Talk:College Street (Toronto)

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance).

Canada Streets (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada Streets, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Canada StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada StreetsTemplate:WikiProject Canada StreetsCanada Streets articles

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Naming conventions[edit]

Discussion at Talk:List of roads in Toronto, Ontario Eco84 | Talk 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images[edit]

Is there any reason the images shouldn't go in the infobox? It looks better, the image parameters are clearly included with the box template, and it's a general Wikipedia standard to include the lead image in the infobox. - SimonP (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a general road standard. The infobox was designed for use by every country, and until that time the image parameter didn't exist. It was only added for Australia and New Zealand. A map goes in Infobox road on North American articles, images do not. This was established years ago. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's change it for Ontario too then. Do you disagree that it looks better? We could also use Template:Infobox street, where images do seem to be the standard in the States and would be more proper. Though, I like the look of the road template more. - SimonP (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it looks good. The infobox is meant to provide concise raw data regarding the subject. The image at the top pushes all that infomation down. Unlike most subjects, one image can never do justice to the entire length of a road (at least with urban streets). A map, however, provides a lot of visual information. Low EV versus high EV. Highway 401 is an example where the image was in the infobox for a period of time, but now it is not. There are tonnes of images there, but it's the map that goes in the infobox. During the reconstruction of infobox road (which did NOT have a picture before), the feature was enabled, but disabled in the US (I've requested that the same code that blocked its use in the US be instituted for Canada, as the consensus was decided about six months ago during the discussions to revamp that infobox template).

Mount Pleasant Road is the only street in Toronto that is a Good Article. It is a good reference to follow. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we had maps, I'd be fine with including them and replacing the image, but we don't and until we do we should have a picture. Or we can do like the neighbouhod articles, (e.g. The Beaches, and have both. For your second point, if a photo can't represent an entire road, then how can a photo represent an entire city? Are you thus in favour of removing images from all the city infoboxes? - SimonP (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the pictures that cause some of the most prolific drama on Wikipedia? That's why many cities are converting to montages (and actually, the one picture thing was my exact argument behind pushing the montage on the Toronto infobox). Maps should be created, yes, but there's no reason to place a picture in the spot where a map is expected, as with all the highway articles (and before you say it, I've just recently descended on the Toronto Street articles; most of them need serious cleanup from their current state and should not be used as examples). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you do then support removing the city images? Would you prefer nothing to a montage? I think your views are pretty far away from the Wikipedia mainstream in this department. - SimonP (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting words in my mouth. I support improving the city image to city images, to best represent the culture and appearance of that city. They are discussions that last for months and get extraordinarily heated. I'd like to not have that drama on road articles, with people bickering over which image is more worthy of the infobox, or whether the image is more important than the map. And besides, cities aren't roads. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding bickering is not a reason to avoid adding content to Wikipedia. Especially purely hypothetical bickering. - SimonP (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is in the article, even if its not in the infobox. This is purely about placement, which is subject to a lot of bickering. Avoiding bickering is a good reason to fully disable the use of a feature that just causes bickering, if doing so cause absolutely no harm to the content of those articles. The pictures are visible in the article, and then nobody can say "this one is more important than that one" or "but this image represents College Street much better". The map and street sign are the infobox images. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But above you've gone at length about how important infobox placement is. How can you now say that if something is in the infobox or not is meaningless? - SimonP (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said the infobox is important for summarizing the article and providing raw data. A picture of some random point along the road does nothing to increase the reader's knowledge of the subject; which is what the infobox is for. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia policy pretty clearly disagrees with you, as infobox images are an almost universal standard. Images are important, not just to make the article more visually appealing, though that is crucial, but also because an image conveys a huge amount of information very quickly. Consider the image on this page, it shows that College runs through a dense urban environment, with lots of traffic, and through an older and historic part of town. Or the image at Steeles that shows that it is a many laned street with rapidly moving traffic going through a low density suburban environment. Those two images give the reader more information about these streets in a couple seconds than many paragraphs of prose provide. - SimonP (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy dictating a lead image in the infobox. As an admin I thought you'd be aware of the differences between guideline, policy, and consensus. You're reworking a very general guideline to suit your needs here. Road editors (and there are a lot of us), have decided as a group that a map is what is to be used in infoboxes. Canada is no exception, and it isn't special so it doesn't deserve its very own exception (niether is Ontario). Both your examples would be misleading. Steeles is a country road in the east end. Its surrounded by high-rises at Yonge. The image shows niether of these, and would lead one to assume the entirety of Steeles is surrounded by commerical urban sprawl, which isn't the case. Likewise, College is far from dense west of Spadina. Its a standard commercial shopping strip, like Queen Street. The image does no justice. Several images do, and thats why we place them throughout the article and why they were originally disabled for infobox road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]