Talk:Calgary/Archive 2

Peer review request
I've submitted a Peer review request, please add comments at Peer review/Calgary/archive1.--Qyd 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

workforce by industry table?
Should a table be included in the economy section?
 * This data comes from . It should be condensed maybe? --Qyd 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this a fairly standard breakdown by category? One thing that is a minor annoyance on Wikipedia for me is the lack of standardization across articles.  One thing I like to do is compare similar article pages for slightly different things.  eg: compare the Vancouver article to the Calgary article to the Saskatoon article ... If I was a brave enough editor, I would sit down and try to match up the sections and the order (keeping in mind that some article subjects have unique characteristics (it would be useless to talk about the Float Plane industry in Calgary for example)).   Anyway, given that your source is the Calgary Economic Development authority, if you do insert it, it might be worth taking a look at other cities labour force breakdown to ensure similar categories.   just my two cents.   Thomas Dzubin  Talk 19:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like that many categories either, that was just the data at the source; it would probably be more usefull with fewer types (Industry, agriculture, services, retail, administration maybe). --Qyd 23:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

2001 data
This table uses census 2001 data, would be nice to have the 2006 profiles. (the layout is borrowed from Dawson Creek, British Columbia, and other communities in the BC Peace River country use this kind of tables)--Qyd 17:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like it. Nice & succinct.   Thomas Dzubin  Talk 22:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I ended up using just rates (%) for employment by industry, using the 2001 numbers, as StatCan will release the 2006 labor statistics only in 2008.--Qyd 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Article pictures
Since, as the saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words" ... a recent edit to Calgary by Cszmurlo (talk) replaced with, Shouldn't changes like this be discussed on the [Talk:Calgary] page before the picture is changed in the article? Note: I'm not a photographer, but even though the 2003 picture is four years old, I actually think it looks better than the 2007 one (more "dynamic range"... lots of greens AND red tones in the 2003 picture while the 2007 one has a distinct overall reddish hue to it). Yeah, I know I could revert the last edit, but I'd like to see a bit of discussion because they're both good pictures, but I think the original one was just a little bit better. Thomas [User:Dzubint (talk)] 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not a chinook arch. The picture is facing east, making this impossible. It is simply a line of clouds. 138.32.235.36 09:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for site addition
Hello,

I do not know if this is the right place to put this but I wanted to ask for you permission, I run an informational blog on Calgary real estate, If it is possible to be included in the links section of this wiki that would be great. I would also like to congratulate all of you for the excellent information that you have provided, the website is www.calgaryrealestatedirect.com for your review.

If I have posted this in error please accept my apologies.

Mark Thompson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.110.129 (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
 * The link you propose is one to a commercial website, the kind of link that is stronlgly discouraged in wikipedia, see WP:EL and WP:NOT. Thanks. --Qyd 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It shouldn't go into the article here. However it would be quite acceptable to add it to http://calgary.wikia.com/, in fact I would encourage you to add a small article on Calgary real estate there complete with your link. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Olympics
'One of the world's fastest ice skating rinks was built to accomadate these game.'

