Talk:Architecture of Toronto/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Architecture of Toronto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Rewrote First Paragraph
I reworded the first paragraph because I felt, "...while some others were just newly built in the 2000s" was unnecessary, as all cities have new buildings. I changed the second sentence because words like "architectural hotspot" "uniquely designed buildings," and "celebrated architects" are essentially boosterism and not required.--Ducio1234 (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Topmost image seems slanted
This image should be either corrected or replaced. It gives readers of this article an unusual perception of the Financial District. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for leaving me a note on my talk page about this, Johnny. I don't think there is anything to "correct" - photos can be encyclopedic and be taken from interesting perspectives. But since I don't even remember adding this photo to the article (it must have been thousands of years ago that I did it), and probably haven't looked at this article since, I have no objections to it being replaced with another image. The replacement image will undoubtedly be very boring compared to this artistic one. ;-) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- There should be a caption in the article that states that the buildings are actually straight (the slanted angle is for artistic purposes). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, I am not fussed about whether the image stays or goes, but a caption to that effect is a bit silly. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything wrong with a slightly artistic depiction. I'm also sure no one will think that all Toronto's buildings are at an angle based on this image. - SimonP (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is much better than a boring vertical view of the canyons. There are so many bad pictures in Wikipedia - let's not remove one that brings a little flair. People are really not so dumb that it needs to be explained. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I brought the image to discussion, rather than removing it outright. Let us keep the image for artistic purposes (I first thought that the slanted angle is a misrepresentation of the Financial District) and because there are many worse images than this. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- It was worthwhile raising the issue. We all sometimes encounter a head-scratcher. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I brought the image to discussion, rather than removing it outright. Let us keep the image for artistic purposes (I first thought that the slanted angle is a misrepresentation of the Financial District) and because there are many worse images than this. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is much better than a boring vertical view of the canyons. There are so many bad pictures in Wikipedia - let's not remove one that brings a little flair. People are really not so dumb that it needs to be explained. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- There should be a caption in the article that states that the buildings are actually straight (the slanted angle is for artistic purposes). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for leaving me a note on my talk page about this, Johnny. I don't think there is anything to "correct" - photos can be encyclopedic and be taken from interesting perspectives. But since I don't even remember adding this photo to the article (it must have been thousands of years ago that I did it), and probably haven't looked at this article since, I have no objections to it being replaced with another image. The replacement image will undoubtedly be very boring compared to this artistic one. ;-) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Image
this image shows the large quantity of construction in toronto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.223.188 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- It does, but otherwise it's not a great photo. It's very gray, there is no central focus, and the cranes are hard to see. I'm also not sure why a photo of cranes belongs in the lead. It'd be better placed in a section on the current condo boom. Even then a higher quality shot would be preferable. perhaps this one of CityPlace. - SimonP (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Simon Pulsifer. The image looks so dull and generic that it is not representative of the city's construction boom (and can look like well another city's). A higher quality image (and one that is more representative of Toronto) is preferred, but for now, it is best not to use this image. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- It has been almost a month now. do we keep this image or do we keep searching for another one? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Get rid of it. I suspect a copyright violation, like the rest of this uploaders images. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- After taking a good look at the origin of the image, I agree with Secondarywaltz completely, since I sense something peculiar about its source. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- It has since been deleted. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- After taking a good look at the origin of the image, I agree with Secondarywaltz completely, since I sense something peculiar about its source. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Get rid of it. I suspect a copyright violation, like the rest of this uploaders images. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- It has been almost a month now. do we keep this image or do we keep searching for another one? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Simon Pulsifer. The image looks so dull and generic that it is not representative of the city's construction boom (and can look like well another city's). A higher quality image (and one that is more representative of Toronto) is preferred, but for now, it is best not to use this image. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Another misaligned image
This image definitely needs to be rotated 90° left. Keeping the image like this, even for artistic purposes (which makes even less sense than the angled image of the Financial District), makes no sense. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think there might be a problem at Commons. This has happened a lot recently. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Done Rotatebot fixed the misalignment in Commons. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Should the term "Manhattanization" be added to this article? Some of the architecture and urban planning critics use the term "Manhattanization" to refer to Toronto's mushrooming condos resembling Manhattan's streetscape. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Architecture of Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050820014953/http://www.welivehere.ca:80/Interim%20Control%20Bylaw.pdf to http://www.welivehere.ca/Interim%20Control%20Bylaw.pdf/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111050849/http://www.livewithculture.ca/livewithculture_ca/about/cultural_renaissance_projects/toronto_s_cultural_renaissance to http://www.livewithculture.ca/livewithculture_ca/about/cultural_renaissance_projects/toronto_s_cultural_renaissance
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Architecture of Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065238/http://www.workforceinnovation.ca/sites/default/files/TOURISM%20AND%20HOSPITALITY%20SECTOR-Print.pdf to http://www.workforceinnovation.ca/sites/default/files/TOURISM%20AND%20HOSPITALITY%20SECTOR-Print.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)