Talk:Ottawa/Archives/2010

Picture
Can we please get a better looking picture of Ottawa? This one looks old and it's our Capital city. We really need a new one, maybe even a montage like Washington DC. I think something with the Parliament Buildings would be nice. Nations United (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I say BE BOLD! ..lots of choices ... not sure how good they are and i am sure there are many more outside this proper category --> commons:Category:Ottawa.......Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Nations United you are bordering on Edit warring and are in danger of infringing on the three-revert rule. Discussion doesn't mean suggesting a main image change and instantly changing it 12 hours later after one comment (which you did). May I suggest leaving major edits to more senior editors or discussing major edits in length on the discussion page. I see you've had similar incidents with Montreal and Vancouver articles. NationalCapital (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the main infobox image change, I am all for it. I would like to hear from a few more editors on this subject first however. Maybe a few image suggestions can be posted on this discussion page. I also think the current image should remain somewhere in the article as it is picturesque. NationalCapital (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I just read Wikipedia's rules and I didn't know that you had to discuss really major edits for a long time before changing them. I thought it's okay to change it after one person has approved. I'm new here so I didn't really know. Once again I'm sorry and I would really like to discuss this because it looks like it's not just me that wasnts the image changed, as you can see with the other posts. Nations United (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would like to propose a montage. Considering Ottawa is the capital I think it deserves a montage. I think it would look really great. If you look at Washington DC's montage you can see hiow nice it would look. Nations United (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you guys are being unnecessarily harsh on Nations United, there are no rules anywhere that say he can't be bold with the infobox image, and you guys reverted him without giving a good (or any) reason. This is not the process laid out in BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.  He makes a change and if you disagree with it you revert it and take it to the talk page.  You don't just say "take it to the talk page" for any change you deem to be "too bold".
 * I like the new image he put up, at least I like it more than the old image, does anyone disagree? TastyCakes (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally like the night image because it shows a number of Ottawa landmarks (specifically the Peace Tower, Rideau Canal and Chateau Laurier) even though its quality is pretty poor. I don't think that the picture should be solely of the Parliament Buildings; while it may be one of (if not the) most distinguishing features/landmarks, it doesn't really illustrate anything about the city as a whole. I would be cool with a montage if someone was up to it, though there would have to be a bit of discussion as to what images/subjects should be used. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should add some OTHER pictures of Ottawa. These ones look old and doesn't really attract people... AverageCanadian (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Population 2
A new population report by StatsCan (news article) puts Ottawa-Gatineau's population as 1,220,674, with Calgary's CMA having surpassed Ottawa's. It seems as though the debate over this is that StatsCan's number is an estimate (it didn't say this in the ref, but it may elsewhere). However, the current population for Ottawa is also an estimate: the other population ref (City of Ottawa, 2008) has a footer saying "City of Ottawa year-end estimates based on ...", and the number is determined by "City of Ottawa, Research and Forecasting Unit, Planning and Growth Management". If we are to stick with non-estimates, then we need to go back to the 2006 census. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Question are this stats a guesstamation or from a new poll?? ,,Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm how official is this new estimate? Is there a link to the actual Statscan report?  Does Statscan release a new population estimate every year?  If so, I don't see why we shouldn't update it, but if it's not very official maybe we should wait until a proper report comes out.  It seems that most Canadian cities use the last census numbers (2006), so maybe there is a precedent for this and we shouldn't go changing it (at least in the infobox) until the next census number is available.  TastyCakes (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the StatsCan report; it sounds pretty legit to me (other than the whole "estimate" issue). I think that it would make sense to keep the census numbers in the infobox, but have this new estimate clearly labeled as such in the intro. I'm a bit worried that it will be confusing to have the whole "fifth-largest" thing in there too, because the page linked (List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada) goes by census numbers only. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Statistics Canada is the government agency who's function is to track exactly this. Probably the best way to deal with it is to state "In the 2006 census, Ottawa's population was x, fourth in the country.  The 2009 census estimate placed Ottawa fifth at y."  Gives the reader both the last StatsCan population count and the current estimate.  Ditto other cities. Resolute 05:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good way to do it: leave the infobox (where the link is to a list by 2006 numbers) and mention the recent estimate and rank change in the article text. TastyCakes (talk) 05:48, 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 ! Lol, seems kind of ridiculous to me. Is Calgary that eager to say their number 4 ? PhilthyBear (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking this quite personally. And yes, the infobox has always retained the last national census figure.  