This part makes no sense. It's like saying 'these shoes are fast'. You can't have a fast ice skating rink. It depends on how fast the person's going. Unless that phrase means the rink was built quickley. --TelusFielder
 * That's not true...ice can be more or less slippery. The air from the altitude also gives less restriction due to it being thinner than closer to sea level. It's why olympians come here to train for all sorts of sports. The altitude of the city makes a huge difference. Same thing happens in the US in Colorado. Alot of athletes go there for the same reason. A good example of how fast ice is can be found in curling. In curling its a major part of the game to be able to figure out how fast the ice is so you throw the stone with the proper amount of force. --Djsasso 04:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues
Although this article is very good in parts, I've tagged a number of sections which clearly contain a lot of opinion that is unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Please refer to WP:NPOV. Secondly, too much weasel words appear trying to make the city look overly fantastic.Michellecrisp 07:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The citation requests are most welcome, they help bullet-proofing the article. The unballanced tags in some sections are in no way helpful, they add nothing to the quality of the page (that is true for any GA or FA article). You can raise any NPOV issues on the talk page, without runining the eventual reading experience. I've tried to reduce the number of headings, as to have as few interruptions as possible for the reader (the Canada article layout was a model), so I really hate to see the page fragmented again with one-sentence paragraphs. I'm inclined to revert all your edits, and it would be a pitty, as you obviously put some work in it. Please address these issues. --Qyd 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * it's not about ruining the reading experience, tags are there for a reason, in other sites I'm asked to specifically point out in the text where things are unbalanced.it's about improving the article, that's the primary reason for tags. it may look "ugly" to you but it's necessary. why else does Wikipedia offer these templates. revert all my edits? that's quite a threat everything I have edited has a clear defensible reason, when I first looked at the article it had major NPOV flaws in some sections and quite of bit of superflous information. Michellecrisp 02:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * These templates are for articles and issues where consensus couldn't be reached through discussions, as to warn readers of outstanding concerns. Indeed, they look ugly to me, and I can't imageine who finds them pretty. Improving the article can and should be done by imporving the text, not by slapping tags. Reverting was not a threat, it was an impulse (which i'm containing) caused by the look of the page. My request would be that you reconsider the tag avalanche and extra headings. The citation requests, as I said earlier, are a welcome. --Qyd 02:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Examples of clear violation on NPOV "Voters appeared to have been angry over Premier Ed Stelmach's dismissal of booming Calgary's struggles to deal with everything from traffic gridlock to soaring rents and house prices." doesn't that seem to be a lopsided opinion of a dissatisfied citizen? the use of "appeared to" is very weasel words. "lukewarm support for his leadership" lukewarm is not a clearly defined nor neutral word. Michellecrisp 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It does appear, indeed. While the wording can definitely be improved, the statemant seems nevertheless true, I got the same feelings by watching the news (consider the surprise in the last by-election). Yes, better words can be found, citations can be provided. No need still for ugly tags defacing the page though. --Qyd 02:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * tags can be put by anyone at anytime, in fact the unbalanced tag states "An editor has expressed concern that this article" so I'm doing a job as an editor. it's not defacing. if it's defacing complain to Wikipedia about the look of those tags. don't complain to me. it's about the process of improving articles. I will happily remove the tags once the sections are worded better. the alternative is that I just remove offending text. you choose. Michellecrisp 02:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove the offending text. Again, the tags are to be used if issues are not resolved through discussion. I find it that these tags are more offending then the actual text in this particular case. --Qyd 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section tags now and offending text. Michellecrisp 03:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Crime Spree 2007
The media and even the police are now recognizing the current crime spree Calgary has suffered since the end of July as something out of the ordinary. I think it should be referenced somewhere in here. 68.146.47.196 04:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. That is a current event... it's news, it's not encyclopedic. It's also based on media reports which are usually sensationalized when they are of that nature. I think information of that sort becomes encyclopedic when it becomes the trend or the norm, and when harder data is available for reference. Anomalous statistical information such as a sudden and quite possibly temporary crime spree should be left out I think. --Arch26 05:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true. At the moment it's "shock, horror" but in a year's time it's likely to be "ho-hum". -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to reasses that opinion, Mezmo the Magnificent? In light of the recent wave of violence a year later? :-) 139.48.25.61 (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

protection
It seems that this page is targeted by a group determined to insert some commercial website link (CalgaryEh). The edits have come from anonymous IP's, some from dynamic addresses. Is becomes really time consuming to revert this changes. Should the page be semi-protected for a while? --Qyd 19:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well we could. but we normally only do that when the situation becomes really bad and I don't think that we've reached that stage yet. How about suggesting that the anon IP adds an article together with their link to the Calgary Wiki where it would be much more appropriate. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be an option. Here's a list of spammers, if you consider it's worth a try:, , , , . --Qyd 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I got an admin to block the 198 IP...perhaps we could pass on the rest to the admins. --Djsasso 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can see that it's been particularly bad the last couple of days. I'm not particularly keen on banning the addresses as they are sometimes used by groups of unrelated subscribers who happen to have the same ISP as the spammer but I will semi-protect the page for a week and see how that goes. If the problem restarts at the end of a week we'll up it to a month. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

John Glenn Link
First, apologies if I have put this subject/heading in the wrong area.

