Talk:The Beaches, Toronto

Boundary

I always figured the western boundary was Coxwell, not Woodbine. The beach itself, and the boardwalk, stretch to Coxwell. And everyone in the area between Coxwell and Woodbine always identify themselves as being in the Beaches or Upper Beaches. While those east of Coxwell don't. Nfitz 15:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I suspect that the boundary dispute is due to historical background and bias. Prior to the mid-90s the Woodbine Racetrack arguably was considered as part of a separate community, with the Beach-ers to the east of Woodbine. The Triangle region just north of that area had many long-time families in it, but was also considered (at the time) relatively low-rent compared to the rest of The Beaches proper -- there was a time when it was a popular area for U. of T. students to be. Now that the area has become gentrified and built over since the Racetrack disappeared, and the Boardwalk extended (in the 70s?) past Woodbine, it is now pretty much assumed that this area is part of "The Beaches" too. Certainly the Real Estate agents think so! ;-) A one- or two-line summary of this should probably be added to the article (and note that I do not have any handy references to back me up on this!) Captmondo 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't have any references either ... and I've only been living in the area (just west of Coxwell) for a year). So much of the history is lost on me, and I only see what is there now. So what would/does one called the area west of Woodbine and east ofCoxwell. It's too far east for Riverside or Leslieville (whatever that is!). And south of the tracks isn't Danforth. Nfitz
    • Had the chance to ask this question of one of the old-timers (lived in the area 50+ years) and he reported that the Triangle region has been considered part of this beaches as long as he's known, and confirmed that the area north of Kingston Road being called the Upper Beaches is a fiction devised by Real Estate agents in the past ten years or so. The area west of Coxwell is in fact part of Leslieville, which is confirmed by the Leslieville article on Wikipedia. He also answered the question to my satisfaction as to the "The Beaches"/"The Beach" controversy, which I have added to the main article. Captmondo 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, good research. But what does one call the area south of CN tracks from Coxwell to Victoria Park? I'd hate to think it was marketing, but I think Upper Beaches is catching on ... Nfitz 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • You may well be right. Am going more on historical precedent, and who are we to dispute increasingly common usage, no matter the originating source? ;-) I have been doing some historical research on the Beaches, and I suspect the real answer to your question has more to do with whatever village originally existed in that area. When I have the answer, will post it here (with references). And btw, my addition with regard to Beach/Beaches was reverted due to it being speculation not based on anything I could back up (yet). Captmondo 03:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, these are the boundaries: to the north, Gerrard St, to the south, Lake Ontario, to the west, Coxwell Ave, to the east, Victoria Park.Griffin Murphy 23:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (archive)

The Beaches → The Beach (Toronto) – The article refers to the neighbourhood as "The Beaches", although there is a section of the article dealing with the perennial Beach vs. Beaches debate. The local Business Improvement Association recently held a straw poll to decide which name to use on street signs, and "The Beach" won out. The article has been subject to fairly regular POV edits on both sides of the name issue, edits which appear to be increasing in number due to the renewed media interest in the debate. I do not care which name is chosen, as long as we achieve some consensus on one and stick with it. --Skeezix1000 17:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier Discussion

Official street signs will use the singular: [1]

Does this necessitate a move of the article to a new title? Radagast 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Even the BIA which held the vote was in the paper today confirming that it isn't going to change its own name from the Beaches Business Improvement Association. The vote was, as I understand it, to figure out whether the new street signs should say Beach or Beaches.

I am more concerned about process, however. Given the controversy over the name of the neighbourhood, if someone believes that the article should be moved to "The Beach (Toronto)" (I think "The Beach" is already taken), then we should go through a proper "Requested Move" process and seek consensus before any move is undertaken. I do hope that today's news does not lead someone to unilaterally move the article. Skeezix1000 19:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see someone did move the article. That's what I was afraid of. Skeezix1000 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who unilaterally moved The Beaches -> The Beach (Toronto). Apologies, I wasn't aware of a "requested move" process -- my bad. But given the recent vote it strikes me that retaining the old name for the page would now in and of itself be considered POV-ism, considering that the name (for good or ill) has been decided upon. True, the poll was informal, and the area itself will undoubtedly still be called "The Beaches" by many, but to keep the name in the plural when a consensus seemingly has been reached necessitates the name change for the article, in my opinion.

For the record, I voted for the plural form, so this is not coming from someone who has an axe to grind with regard to the name or the naming decision. It just seems wrong to retain the plural form as the name for the article when a majority of residents have opted for the singular version.

