when someone as detail that is useful to someone, but not too very many, it is much easier to justify shifting it to another article than removing it altogether. We are in the business of providing information, but we want to make sure that we do so in a useful, accessible way. Loading tons of detail in, or deleting the detail altogether, does not achieve this aim. Ground Zero (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not in any way opposed in principle to creating a Public transit in Toronto article, but since it would be pretty much a complete 180 from our current policy of transit systems not getting their own articles, I think it would be better if we gained consensus from the community at large. I'll put up a pointer to this discussion at the pub and in Wikivoyage:Requests for comment. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't read the whole thread, but insofar as the request for comment in the pub indicated that an article about transit in Toronto would be in violation of WV:WIAA, I don't think that is a correct interpretation - the Bay Area public transit article already exists, as one example. The guidance from WV:WIAA that seems most relevant is "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article". If the level of detail is too much for a city article, a travel topic seems warranted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think streamlining the information in the section is a better way to go than moving it all to a new article. It wouldn't even be that particularly hard, since you guys have already identified the sections with too much excessive detail: the fares section (which certainly does not need such fine-grained detail) and the section on streetcar lines (which makes more sense at the district level). Yes, someone might try to add back in that excessive detail, and monitoring that information-creep requires vigilance, but such is the nature of many things on this site; I see the exact same thing in our sections on history and sports teams. Ensuring that excessive degrees of detail don't cloud the information we want to present is just one more part of maintaining our content.

Additionally, I fell compelled to add that the cited Bay Area transit article hasn't really panned out very well. The person who created it hasn't contributed in a while, and there hasn't been a substantial edit to that page in almost a year. While it was interesting to see develop initially as an experiment, I think it's a good example of what tends to happen when you pull that sort of content away from the destination articles; people forget that it exists and no one bothers to update it, because our attention is naturally focused on the destination pages. If anything, adding a new article for specialized content seems to require more vigilance than simply enforcing tight, informative prose on a destination article with many eyes on it. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I personally would always want a good Public Transit section for any city. I've never been to Toronto so I imagined doing so with this article and read "Line 1 Yonge-University runs in a 'U' shape, travelling north-south along Yonge Street, bending at Union Station, then travelling north-south along University Avenue, Spadina Avenue, and Allen Road. It meets Line 4 Sheppard at Sheppard-Yonge station and Line 2 Bloor-Danforth at Bloor-Yonge, St. George, and Spadina stations."
I appreciate the preceding text makes perfect sense to someone who knows Toronto well, but to me as a potential visitor I have to say it is completely no help at all. I would seriously need to research the city layout for a long time before any of this could start to be useful to me.
I would urge shorter and smarter guidance to the traveler that is easy to parse, not meticulous detail. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to add that I think there's this misconception that detail=information. That if a detail is potentially useful to someone, then we should include it as a matter of principle. But excessive detail merely makes the information within harder to decipher, and thus less informative for most people. My view is that tight, coherent prose is far more informative, especially for the purposes of a travel guide. The example Andrewssi2 cites above is the perfect example of prose that does the exact opposite of inform our readers. We shouldn't feel sheepish about removing this excessive level of detail--we're not Wikipedia, and we should be assertive in transforming this sort of content into something that is actually readable. PerryPlanet (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I see no inherent reason why such an article can't exist, but am concerned that - if we dump a huge pile of +1 416-393-INFO into Wikivoyage - it may be difficult to keep this info up to date. K7L (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Transit lines, at least buses, change frequently in most cities. I think it's a fool's errand to try to keep up with such changes. What the traveler needs to know about Toronto's transit system should absolutely be in this article and not shunted off to a subarticle. Any additional detail related to the transit system that would go in the subarticle is arguably more than we should try to maintain. Powers (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm in agreement with the above sentiments about streamlining the information in the main article, but I guess I'm not understanding why the "excessive detail" shouldn't be moved to a separate Public transit in Toronto article. Some readers (and editors) want a lot of detail, so moving the detail to a separate article is a compromise that serves both groups. As to the concerns that the analagous Bay Area public transit hasn't received much attention, that article is currently invisible - Special:WhatLinksHere/Bay Area public transit shows that it is unlinked from any Bay Area city article; I don't know if there is a reason for the lack of visibility, but if not then it should be referenced using a {{see also}} at the top of relevant city article sections, after which I suspect it would get more attention from editors. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The articles not have descriptions of bus routes, but of streetcar routes, which do not change often because of rails embedded in the road. Ground Zero (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I would vote for streamlining. PerryPlanet makes a salient point about how detail!==information. If you want to move the excruciating details to another page, I have no opinion on that. I probably would not click the link to view the page, if that helps with your decision at all. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't have anything specific to say about Toronto, not knowing the city at all, but I suspect much of what I wrote in the pub would apply here too (if I can be so arrogant as to cite myself...) In a nutshell, a traveller with no prior knowledge or urban transport should be able to read the 'get around' section and think think to himself: "great, I have a good idea of how to get around Toronto now." Adding any detail beyond that seems contrary to our aims as a travel guide. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Two opinions above are that articles should provide a level of detail such that "a traveller with no prior knowledge of urban transport" can get around, and that information currently in the city article should be shunted off to the parent region, child districts, etc. To address those ideas:
  1. Most travelers are not unfamiliar with urban transport, so that level of detail is really only relevant to a small subset of travelers. It's valuable information to have for the readers that need it, but I don't think that level of detail is valuable as the default, particularly in already lengthy articles.
  2. While in many cases it makes sense to move details to district articles, or to a region article, one of the issues that Bay Area public transit was trying to solve is that even if you referred to "Bay Area#Get around" every time you mentioned a transit option in the Bay Area, that section of the parent region article would necessarily be huge in order to explain all available options given the complexity of the network.
I think the approach of waiting until info becomes large and complex, and then potentially consolidating it within a common article, addresses the concerns of both those who advocate that "articles should not contain excessive detail" and those who advocate articles should be written for travelers with "no prior knowledge or urban transport". Additionally, it eliminates some duplication of effort required for regional systems. My two cents. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't taken part in this discussion because I've never been to Toronto. For the record, I think we should have whatever articles best serve the traveller, and if that means a separate article on local or regional transit, that's fine, and if it doesn't, that's fine, too. But as a New Yorker who's often been in the same subway car as clueless folks from parts of the U.S. with no subway who don't seem to even know that you have to hold onto the pole and not fall all over other riders when the train sways as normal, I would strongly disagree that only a "small subset of travelers" is unfamiliar with urban rail. They may have ridden buses before (though let's not assume - large parts of the U.S. lack decent bus transit, too, including, from what I understand, most of the state of Florida, and there are even larger portions of the U.S. where buses are considered to be only for people "so poor" they can't afford a car and avoided by everyone else for reasons of class snobbery), but they sure don't have any idea how to use or behave on the subway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a look at "streamlining". I can see removing the route descriptions for the subway and streetcar lines, as that is commentary that a travel guide doesn't typically provide, but ticketing and transfer information is useful because it has become complicated by the ongoing movement to a smartcard, and the very slow arrival of new streetcars. I wouldn't want to remove that altogether, but I can see that a lot of readers would not be interested because they will use cars, Uber, or get around on foot. They may never use a streetcar. Ground Zero (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Even just removing the detailed descriptions of the subway/streetcar routes would reduce the size of the Transit section by at least half, which would be pretty significant. And even though the fares/transfers sections have more vital info, I still see places where the prose could easily be tightened up. For instance, this:
Transfers have two purposes:
  • To allow a rider to complete a trip on multiple TTC vehicles using a single fare.
  • To serve as proof of payment to show a fare inspector on a streetcar line.
Could be shortened to this:
Transfers allow a rider to complete a trip using multiple routes and serve as proof of payment to show fare inspectors on streetcars.
Without losing any vital information whatsoever. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

I have cut out the subway and streetcar routes descriptions as discussed. Perhaps someone could look at "streamlining" the other sections, especially the fare section. This doesn't solve the broader issue of the London and New York City articles, where I think branching public transit info out is the only way of dealing with the volume of useful information. Ground Zero (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)