Can some please fix the broken link for John Glenn. Currently the link is pointing to: ^7. Historical Bow Valley Ranche. Bow Valley Pioneers. Retrieved on 2007-01-16.

This site has been down for several months. My recommendation is:

Alberta Government - Fish Creek History - http://tprc.alberta.ca/parks/fishcreek/glenns.asp

Thanks Trailmix1234 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for pointing it out. --Qyd 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation Box
I tried to insert a citation box to the Calgary article. It didn't work out. I don't know what adjustments need to be made to it to incorporate all the reference notes.

However, I did put one in for the Winnipeg article and it seems okay. Is this is a suitable way of condensing the notes section? Thanks. jdobbin 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Climate Graph
I have created a climate graph for Calgary, located here. Numbers are rounded, readers can click the source link to see exact numbers.

The climate graph has been a little project of mine and I encourage feedback to continue to improve these graphs. :) Thanks.

More here.

vid 00:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC) vid 05:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I like it. --Qyd 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Also, there is a weather template (here) that looks better than the picture you're using now, but is not scalable. It is in English, though. :) vid 23:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I created a climate graph with the standard template:

I propose we replace the existing climate graph to achieve a standard. Suggestions? &#9773; Zippanova  18:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:Weather box is the standard. 117Avenue (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

GA on hold
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.


 * Image:1988 wolympics logo.png needs a fair use rationale
 * ✅ Removed image.


 * Please provide citations for these statements:
 * "Originally named Fort Brisebois, after NWMP officer Éphrem-A Brisebois, it was renamed Fort Calgary in 1876 because of questionable conduct on the part of that officer."
 * ✅ rephrased, added ref


 * "Fort Calgary was named by Colonel James Macleod after Calgary (Cala-ghearraidh, Beach of the pasture) on the Isle of Mull, Scotland."


 * "Calgary was officially incorporated as a town in 1884 and elected its first mayor, George Murdoch. In 1894, Calgary became the first city in what was then the Northwest Territories."
 * ✅ Rephrased, added ref


 * "Calgary's elevation is approximately 1,048 metres (3,440 ft) above sea level downtown, and 1,083 metres (3,553 ft) at the airport. The city proper covers a land area of 721 square kilometres (278 sq mi) (as of 2001) and as such exceeds the land area of Toronto."
 * ✅ added statcan ref (the same source gives 630.18 km2 for Toronto, compared with  726.50km2 for Calgary).


 * "The Calgary Economic Region includes slightly more area than the CMA and has a population of 1,146,900."
 * "The Beltline is the focus of major planning and rejuvenation initiatives on the part of the municipal government to increase the density and liveliness of Calgary's centre."
 * ✅ added ref


 * Most sentences in the climate section.
 * "It is also starting to become recognized as one of Canada's most diverse cities."
 * "it is referred to by some as the "Nashville of the North.""
 * "Southern Alberta Jubilee Auditorium, a 4 million ft³ (113,000 m³) performing arts, culture and community facility"
 * "The 2,700-seat auditorium was opened in 1957"
 * ✅ exact number, reference added


 * "At 2.5 acres (1.01 ha), the Devonian Gardens is one of the largest urban indoor gardens in the world"
 * ✅ reference added