And yes you are right, The Beach is already taken, and arguably should be made into a disambig page if we go with The Beach (Toronto). Captmondo 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I usually learn about these things the "hard way" too.

But your comments on whether retaining the old article name is POV goes to the very point I was making -- others may diagree that the BIA vote represents any kind of consensus, and that is something for which there should be discussion here on Wikipedia before any move is undertaken. Personally, I have never really cared either way about this name debate, but have erred on the side of caution to retain the title as "The Beaches" because (a) that's how the article was originally written, and more importantly, (b) that's how it is designated by all levels of government (the riding and the ward). The BIA undertook a non-verifiable, unscientific poll to decide the name to put on street signs. Nothing more. I do believe that there are a number of good, debatable reasons to move the article to "The Beach", but the BIA vote, in my opinion, is really not one of them. See? We disagree on even the initial premise of whether or not the vote means a darn thing or not. And you and I usually see eye-to-eye on this article. I can only imagine that there are others who will also have strong opinions.Skeezix1000 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also have reservations about the BIA vote as well, an actual plebiscite would be more compelling than the "if you know how and where to vote, you can do so" approach they took. But it was well-publicized (the issue was hard to miss in any of the local papers) and people arguably have only themselves to blame if they do not feel they were counted. Given that the larger Canadian press has been reporting on the topic, and come the Fall there will be street signs bearing the "official" name of The Beach, I would argue that over the long term, we're going to see more usage of the singular form of the name rather than the plural, hence we should consider switching over to using a article whose name matches the singular form. I can't help but think that doing anything else would not be considered POV-ism and stubbornly obtuse (typical Wikipedia user: "why is the article called "The Beaches" when the residents have agreed on the singular form?)

I also don't think Wikipedia as a whole should offer any judgment on the BIA vote in terms of its process, though it would be prudent to note how it was carried out.

And just as an aside it is amusing to note how local reporters are obviously taking a peek at the article as a basis for their own stories. (I had *never* heard of anyone using plural/singular form instead of "Beaches"/"Beach" prior to it being used here. Check out today's copy of Metro News to see it used liberally throughout the piece. ;-) Captmondo 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is that others may disagree with your presumption that the the name on the street signs is the "official" name (the BIA can choose the name it wants on the signs that it is helping to fund, but has no authority to determine the official name of the neighbourhood), or that residents have "agreed on the singular form" for the neighbourhood (arguably they agreed on the singular form for street signs only - no more). Therefore, it's open to debate whether the existing name is POV or keeping it is obtuse. You can't assume that from the start. That's why there should not be a move until it has gone through Requested Moves.

I agree with you that no one should undertake any original research in questioning the BIA vote (e.g. "was there ballot-stuffing?") for inclusion in the article, but Wikipedians are entitled to consider the significance of the vote (or lack thereof), the verifiable facts as to how it was conducted, and how much weight they attribute to the vote as compared to all the other facts in the great Beach-Beaches debate. The consensus may be that the vote if the best piece of evidence available, and is therefore determinative, or that it was meaningless.

I might be overstating the potential controversy over the proposed move. It may be that most Wikipedians don't care, or that a clear consensus emerges right away. However, given the history of this issue in the neighbourhood, and the history of some inappropriate edits to the article, there is potential for controversy, so it's best to move cautiously. --Skeezix1000 13:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support - I believe the recent local plebiscite in the area that favoured the singular version of the term, and the subsequent press coverage in the local media makes the need for the change necessary. In the long term, it seems likely that the singular version of the term will become the one mostly commonly used. Captmondo 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I've alwways known the area to be "The Beaches". The differences in the name is already discussed in detail in the first section. --Madchester 02:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Desirable"

POV-ful... suggest rewording. elpincha 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "class"

I think the word class shouldn't be used, like upper-middle class. It has a very negative tone. Perhaps it should read something like... The Beaches is a neighbourhood which is inhabited by mostly upper-middle income families. xero 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference to "uppper middle class" shouldn't be there at all, absent a source, otherwise it violates WP:OR and likely WP:NPOV. Skeezix1000 17:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable people

This section has always been problematic.

First, I propose that the section be limited to those persons that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Thus, we avoid (or at least can reverse) the addition of persons who are of questionable notability. I'm tired of people adding their own names, the names of their friends, or the names of locals that they deem to be notable. We need an objective standard, and meriting inclusion in Wikipedia is a good one.

Second, the section needs to be sourced. Editors (mostly anons) routinely add names to this section, and it is impossible to tell whether or not these persons are actually from the Beaches/Beach or not. I've tagged the section as unreferenced for now. At some point, names that can't be verified should be removed, until someone can provide a source.