However, on many articles, the lead is updated to include the most recent civic census or census estimate. The reason for this is simple:  The 2006 census is now four years out of date.  StatsCan's latest estimate is accurate to last July. People looking up these cities want to know today's data, not that which existed nearly half a decade ago. Resolute 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya, don’t you guys realize having 2 sometimes 3 different population figures in the same article is both accurate and encouraged ? You have to understand nothing this big has happened in Calgary since the 88’ Olympics, just give it to them. The rest of the Country will continue to use 2006 census info. NationalCapital (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, New York City, Montreal and others. But let's put aside the ad hominem attacks, shall we?  What, honestly, is wrong with having two separate figures?  What harm is there in stating both the last national census figure and the most recent census estimate or civic census?  It seems to me that the latter presents the more accurate picture, while your argument centres around WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Resolute 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, to use a parallel example, if someone changed the roster section on Ottawa Senators to that of who was on the team back in 2005-06, would you leave it that way, or would you update it to reflect the team's status of today? Resolute 14:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is by far the worst comparison I have ever seen. PhilthyBear (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Only because you don't like it. But please, answer the question: Do you believe readers want four year old information or current information? Resolute 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If choosing between 4 year old accurate information, and current (potentially inaccurate) estimates, I believe readers want accurate census data. PhilthyBear (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But why not both? As long as you stated 2006 is the census, and 2009 is the estimate, readers are given both pictures, are told how each was derived, and given the choice to accept or reject either figure as per their own faith in the census and the estimate. Resolute 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help resolve this issue. Calgary continues using the estimates, and Ottawa and others can continue using the census data. When the real census comes out, both can be changed to reflect the latest census data. PhilthyBear (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The beauty of Wikipedia's system is that it does not work on precedents. If the discussion on each talk page results in different local consensuses, then that is fair.  That said, I do believe that readers would find it beneficial to know the current population estimate.  If you wish to simply strike the comments stating that the Ottawa CMA has fallen to 5th nationally, feel free. Resolute 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Having two articles saying two different things does not seem like a good idea to me. We should reach consensus on this issue and make both article agree with each other.  As to your assertion that all Canadian cities use the census data, that appears to be true, however that is obviously not true for many other cities, like most US ones (New York City, for example), or British ones (London, for example).  The reason, apparently, is that Canada's latest census is much more recent than most countries.  However, as time goes on it too becomes more and more out of date (Calgary's metropolitan population, for example, has grown by about 14% since the census).  Because the latest Statscan estimate indicates a significant change, namely a rank change, in my opinion it deserves mention here.  I believe we'll find that other articles in a similar situation have updated their numbers, but if not please feel free to point them out.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Using estimates will open the doors for inaccurate information across the board. Read the first paragraph of the Canada 2006 Census article.  It speaks of the inaccuracy of Stats Canada estimates. The population was off by over 2 million ! That’s an error of almost 6% of the Canadian population. Estimates are just that, estimates. Official census data has always been used for every other instance. I believe Calgarians have become a little over zealous on this issue. I understand the excitement of becoming a higher rank in population, but wait until it’s official before declaring it. The next census is next year, and it’s inevitable that Ottawa will be surpassed at sometime in the near future if not already based on Calgary’s growth rate. Patience. PhilthyBear (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct, plus Ottawa’s population figures are already inundated with stats. Being a unique metro area lying in 2 provinces it would need a series of stats (Ottawa – Census,Estimate. Ottawa-Gatineau - Census,Estimate. National Capital Region - Census,Estimate.) that would confuse readers and flood the page. Ottawa-Gatineau is Stats Canada’s CMA, but the regions population is actually quite bigger than just these two cities. The National Capital Region includes neighboring towns into the population. Calgary has little to no neighboring towns of significant populations. We would need to update so many figures if every annual estimate is used. I think only accurate census data should be used. 2011 isn’t that far away. NationalCapital (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Remember that the figure used currently for Ottawa is an estimate, and there has been no arguing of this before. It seems as though consensus is fine with using this estimate, but Philthy and others have a problem with the new figure. I think everyone should assume good faith here-- the issue is not whether Calgary is bigger than Ottawa, it is whether estimates are valid to be used (in context). I don't think anyone should bring up possible POV-pushing one way or another; it's totally irrelevant.