 * "After 1980, during the recession caused by dropping oil prices and the National Energy Program, many highrise construction projects were immediately halted."
 * "The tallest of these (the Petro-Canada Centre), is the tallest office tower in Canada outside of Toronto."
 * ✅ - I added the reference from the Petro-Canada Towers article, HOWEVER, 1250 René-Lévesque in Montreal claims to be 226m. That is not entirely true -- According to Skyscraperpage, the roof of Petro-Can is taller than 1250, even though 1250's spire is taller than the pinnacle of Petro-Can. You might want to figure a way to add that to the article. 1000 de La Gauchetière (SSP) is recognized as the tallest in Montreal, as it's roof is several metres higher than 1250. Vidioman 21:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "To connect many of the downtown office buildings, the city also boasts the world's most extensive skyway network (elevated indoor pedestrian bridges), officially called the +15. The name derives from the fact that the bridges are usually 15 feet above grade."
 * ✅ reference added.


 * "The Reform Party was founded in Calgary."
 * "results of the 2004 federal election where they achieved 7.5% of the vote across the city and 11.3% in the Calgary North Centre riding."
 * "54% of the budget is spent for wages of the 13,043 city employees and expeditures."
 * Fact documented in previous reference.


 * "All eight of Calgary's federal MPs are members of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). "
 * ✅ reference added


 * "28,807 students are enrolled there."
 * ✅ added year + ref


 * "beginning with the assignment of a squadron of Strathcona's Horse."
 * "After many failed attempts to create the city's own unit, the 103rd Regiment (Calgary Rifles) was finally authorized on 1 Apr 1910."
 * "it was decommissioned in 1998, when most of the units moved to the Edmonton Canadian Forces base."

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Started to go through the list item by item. It might take some time to comb them all. --Qyd 18:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally as I mentioned below, I think the demographics section would hold this article back from being a good article. While within "policy", it certainly doesn't paint a true picture of calgary today. If an updated source can't be found, I almost think the article would be better without it.--Crossmr 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If an updated source can't be found, I almost think the article would be better without it.
 * Then you might as well end all other Canadian city article's GA status, as they all use the same out-of-date source. Apart from using an unofficial (therefore unacceptable to Wiki standards) source, we have no choice but to go with StatsCan until 2 April, 2008 when ethnicity data for 2006 is released. vıdıoman  (talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all cities are Calgary. if a cities population hasn't grown dramatically or changed significantly then it doesn't matter. However calgary has had huge growth. And outdated information doesn't serve this article. Official or not we have to recognize that in the case of this article the time has made a difference. Other articles will have to debate the continued relevance of 6 year old statistics on their own. In this case I don't think a good article on Calgary should include this kind of outdated information.--Crossmr 02:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then Calgary cannot be a good article until 2 April, 2008 when that information is released. vıdıoman  (talk • contribs) 03:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it very well should have this info in it. All you need to do is have a qualifying sentence added that mentions that there has been rapid growth since the last census and cite that. Trying to say it should lose its GA status just because of the impossibility of a current population statistic is just being rediculous and trying to cause a stir. --Djsasso 03:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to pass the article, as the remaining issues aren't major enough to warrant delisting. Epbr123 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Demographics
These demographics I think are horribly out of date. While 2001 seems to be the latest statscan, is there another source? 6 years in a city like calgary is an eternity. It seems strange that the 2006 census seemed to cover only about 1/2 of what the 2001 did.--Crossmr 02:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The full set of statistics will be released in 2008 (summer). Religion was not covered in the Canada 2006 Census. --Qyd 03:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that the table for ethnic composition of Calgary adds to more than 100%?--Nakedophelia (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly due to multiple responses (see reference). --Qyd (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The introduction gives the 2007 population for the city but the Demographics section lists the figure for 2006. These should be the same; i.e., use the 2007 (or latest figures) in both places. The ethnic orgins table is outdated and even the numbers listed don't match up with the 2001 census figures on Stats Can's website. The 2006 figures are out and they are quite different. Either people are lying on the census forms or whomever put in the 2001 figures here screwed up. The percentages also seem wrong and I'm not talking about the multiple response issue. Since these figures are questionable (Statistics Canada should be embarrassed for even asking this question without a better way for controlling responses) the table should be deleted. Giving non-Calgarians the impression that over 10% of the city has French origins is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.2.138 (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