Third, and finally, in my opinion alumni lists for Malvern Collegiate belong in the article on Malvern Collegiate, not in this article. Heck, a lot of people believe that Malvern isn't even located in the Beaches, given its location north of Kingston Road. It may serve the Beaches neighbourhood, but that doesn't mean that its students who aren't from the Beaches suddenly become "notable people from the Beaches" by association with fellow students who happen to live in the Beaches.

Thoughts? Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started to add sources to the section. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the sources that I can. In the end, I weakened and kept the high school references (I suppose that Beaches residents who went to high school with Keifer Sutherland likely feel that Keifer has a connection to the neighbourhood), although the specifics of who attended what high shool belong in the school articles, not here. I could not find any references to support the fact that Dan Hill or Alannah Myles lived in the area, or that David Wilcox attended an area high school. As for the Barenaked Ladies, I also could not find any sources, and we would certainly need to know the names of the specific band members. Skeezix1000 13:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Boundaries

The description in the introductory paragraph of the neighbourhood's boundaries has been edited multiple times over the past years, all with a lack of back-up sources. Can anyone assist with finding a properly sourced description of the boundaries? Or even a properly sourced description that acknowledges that there is some ambiguity to the boundaries? Much thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think saying, as defined by the City of Toronto, with the cite of the neighbourhood profile is enough. You get the BIA's and neighbourhood associations wanting to say various things too. Best to stay with the government description. Alaney2k (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We should be careful. There is a tendency on Wikipedia to treat the neighbourhoods map on the City of Toronto webpage as an official description of neighbourhood boundaries. It is not. It was produced at the staff level, based on criteria such as census tracts and service boundaries of community agencies - criteria that doesn't necessarily match accepted and understood neighbourhood boundaries and names. The mapping has never been adopted by City Council, and has no official status. It's effectively a bureaucratic tool used to assist in the provision of services, with boundaries that were chosen to assist in that goal, and it should be understood in that context. The website itself states: "Choices about neighbourhood boundaries were made to make the data in the profiles useful to as many users as possible, and are not intended to be statements or judgments about where a neighbourhood starts or ends" and "Not all people define 'neighbourhoods' the same way".

So, the Toronto mapping is probably the best we have at the moment, but isn't necessarily determinative should other sources be identified. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where people get the idea that The Beaches was ever outside the old City of Toronto boundaries. East of Victoria Park Avenue is in Scarborough. The reference given shows the boundary as Victoria Park. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As Skeezix1000 noted above, the city's neighbourhood profile isn't a good source for the historic or traditional boundaries of the neighbourhood as viewed by the residents. It is what we have to go on at the moment, but we should be looking for more reliable sources. As an exercise, try finding Leslieville on the neighbourhoods reference map. Ivanvector (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's one: the Greater Beach Neighbourhood Association defines the neighbourhood as "from Coxwell Avenue to Victoria Park and from Lake Ontario to the railway corridor south of Danforth Avenue". Which is not what we have here.

Here's another: [2] - doesn't explain in the article but you can click on the map to see the boundaries they developed from community input. It's basically the same as what's here. but doesn't match the city's map.

Thanks for the research. "Greater Beach" is obviously an umbrella group for a larger area. A lot of so called "neighbourhoods" have been created for the purposes of glamourizing and marketing an area. The City is more interested in the "reality" of demographics and other studies, rather than "realtor" sales promotions, and that is why those areas are less likely to fluctuate. The neighbourhoods from the Star's map of Beach, Upper Beach and Leslieville have boundaries which appear to be reasonably accurate per current useage. The bottom line is that everything confirms the easterly limit as Victoria Park. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Not disagreeing re: Vic Park. But which is the more appropriate definition here - the city's boundaries or the boundaries in the minds of the residents? The city's map clearly includes the "upper beach" area (north of Kingston Road) as part of this neighbourhood, while it seems residents don't, but I know that could come down to real estate marketing. In the Leslieville example, that neighbourhood isn't defined by the city at all but clearly has a local identity tied to the history of the area, as does the Beach[es]. I don't have an answer for this, I'm just putting it out there. Ivanvector (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem with debates over neighbourhood boundaries. The boundaries are not official, at least not in Toronto. Such boundaries are a matter of convention, they evolve over time, and reasonable people will commonly have different views on them. For as long as I have been on Wikipedia, this article has been subject to drive-by editing where people adjust the reference to the boundaries in the lead to fit their own perceptions (only to be reverted or edited again soon thereafter). I think the best we can do with this article is to have some basic geographic information in the lead (possibly by referring to the more conservative, agreed-upon boundaries), so readers can understand the general location of the neighbourhood, and then create a section on the vague neighbourhood boundaries (much like we have a section on the neighbourhood name). Surely we can find some reliable sources that even cover the boundary issue (I seem to recall the Accidental City has a discussion on this point - I can check). Thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (May 2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. This can be revisited if common usage changes to prefer the singular usage as a result of the new signage, but per the article itself, the debate is unlikely to go away. Also note that article names on Wikipedia do not necessarily reflect official naming patterns. Dekimasuよ! 14:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The City has now or is in the process of finishing the installation of signs saying "The Beach". News report at this location. Alaney2k (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, mostly because I live here and still call it the Beaches, as do the majority of the population in my experience. As to policy, both names are used in common parlance and I would thus suggest that we follow the same rules we do for Canadian vs. American spelling. Whatever the article was originally created with should continue. - SimonP (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

