Talk:Yonge–Eglinton

Magazine

To whoever has removed the mention of Yonge and Eg magazine - the magazine is an exclusive publication that is only available to those living in the Yonge and Eglinton neighbourhood. It's in the title!

The residents enjoy receiving it (hence it's continued success and distribution). Nowhere in its mention does it solicit business, money or information from anyone. It's simply a blurb with a link informing curious residents of the publication and allowing them to explore it as a part of the neighbourhood.

Please have the courtesy and understanding to realize this is not spam, nor does it have any negative impact on this page.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.111.13 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Linkspam

Okay, I don't want to get into a big Internet fight, but this so obviously *IS* spam. The sole purpose of your inclusion of it on this page is to attract advertisers and/or readers to your publication, not to enhance the article itself. I may be wrong, but I don't think Wikipedia's purpose is to grant you--or anyone--free advertising. Fellow Wikipedians, can we get decision on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.57.236 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. I've never seen it before and I live in the area. Not notable.--J2000ca (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is sent via Canada Post to every home, apartment, condo and business within 1 KM of the intersection. Maybe you or someone in your home throws it out, but with 7 issues out over 2 years, I'm 100% sure you've gotten it. And the thousands in the neighbourhood who receive and use it multiple times wouldn't agree that it's "not notable". Now please leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.60.164 (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out WP:NOTE. It list criteria for what's notable.--J2000ca (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to note something, at least make reference or quote what's relevant, as I'm about to do, from that same article you referred to:

"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by policies such as No original research and Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections."

However, in addition to this point, it should be noted that you are in no position to make a subjective decision about notability on behalf of the people who visit this page, any more than the hundreds that DON'T attempt to erase mention of it because they find it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.60.164 (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. Okay how about "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."~Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."~Wikipedia:Verifiability. This has been removed 9 times by several editors saying it's spam.--J2000ca (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But Yonge and Eg DOES provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain... and the previous editors assumed it was spam without looking into it properly, hence them leaving it alone after learning about it. The article is about "Yonge and Eg". This isn't simply spam or advertising for some unrelated website or solicitation to try to get money or hits - it's a publication called "Yonge and Eg" and it's for the people of the community. It is a resource for those living in (or visiting) the neighbourhood and deserves to be shared with them as it is completely relevant and not asking for anything from anyone. For those "9" editors who call it spam, why don't you find out how many hundreds of people have seen this article and found the Yonge and Eg publication to be useful?

People like you have this self-righteous issue with wiki-power to try to control things without taking into account the other side of the argument and the actual relevence and usefulness of the material. In the meantime, you keep having to look up new reasons to take it down because your previous ones are easily proven to be invalid. Subjectivity is out the window and you're just making it a personal vendetta. Just be fair about it and see it from the other side.

How does it provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain? Where is it attributed in a reliable published source? What editor stated they were leaving it alone because the looked into it. Please refrain from personal attacks. If you feel the link should be added to the article, discuss it to a consensus on the talk page rather than re-adding it.--J2000ca (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The resource is the entire website, which contains a list of community establishments, information, maps and free discounts to these places. The second question has no merit - as pointed out - the content of the article requires no notability from a published source - although since the magazine is a published source itself, it seems it covers itself. Editors don't state it - they look into it and leave the link alone after. Obviously they see the site is not typical spam. And there was no personal attack - simple statement of fact. You are abusing power for personal reasons. And you telling me to stop adding and to discuss on this page - the same can go the other way. Stop deleting it. This link and information have every right to be a part of this page, just as much as the links to Canadian Tire, TV Ontario and the Heart and Stroke Foundation. It is a part of the community (it's named AFTER the community, how much more relevant can it get?) and for whatever reason, you've decided you can't accept that. I just don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.117.99 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

The link and associated section do not comply with WP:EL and do not belong in Wikipedia. "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." should be avoided. A coupon book's website, by definition, is such a site. The fact that it may be delivered free to the entire neighbourhood is irrelevant. I have removed it and the associated paragraph. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As agreed upon on Jclemens' personal talk page, the link has been removed, but the description of the Yonge and Eg publication can remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.4.8 (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yonge and Eglinton. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081013105445/http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/English/exhibits/subway/milestones_2.htm to http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/ENGLISH/exhibits/subway/milestones_2.htm

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) 19:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)