infobox photo
Not that the photo isn't up to the usual high standards of the uploader, but isn't the Calgary Tower iconic of the city and a natural for a skyline photo? Also, why one with dead trees when a summer photo would be more attractive? I realize Wikipedia is not a travel advertisement, but...139.48.25.61 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I switched Image:CalNight.jpg with Image:Calgary-Dawn-Szmurlo.jpg (one in the infobox, the other in Attractions). --Qyd (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sister city
I added Sarajevo as an officiel sister city of Calgary, but without knowing the date... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.197.107 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately its not an official sister city. Sister Cities. -Djsasso (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanx for the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.197.107 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Calgary's Communities
"The inner city is, in turn, surrounded by relatively dense and established neighbourhoods such as Rosedale and Mount Pleasant to the north; Bowness, Parkdale and Glendale to the west; Park Hill, South Calgary (including Marda Loop), Bankview, Altadore and Killarney to the south; and Forest Lawn/International Avenue to the east. " This makes it sound like these communities all form the second ring of neighbourhoods around the downtown core - but Mt. Pleasant is walking distance from downtown, while Bowness and Forest Lawn would be more of a half-day hike. Maybe more should be said about the suburban communities within Calgary, or just taken Bowness and Forest Lawn out of this paragraph altogether (they still have a mention in the next paragraph, after all)?
 * Inner city is considered (at least by realtors) the area defined as Calgary up to 1961, before a major expansion. Lands added after that have typical suburban developments, while the mentioned neighbourhoods are distinct old style, with grid streets, mostly bungalows. Forest Lawn and Bowness existed at that time (hence the confusion), but were separate towns, annexed in 1961 and 1963 respectively. They should not be considered inner city, even though they have similar urbanism and architecture as the inner city neighbourhoods. --Qyd (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture References
I hate articles that throw Pop Culture references in and then provide lenghty quotes to justify them. This is in support of the notion that Calgary was referenced in "MASH" and "ST:TNG". The ST reference was in the episode "The First Duty" - Wesley Crusher mentions Calgary explicitly by discussing a fellow cadet who went there on leave. In a MASH episode, Major Winchester describes sheets of carbon paper as looking like they "went through the Calgary Stampede!" This is all far too trivial to mention in the article itself, probably too trivial to mention in a footnote even.139.48.25.61 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to trivial to mention at all? Who really cares that Calgary was mentioned in Star Trek? Other than die-hard Trekkers, I mean. --Phant (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On a related note, who cares what some dude namedPhantasee thinks. The cascading revelations of this line of logic stagger the imagination. 139.48.25.61 (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Largest CMA
I noticed in the intro of the article that Calgary was the fourth largest CMA as of 2008. The updated CMA was cited, however the ranking wasn't and I was wondering if the claim was based off of a comparison of Calgary's 2008 CMA and Ottawa-Gatineau's 2006 CMA. I couldn't find Ottawa-Gatineau's 2008 CMA, can anyone either verify or disprove this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.202.239 (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i fixed it i put it back to fifth Ottawa has not done a census since 2006 so it is most likely bigger.-- Cheers  Kyle1278 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.203.250 (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Stats Canada says Calgary is bigger based on July 2009 population figures: Calgary (1,230,248) and Ottawa (1,220,647). This was all over the news today (2/5/2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.190 (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New photos
There has been a concern regarding the photos User:Guyfrombronx has uploaded and inserted into Canadian articles. A number of fellow editors have found that Guyfrombronx has not obtained or failed to properly show the licensing required to use these images on Wikipedia or the Commons. The photos are primarily from Flickr.com and from several photographers. We also have not been able to determine if all the photos are from Flickr and could be from other sources. Due to these facts we are inclined to believe that he has obtained these images illegally and have removed them from Wikipedia articles as per WP:COPYRIGHT. Until we have confirmation that such permission to use these photos under a Common license has been granted by each photographer we will continue to remove the images. Attempts have been made to contact Guyfrombronx, and it appears they have been unsuccessful. Mkdw talk 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