More of a suggestion that we get in line with what is real, citeable evidence, which are the signs. Alaney2k (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Citeable evidence" doesn't really help us. The signs are but one factor in this debate. There's the name of the ward, the name of the local library, etc. etc. There is evidence for both names. The signs don't trump everything else in this debate. If you think they have some sort of special status, I urge you to bring forward reliable sources to that effect so that we can put this painful debate to an end. Otherwise, I don't think we are any further advanced than we were two years ago when we had this same move discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the installation of the signs is a real indication that the debate is over. Alaney2k (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's nice that you think that, but that's not how Wikipedia operates. I suspect this stupid debate will continue, given the inexplicable passions it seems to inspire in that neighbourhood, and the comments section over at thestar.com would suggest that the debate is definately not over. However, our own speculations and hunches are, basically, meaningless. If you think street signs are conclusive of a debate that is over, then provide the actual hard evidence. Until then, they are just street signs. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would be opposed as well, absent some evidence that the Beach name is now clearly more common that the Beaches name (otherwise, I agree with Simon and we should adopt the reasoning of WP:ENGVAR). Remember, the poll that the BIA did a few years back was strictly to decide on the name to use on BIA-sponsored street signs along the commercial corridor -- the BIA was very careful at the time to be clear that the poll was related only to those particular street signs, and they were not holding a referendum on the name of the community. Despite the impression one might get from the press stories these past couple of days, the neighbourhood is not now officially the Beach. It isn't officially anything, in fact, because there are no official neighbourhood designations in Toronto. The name of the neighbourhood is just a matter of popular convention, and these new street signs are but just one of many indicia of that.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that these signs are a permanent designation. Should we be marking our map as "The Beach" is along the street? Indicating the BIA? And the whole area, including the various beach areas as the "The Beaches". Seems confusing. Alaney2k (talk)

They are not a permanent "designation". They are street signs. That's all. Nobody has designated anything. IIRC, the BIA was anxious to sponsor neighbourhood street signs along the commercial corridor, as is done in many Toronto neighbourhoods, but was up against the problem that all past attempts to put either "The Beaches" or "The Beach" on the signs were met with waves of hostility. So, for the sole purpose of having pretty signs, they conducted a neighbourhood poll. In order to ensure that no one got their nose out of joint, they were very careful to communicate that it was a poll on the word to use on a street sign, nothing more. Anybody who believes that the neighbourhood has been officially designated the Beach needs to bring forward some sources to that effect. As for additional map markings, I don't see any need to delve further into this quagmire than we need to -- the article very clearly addresses the issue, and I don't think we need to go any further. Frankly, this whole issue of the street signs is getting as twisted and detatched from reality as the actual Beach/Beaches debate itself. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support the current name is overly generic anyways, and assumes that Toronto is the Centre of the Universe. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that issue would be solved by the proposed name change -- in fact, it would actually make it worse because Beach singular is even more generic. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, bullsh*t. It assumes nothing of the effing sort — the current title is based on international and geography-independent Wikipedia naming conventions, not to any mythical Toronto centre-of-the-universism. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A submunicipal area of Toronto is taking precedence over and independant community. Other submunicipal areas on Wikipedia are disambiguated. It does appear to be Centeroftheuniversism. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Or to The Beaches (Toronto)?, to distinguish from the very many other beaches around the world. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other things in the world that could be at the exact proper title "The Beaches"? That's the relevant question, not whether there are other beaches. Disambiguation of geographic names is based on whether there's actually a competing use for the same title, and then on how important any competing uses are relative to each other, not on whether the article's topic would be immediately obvious to a pre-click viewer of the bluelink whether the name is unique or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Bearcat on this one. We shouldn't disambiguate for the sake of disambiguation. I'm not aware of any naming conflicts that have arisen. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Using The Beach would require disambiguation, as there are other uses. Alaney2k (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The point at hand was about the necessity of disambiguating "The Beaches", not "The Beach". Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Although there's an official preference for The Beach now (and I never understood why that is, because there's more than just one beach), actual on-the-ground usage is still more ambiguous. So I'm not sure which name should actually be preferred. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is an official preference either. At a staff level, the City of Toronto still calls it the Beaches (see here), and the ward is still called Beaches-East York (but as you know that's based on the federal riding name). All that has happened is that BIA-sponsored street signs were installed. From all other perspectives, official or otherwise, the issue is still as muddy as ever. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The beaches are really interlinked. Why multiple names is not really clear. As for all official uses, I expect that to take time. Maybe it's just too soon to call it "The Beach". Alaney2k (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Alaney2k's point that it may be too soon to definitively call it "The Beach" is probably accurate. The main thing people are pointing to are the recently-introduced street signs, which have come about because of a vote held by the BIA back in 2006 (yup, three years ago). If you look at the earlier discussion for a suggested page move, the legitimacy of the vote (which couldn't be characterized as a true plebiscite) came up, a point which still applies now. What's also interesting is that the new signs still embody the split: the top portion does say "The Beach", but the lower portion references the individual beach the sign is posted within (such as saying "Historic Woodbine Beach").

