Talk:Davenport Road

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Davenport Road article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 Low-importance).

explanation[edit]

In this edit another contributor changed this stub to a redirect -- inappropriately in my opinion. Their edit summary says: "Redirect to proper page. Unless you have too much content for the target, this content should not be forked to create a stub". This suggests to me that the redirector skipped clicking on Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Davenport_Road. If they had done so they would have found:

I suggest the existence of so many articles that link to the article on Davenport Road, most of which are not really related to the target of the redirector's redirection, should have caused the redirector to reconsider putting in place a confusing and unhelpful redirection.

Davenport Road's twisty route is due to it being one of the original roads in the region.

Davenport Road is notable for marking the Lake Iroquois scarp, a topic unrelated to the target of the redirect.

So I reverted this redirect. Geo Swan (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated that Davenport wasn't notable, just that there isn't enough content to justify a separate article from the other streets. If you can write three or four paragraphs on Davenport describing its history and its route (see for example Mount Pleasant Road for an example to follow), then I'd reconsider. Until then, this is a content fork just to have a separate article. Spreading information like this around isn't helpful when we have an article grouping the brief history and name origins of most of Toronto's main roads. A significant number of the links you've presented were created by you shortly after creating this article.[1] These are not justification for a separate article, as a redirect would serve them just the same. No content is being deleted, it is just being merged together so that when someone looks up the history of Davenport Road, they can also look up the history of Dupont Street, or Bloor Street. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- and yet again you have neglected to add any categories. Could you show some effort rather than creating another repository for old pictures you have found. Secondarywaltz (talk)

Not to mention at least crop the picture before uploading it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to ignore my justification and puff up the article with undue emphasis on a few quotes, then I'm going to redirect it again and add the sources to the target article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

calling for discussion[edit]

In this edit another contributor removed the following paragraph:

During the 1837 Upper Canada Rebellion rebel leader William Lyon Mackenzie personally burned the home of Dr. R. C. Horne a prominent Tory, at the corner of Davenport Road and Yonge Street. John Charles Dent (1885). The story of the Upper Canadian rebellion: largely derived from original sources and documents. C.B. Robinson. p. 93. Retrieved 2012-02-01.

There was relatively little property damage during the rebellion. That one incident of property damage occurred to the house of a Tory leader, on Davenport Road merits inclusion in this article, in my opinion.

I request the opinion of other contributors as to whether this excision should be reverted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I am that other contributor, my points should be here for a third party to see:

We have an article on the 1837 Upper Canada Rebellion
There is significant mention of its events on Yonge Street
Davenport has absolutely no relevance to the rebellion, unlike Yonge Street
The only correlation between the excised text and Davenport Road is that Davenport is the crossroad along Yonge Street (the significant street with respect to the rebellion) where this incident took place.

ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have an article on the Rebellion. The main coverage of the Rebellion should be there. Brief mentions of the rebellion belong in other articles -- like this one -- when that article links to Upper Canada Rebellion. The paragraph above is exactly the kind of brief context setting that should accompany this kind of link.
Yes, Yonge Street has mention of the Rebellion. So?
If there was "no relevance" of Davenport Road to the Rebellion, then why was William Lyon MacKenzie's burning of Horne's house described in a book about the Rebellion?
Thank you for acknowledging that the arson occurred to a building at the corner of Davenport and Yonge. Geo Swan (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any relevance to Davenport. The battle didn't spill out along Davenport; rather, a building that was involved in a battle along Yonge Street also happened to be adjacent to Davenport Road. There is no connection between the two.
As it should, as it is actually relevant to the history of Yonge Street.
Because the burning of the house has relevance to the rebellion. The location of that house is a passing mention.
I never denied that. I merely indicated that it is irrelevant on this article. A piece of trivia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peace and goodwill. Oh, let's not do all this again. I think there is a lot of room to improve this article, but I am not about to get in the middle of another silly edit war. The article cited above is about the Rebellion and not about the Road. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an article, it is a book. Yes, the topic of the book is the rebellion, not the road. But it is an WP:RS, and where it has coverage of Davenport Road it is relevant to use it here, without regard to the main topic of the book. Geo Swan (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The coverage is trivial / a passing mention of Davenport. The coverage is relevant to Yonge Street, not Davenport Road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm. Clarification please, did you really mean to say you can't understand how a single event can be relevant to multiple articles?
      Of course there are events that are only relevant to a single article. And there are lots more events that are related to lots of articles. Every article that is about a single event, or reasonable equivalent, that is also widely linked is an example. The Upper Canada Rebellion article describes is a cluster of events, that are widely related to lots of topics, so it is widely linked.
      Your position seems to be that this event, the burning of the home of a leading Tory, merits coverage in the article on Yonge Street, but does not merit coverage on Davenport Road. No offense, but if this is your position, you can't just assert this as if you had some policy to back it up, yet skip referencing that policy. And if this isn't your position I encourage you to make a greater effort to explain yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've given you my opinion, based on my knowledge of writing approximately two dozen good articles, two featured articles and a featured list, of how we write articles around here based on WP:OR WP:RS WP:SYNTH

two reversions[edit]

We don't normally "correct" quoted material, as was done here.

This edit, with the edit summary "wikilink", changed a link from Toronto Suburban Street Railway Company to Toronto Street Railway.

Is the Toronto Suburban Street Railway Company the same company as Toronto Street Railway? Maybe -- but since the reference says Toronto Suburban Street Railway Company that is what we should use here. If there are references, used elsewhere, that substantiate that a single company used both names then a redirect would be appropriate. If there are no references, if this edit was based on "common sense", then I ask if it isn't an instance of original research.

In fact the source says the Toronto Suburban Street Railway Company was incorporated in 1894, while the wikipedia article on the Toronto Street Railway says it was incorporated in 1861 -- strongly suggesting they were not the same company.

So I am reverting both these edits. Geo Swan (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing a quote which is misleading as-is perfectly acceptable, hence the use of square brackets. The other alternative is removing it completely. As for the railway, it's the Toronto Suburban Street Railway; there was no "Company" in the name. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct George, I linked to the wrong article. It should have been Toronto Suburban Railway, which confirms the history you have here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I added the Junction reference to that article. Geo Swan (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You write, "Paraphrasing a quote which is misleading as-is perfectly acceptable, hence the use of square brackets."
One interpretation of our policies is that they do not allow us to make decisions, like, for instance, as to whether quotes from our references are misleading. Another interpretation is that any intelligent writer has to bring their own understanding and interpretation to the references they are basing their writing on, and so some level of interpretation is OK, for wikipedians, so long as they aim to honor the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.
Any of us who has been here for a while, can certainly think of occasions when some good faith contributor did their best to comply with our policies, and yet wrote a bunch of nonsense due to a fundamental misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the references they were using. Minor errors due to minor misunderstandings and misinterpretations are very common.
Over on another article you rewrote a phrase from a passage I drafted, asserting it lapsed from POV. Here it seems you are using the opposite interpretation. I disagreed with your position there, and I question your position here. Geo Swan (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you're going with this... The issue in question falls under MOS:QUOTE. "Where there is a good reason to make a change, insert an explanation within square brackets (for example, [her father] replacing him, where the context explaining him is omitted in the quotation).", in this case the use of the word "route" without context makes it unclear that it is referring to an old trail. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Davenport Road. 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:

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: 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) 14:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TTC yard? SW or SE?[edit]

The article describes a racetrack on the southeast corner of Bathurst and Davenport, then indicates this was closed and is now the site of the TTC Hillcrest yard. However, that yard is on the southwest corner. I'd simply change it but I don't know the history - was the racetrack on the SE corner and the connection to the yard an error, or was the racetrack on the SW corner? Can anybody clarify? Thanks. Rwintle (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]