calgary climate graph?
I stumbled across this website http://www.wordtravels.com/Cities/Alberta/Calgary/Climate which has a climate graph with a July high of 25 C. I then went to environment canada's website and checked the weather data but found 23 C to not accurately reflect calgary's summer temperatures as I went through the years data and there where many july highs of 27 C as well as 23 C, but the 1971-2000 data showed an average high of 22.9 C. I was wondering if anyone would like to switch the climate source for what its worth?

yes, no? -- User:Jd.101 June 1st, 2009


 * Weather office data seems more reliable. --Qyd (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I can't see a compelling reason to use Wordpress over an official source for the weather data. (As an aside, JD, I notice that you've been editing weather data for some other Canadian city articles. Did you use the Wordpress data there as well, or is it based on the official stats?) --Ckatz chat spy  03:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

-all environment canada with the exception for calgary, however I have been looking at these other sources just for entertainment purposes only. -- User:Jd.101 June 1, 2009

Removal of Tyumen from sister cities
I've removed Tyumen from the list of sister cities. There is no mention of Tyumen on the list of sister cities maintained by Calgary Economic Development, nor on the list on the City of Calgary web site.

The original reference used when Tyumen was first added is http://www.bujet.ru/references/invest/detail.php?ID=48309 which 404s, and I assume (not being able to read Russian) that the proper URL is now http://invest.bujet.ru/article/48309.php [translation]. That web page does mention Calgary as a sister city, but without any knowledge of the authenticity/reputability of that site, Calgary Economic Development should be considered the one true source. 222.154.176.154 (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph
I just made a small edit. The unlinked acronym "CMA" was used several times before the words "census metropolitan area" and a link to that article appeared.

After doing this, I realize that the first instance (the second sentence of the article) refers to relative diversity, while the proper link to CMA appeared in a group of three sentences: "Calgary is the third largest civic municipality [...] Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa."

This is unclear for two reasons: first, because the diversity is mentioned before the population. To most WP users, the size relative to other Canadian cities is a more salient feature than relative "diversity" as measured by StatsCan visible minority counts. Second, the phrasing of the three sentences on population is awkward. The articles for other large Canadian cities are good examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulKishimoto (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Population
Just a reminder to all editors of this article about two things relating to population numbers: - Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Firstly, you need to add real references for any change in the population figures — you cannot update the number while leaving the associated reference for an old number in place instead of providing a reference for your change. If you don't have an updated reference for a new number, don't change the number.
 * 2) Secondly, while it's okay to add a properly sourced city-calculated population figure for 2009 as supplementary data, it does not replace the Canada 2006 Census figure. The StatsCan figure must remain in the article until such time as the Canada 2011 Census results are published; in the meantime, figures from any non-StatsCan source for any non-national-census year are added alongside the 2006 number, not instead of it. And the figure that's provided in the infobox is to reflect 2006; figures compiled by the city can be noted in the article body.

Reply:I don't know why you want to use 2006 stats when the civic census results are posted annually. The population figures used on wikipedia for Calgary were always based on the civic census results and were promptly updated today to reflect the new 2009 census results. The population as of April 2009 is 1,065,455 not 988,193, the stats are inaccurate now that somebody edited them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.19.24 (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's okay to note the city's 2009 population in the article. But we also need to have a consistent measure as well, which is what the 2006 federal census provides: that's the only number that's available right across the board for all municipalities in Canada, taken at the same time by the same agency under the same measuring standards nationwide. If we don't keep the 2006 figure present in the article, then population comparisons between different cities become Calgary-in-2009 vs. Winnipeg-in-2006, which isn't a helpful measure at all — and besides, the comparison of two figures demonstrates the city's growth more effectively than a boring table of percentages. I'm going to repeat it one more time: we can provide city-sourced 2009 figures in the article. We just can't provide only city-sourced 2009 figures and drop StatsCan-sourced 2006 figures. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation
I deleted the 3rd pronunciation, since the sound value of /eri/ is undefined. kwami (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've lived in Calgary my entire life (a long time so far!) and the second pronunciation is definitely wrong. Just because some people use it doesn't make it right. The "Cal-Gary" pronunciation is used by people who do not know the correct pronunciation and is usually a sure fire way of identifying a non-native. If you want the article to be accurate in this respect blow out the second pronunciation and make a note about it as I've desribed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.190 (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Gamma negative"?
From the intro paragraph:

"According to the GaWC, Calgary is a "gamma negative world city.""

What in blazes does that even mean? And what/who is GaWC? This needs some clarification and a source.

Calgary is not the largest metropolitan area between Toronto and Vancouver.
"Calgary is the largest Canadian metropolitan area between Toronto and Vancouver."

This is incorrect. Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa's metropolitan area are bigger than Calgary's metropolitan area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Montreal and Ottawa are east of Toronto so they can't be between Toronto and Vancouver. This is talking geographically. -DJSasso (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to check out the new figures released by Stats Canada on 2/5/2010. Calgary is now the fourth largest metro area in the country based on *population.* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.83.190 (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, geographically... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nickname
The Heart of the New West... nobody has ever called Calgary this unless they are working for an advertising bureau, I'm removing it.174.3.107.124 (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Calgary Economic Development call Calgary exactly that - http://www.calgaryeconomicdevelopment.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carfullofpandas (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Which confirms the point. That isn't a nickname; it's an advertising slogan. Calgary's well-established nickname is "Cowtown". -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 18:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. An advertising slogan (that is slowly being retired, actually) is not a nickname. Resolute 18:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

CP Rail
In the history section, there is the line:  When the Canadian Pacific Railway (constructed to prevent annexation of the west by America)

I believe the bracketed part should be deleted as it doesn't have any relevance to the history of Calgary, and doesn't paint a clear picture of why the CP railway was built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.74.17 (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead links
This page still has an unfortunate amount of deadlinks, as shown here. Maybe we could make an effort to try and find replacements or remove the now unsupported information? TastyCakes (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah we should try to replace them, however a dead link does not mean the information is no longer supported, as references are not required to be on the internet. As long as they were on the net at one time, they are still valid references. -DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DJSasso is correct; Wikipedia rules around referencing do not require that we reference only to current web pages. Which is why, for example, I get so snarky on some articles when somebody adds only a web url, and not a full reference citation that includes a title, date and name of the organization that published it in the first place — because if a bare url becomes a dead link, we lose the reference entirely, but if a properly formatted reference's weblink dies, we just need to remove the url itself but the supplementary information can still stand as a reference. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Current edit war
I noticed a lot of reverting back and forth over this estimate. Can you guys try to discuss it here rather than deciding consensus over edit summaries? The way I see it, why is it a problem to say "Statistics Canada estimates that Calgary's population has surpassed (whoever WAS in fourth... Ottawa?)'s population as of 2010.(ref)" -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  23:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Stats Canada came out with an "estimate" that Metro Calgary had surpassed Metro Ottawa this year by 10,000 citizens. This is an estimate and shouldn't be taken as fact. What if at the 2010 census it is determined that Ottawa actually has a bigger population than Calgary ? The info on this page would have shown incorrectly for several months. Only FACTS should be used in articles. Not "estimates" or "rumours" PhilthyBear (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the fact being stated is that StatsCan is estimating Calgary to be larger. We can easily verify that the government agency who's job is to track these numbers states Calgary's CMA is estimated to be larger than Ottawa's.  When the next StatsCan estimate is released, or the 2011 census is taken, we can update to reflect new data.  