Talk:List of mayors of Toronto

Split and scope

The City of Toronto Act, 1997 provided that the post-amalgamation city of Toronto was distinct from each of the pre-amalgamation cities and boroughs—Toronto included. ("The new city stands in the place of the old municipalities for all purposes.") Toronto did not annex the rest of Metropolitan Toronto upon amalgamation.

As a result, it's only semantically accurate to say that the previous 61 mayors were mayors of Toronto—because they were never mayors of the present city of Toronto. To avoid conflating the two distinct city of Toronto governments, the list that was once here has been split: most is at list of mayors of Old Toronto, while the post-amalgamation information remains here. Other articles of a similar nature, like list of mayors of Scarborough, Ontario also exist, and the members of that list should not be counted among Toronto mayors either. TheFeds 10:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Cities, provinces, states and other political entities grow, change and/or amalgamate all the time. Ontario's boundaries have changed radically since 1867, but we still maintain ONE list of premiers of the province of Ontario. This truncated list serves no good purpose, and should be restored to include all mayors of Toronto since 1834. 70.29.13.147 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: I believe the distinction of 'old' Toronto and 'current' Toronto can be made within one article, and splitting serves no purpose, except to be "anal retentive" in article titles. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is essential to note that the current city of Toronto is not a continuation of the old city of Toronto's government—with the exception of trivialities like the city hall building itself. The governmental bodies and agencies are distinct. By combining them, we would have an article about "mayors of cities called Toronto" or "mayors of cities now part of Toronto", and in that article we should also include the mayors and reeves of the cities and boroughs that previously occupied the geographic area of present-day Toronto, but which were not named "Toronto"—because apart from the name, their governments have exactly as much to do with the present-day Toronto as the former city of Toronto's government does. I think that's a bad choice, particularly because the history of those communities is complicated, and is better served in individual articles, with links as necessary. I'm going to restore the split on this basis.

Ontario has been a continuously extant political entity since 1867, and is therefore a poor model for this situation. Though I'm not necessarily suggesting that we follow an example from sports as a guide for what to do in this case, it may be instructive to think of it like the Winnipeg Jets: the first Jets franchise is now the Phoenix Coyotes, and the second one has an unrelated team history, despite using the same name.

Also, while I'm not a fan of the "Old Toronto" name, that's what its article is currently titled, so that's the working title for the split. (Figure that nomenclature out at Talk:Old Toronto if you want.) TheFeds 21:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's another point of comparison: Mayor of London vs. Lord Mayor of London. Even if the latter office had been abolished upon creation of the former, it would be incorrect to treat them as one and the same post. TheFeds 21:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

They are all called "Mayor of Toronto". While the COT Act may have initiated a new city legally, it appears that the "new" Toronto inherited the history of "Old Toronto". Archives of Toronto, Museums of Toronto, etc. Alaney2k (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Sorry, TheFeds. I believe you're acting in good faith, but this article split is not useful, not helpful, not supported by any Wikipedia policy, and was done without consultation with other editors. It has been reverted once already because you have -- at this point -- no support for your actions. You are welcome to have a conversation about your proposal to split the article here, but please look at making it a proposal that is supported by Wikipedia policies. Thanks! Everyone But You (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As to your policy and consultation contentions, see WP:Bold and WP:Split. In other words, it's perfectly valid and proper. As for usefulness/helpfulness (I think that's essentially one criticism), are you contending that it's not useful/helpful to distinguish between the mayors of two different cities?

I thought it should be fairly obvious that the mayors of present-day Toronto were not elected to lead the same governmental apparatus as the mayors of former Toronto. The two cities were incorporated by different acts, and the mayors' positions were governed by these separate statutory frameworks. The text of the act is verifiable, authoritative support for this position—and presuming that we all accept the law, we can hardly have a vote over uncontroversial facts. If instead, you wish to vote on stylistic points in support of your edit, I'd like someone to articulate a plausible and consistent set of list-defining criteria for the status quo, wherein mayors of former Metro municipalities are excluded, except that mayors of former Toronto are included, and mayors of present Toronto are likewise included. How does that compare to the London example, and for the sake of discussion, what rationale do you have for adopting a the opposite solution?