This is just anecdotal, but when I ask cab drivers to take me to "The Beach" I usually get asked which one (with one driver wondering if I meant Sunnyside) whereas they have all understood what was meant when I said "The Beaches" area. Captmondo (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The necessity of redirects for this article illustrated in an experience. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Beach 'Sections'

"The lakefront is divided into two sections; Woodbine Beach to the west, Kew Beach in the centre, and Balmy Beach to the east. "

Does anybody know what the editor was trying to say with this sentence? Did they mean 3 sections? Because I've also seen Balmy and Kew Beach lumped together, which could explain the 'two sections'68.179.102.105 (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and rewrite. It must be a left-over from a previous version and no-one has corrected. I think there are actually four named beaches, anyway? Alaney2k (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I believe, IIRC, that it used to say three -- probably just minor vandalism that no one noticed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

An Overlooked Problem

An accurate geographic dash geological description of The Beaches would include more than the fact that the beach sand tends to erode away. Having lived on Lee near Kingston, I have first hand knowledge that the higher land north of Queen Street is sliding towards Lake Ontario, at what used to be a glacial pace before global warming. Foundation and basement cracks can graduate to full fissuredom. The entire area is under-laced by small streams which were covered during original construction. Nature, however, is only kind when beavers screw with water, not when humans do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.142.167 (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Beaches. 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/20080524204630/http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.org/jkcf_web/content.aspx?page=6536536&_redir=843 to http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.org/jkcf_web/content.aspx?page=6536536&_redir=843
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://culturecanada.gc.ca/details.cfm?linkid=3499&lang=eng
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221002409/http://www.cineplex.com/Movies/FamousNews/FamousMagazine/March%202009.aspx?FamousArticles=26633 to http://www.cineplex.com/Movies/FamousNews/FamousMagazine/March%202009.aspx?FamousArticles=26633
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013071636/http://www.uwindsor.ca/units/alumni/achievements.nsf/982f0e5f06b5c9a285256d6e006cff78/758d5a86a7d5060a85257268006d375b%21OpenDocument to http://www.uwindsor.ca/units/alumni/achievements.nsf/982f0e5f06b5c9a285256d6e006cff78/758d5a86a7d5060a85257268006d375b%21OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311050201/http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20080214_142100_6568 to http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20080214_142100_6568
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107054212/http://www.glenngould.ca/conference/2007/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=102 to http://www.glenngould.ca/conference/2007/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=102
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127141058/http://www.wier.ca/schoolprofiles_m-z.html to http://www.wier.ca/schoolprofiles_m-z.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Beaches. 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/20090526221742/http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_34747.aspx to http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_34747.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Beaches. 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/20071212131113/http://www.tcdsb.org/schools/neilmcneil.asp to http://www.tcdsb.org/schools/neilmcneil.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Notable people

Ken Westerfield is in the "Grew up in the neighbourhood" list, but according to his article, he graduated high school in Michigan, did not move to Canada until he was 23 years old, and now lives in Arizona. Therefore he does not fit in any of the 3 sub-lists in that section. I do see him as notable with respect to the area and suggest a fourth sub-list, for people associated with the Beaches. Hilmar (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)