That is rather the point of a wiki - we report the facts as we know them today. Resolute 00:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the back and forth goes, as can also be seen in the history of Ottawa, there appears to be a small, but persistent, group of Ottawa/Ontario based editors who have taken a major issue with the reporting of this estimate. Resolute 01:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, only verified information should be used in articles. Facts mean nothing here. If the stats Can website indicated that this is a pre-census estimate, than we should do the same. If the census comes out saying otherwise, we correct it then. There's nothing lost by saying "In 2010, the population of the Calgary census district was estimated by stats can to have exceeded the population of the Ottawa census district by a small margin. However, the official census results, released in June 2010, indicated otherwise." -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No one has ever referenced Stats Canada, just calgary based newspaper articles. Find the stats can reference.PhilthyBear (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your wish is my command -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ  ¢  03:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you are just grasping at straws. Major newspapers easily pass WP:RS.  Resolute 05:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 2006 official Canadian census stats have always been used for all Canadian City and metropolitan population figures. Any other stat besides official census stats have always been instantly reverted. So I guess we only use unofficial stats and estimates if they’re in Calgary’s favour ? Let’s have every Canadian city use official 2006 census stats and Calgary use a 2009 estimate so they can stroke their ego’s. Oh and we’ll still link to all the 2006 census info. Awesome ! Really professional. PhilthyBear (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on Talk:Ottawa, you are taking things rather personally. Also, as I said over there, the infobox retains the last national census.  But the lead on many city articles are routinely updated with the most recent national census estimate or civic census.  As stated, the latest census estimate is accurate to last July, while the latest city census is accurate to April 2009, while the next civic census is being taken next month.  As much as you may not like it, the current census figure (as stated in this argument) is accurate and notable.  And that StatsCan now considers Calgary's CMA to be larger than Ottawa's is also accurate and notable.  It is a statement that we can easily verify because it is originating from reliable sources. Your personal opinions of "notable" and "factual" have no basis in Wikipedia policy.  And Wikipedia policy trumps your ad hominem attacks every time. Resolute 14:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to see a single example of a sourced population adjustment, per a census estimate, being reverted by anyone but you. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said sarcastically on Talk:Ottawa having 2 sometimes 3 different population figures in the same article is both accurate and encouraged ? It is very informative to the reader to have 2 or 3 different population stats, not confusing at all for someone not familiar with the Canadian census system. As stated previously Ottawa does not perform civic census'. So while Calgary's stats may be up to date, Ottawa's are a plain guess off 2006 data. Hardly accurate. This is the reason these stats should not be used and some editors are taking it "personal" as you put it. It is highly inaccurate. NationalCapital (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, only an idiot would be confused by "In 2006, population was x. In 2009, population was y." Personally, I give our readers far more credit than that.  And, as I said, we can verify StatsCan's estimate exists.  StatsCan is a reliable source, as are the newspapers that reported it.  Verifiability is what Wikipedia works on, so unless you can prove to me that we can't actually verify that StatsCan has a valid census estimate for Ottawa and Calgary, then you are arguing only on your own personal feelings, not Wikipedia policy. Resolute 14:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well before this declines into any further bitterness, are there no precedents for this? I find it hard to believe that a city hasn't changed ranks between censuses during Wikipedia's existence before, they must have reached some kind of consensus then and we should probably just do what was done then, for consistency and a quick end to the bickering. TastyCakes (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And does population determine how awesome a city is or something? To hell with population, it brings crime, garbage, bad politics, gangs, over-policing, and service nightmares. Not to mention, worst of all, urban sprawl that stretches 100 kilometres across the landscape. They're statistics, just report 'em and move on. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wording
I've noticed that the word "Calgary" is used WAY too much in this article. (Ex: The amount of people in Calgary living in downtown Calgary, was 45,000. Calgary's has seen a lot of growth in downtown Calgary in recent years) It is redundant. I have gone thru a couple sections and cleaned them up a bit. If anyone wants to donate some time to help it would be appreciated. Po&#39; buster (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)