Fundamentally, it makes little sense to imply nonexistent continuity by counting the mayors together. That will only serve to support mistaken impressions among the readership. The hatnotes are a conventional Wikipedia way of pointing readers to the articles about related matters with the same name, and that's the way we should do it here. TheFeds 10:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't made a cogent argument that we are talking about "two different cities", as you put it. And the reason for that is because we are quite simply *not* talking about two different cities. We are talking about a single political entity that was restructured in 1998, and had been restructured numerous times before then. (And will unquestionably be restructured again in the future.) If you can find a specific Wikipedia policy to back up splitting this article -- one that supports the crux of your argument that we are talking about two different cities here -- then of course, we can discuss it. But right now, you haven't made an effective case. Your Mayor of London/Lord Mayor Of London example is not a parallel situation: these are two different offices that exist simultaneously, so it is reasonable that there are two separate listings for them. The Jets/Coyotes example is similarly not parallel: these are two separate extant franchises, so there are of course two separate articles about them. So right now, there is no reason that I can see to spit this article ... as Alaney2k wrote, the distinction between 'old' Toronto and 'current' Toronto can be made (and IS being made) within the one article, so splitting the list of mayors serves no purpose. Everyone But You (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand the nature of the amalgamation process. Toronto (the old), North York, Etobicoke, York, East York and Scarborough were all dissolved along with Metro Toronto (the next-higher level of government). None of these historical entities exist any longer. In their place, a single new Toronto government was formed from scratch. There was no continuity of municipal offices—they were dissolved and replaced by new appointees/elected officials. From their perspective, that was reasonable, because it wasn't an annexation where (the former) Toronto was the only government left standing; rather the province wiped them all out, and created a new Toronto under a new enabling act.

I don't know of any Wikipedia policy that prescribes what to do when a region is subject to that process—and frankly don't think there needs to be any such policy. Instead, I point to the City of Toronto Act, 1997, which clearly stated "The new city stands in the place of the old municipalities for all purposes."; if it was not a new city, why did they call it exactly that? TheFeds 18:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I understand the nature of the amalgamation process perfectly clearly. The actual issue here is splitting the list of Toronto mayors unhelpfully and unnecessarily. Again: the distinction between 'old' Toronto and 'current' Toronto can be made (and IS being made) within the one article, so splitting the list of mayors serves no purpose.

Now, if you can find Wikipedia policy that supports your specific arguments to split this article, then absolutely -- let's discuss it on those terms. But you've made your point about the nature of the amalgamation, and so far have found no support from anyone here that your arguments are compelling enough to merit splitting the article in the manner you suggest. Of course, maybe someone will come along and agree with you, in which case we can widen the discussion. I'm happy to do that! But for now, I don't believe you've made a case for the split. Sorry. Everyone But You (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You again suggest that it is necessary to search for a Wikipedia policy. What's your objection to the policies cited, and in case they are inadequate, why do you presume that a situation-specific policy is necessary?

As for the distinction between old and new, do you support or oppose listing former Metro Toronto municipalities' mayors and reeves in this list? After all, their former cities are just as much a part of the present Toronto as was the former city of Toronto. It seems illogical to enumerate only the mayors of cities named "Toronto", when that list is historically meaningless. Rather, historical context is correctly represented by listing mayors of former cities in lists relating to those cities. I'm not too concerned if the question is between placing all of those lists here, or none of them (though I mentioned that I think all would be unwieldy), but I am concerned if your criteria for inclusion treat the former city of Toronto differently merely because it shares a name with the new city. I am also concerned that the status quo poorly explains the historical reality that continuity of the office of Mayor of Toronto was not maintained through amalgamation—and that Lastman was not Hall's successor, any more than he was Tonks' successor or Faubert's successor, or his own successor, for that matter. TheFeds 02:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Please note that the City of Toronto lists Rob Ford as the 64th Mayor of Toronto See here. Therefore, we should be consistent with the City's own description. Alaney2k (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And that should establish the continuity which seems to be disputed. Alaney2k (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And thirdly, here is another citation from the City of Toronto, which lists the 64 mayors up to and including Ford: List of mayors Alaney2k (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Harris did not enlarge Toronto, he merged it with other municipalities. Nonetheless, the new city is considered the continuator of the old city. BTW The Toronto Sun has mentioned this article.[1] TFD (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The list of mayors of the former city of York does not have its own article; the list is actually in the York, Ontario article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox asterisk?

Should we perhaps have an asterisk in the infobox, pointing people to the discussion of the Deputy Mayor being granted Ford's powers? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sortable table

The table doesn't sort properly by date if month and day are included before the year. Downwoody (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)