 * I have no problem with using actual (non-estimated) figures in the infobox (2006 census in Ottawa's infobox, and either 2006 census or 2009 civic census in Calgary's) but also mentionning the estimated update in the text. The new estimate is from a reliable source, and is much more likely to be accurate than the outdated 2006 census numbers. If the estimate is used in the text, then maybe it shouldn't be mentionned that Calgary surpassed Ottawa, as this seems to be the most contentious bit; leaving fourth-largest in 2006 is indisputable and also fits with List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada (it would be weird to say fifth-largest and link to a page that says fourth). -M.Nelson (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also it should be noted that the two articles (Calgary and Ottawa) should not say conflicting things; hopefully we can set some sort of standard for all city articles with respect to using estimated population numbers versus actual. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly let me thank M.nelson for singling me out, I appreciate that. Although I may come across harshly I assure you that is not my intention. Perhaps I should "lighten up" my text a little bit. Secondly Ottawa has always used 2006 Census data for its population figures. Every attempt to change it to estimates has always been reverted promptly. It wasn’t until this conflict arose that mainly Calgary area editors began repeatedly changing it to estimates. It must stay at census figures or we must be change every single CMA in the country and every list must be changed as well as to not conflict. Then at the 2011 census when real data comes out it must all be changed again. Seems kind of ridiculous considering Stats comes out with these “estimates” annually. Are we going to go through this every year ? PhilthyBear (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense was intended; you just appeared to be the most vocal proponent of your position. You're right that in the interest of consistency, if Calgary and Ottawa are to use the updated estimates, all CMAs should. I don't think that this would be a bad thing (updating once a year with the StatsCan report wouldn't be too much work, and we would be presenting the most recent numbers), but before arbitrarily adding the estimates, consensus really should be developed. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't we go through such updates every year? Wikipedia is not meant to be static. Resolute 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with updating the figures annually either, however my only concerns are:
 * 1) Calgary does annual civic census'. Ottawa and most other CMA's do not. Some estimates will be more accurate than others
 * 2) Does Stats Canada even use these civic census' ?
 * 3) Only CMA's get annual estimates. Are we to use estimates for CMA's and 2006 Census data for smaller cities and towns ?
 * 4) I believe you will come across many opponents trying to change all CMA's to estimates. Many editors are very vocal on using only Census data.
 * 5) As stated in Canada Census 2006 how accurate are these estimates ?
 * 6) Will estimates be used in the article and census data in the infobox ?

All these issues should be worked out before any changes (either way) are made. PhilthyBear (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that all CMA articles would need to be changed because this is mentioned here (and presumably in the Calgary article). As I think we've all agreed at some point, the infobox wouldn't change.  The article (at some point) would simply mention that in the latest estimate, Ottawa is now thought to be the fifth largest CMA, not the fourth.  That seems to me relevant, verifiable and notable information and I see no reason not to include it.  If the latest estimate revealed a significant change in any other city (ie a change in rank), I would absolutely support including a mention of it there too.
 * I don't think it has to be in the intro, but I don't think there are good reasons to exclude mention of the new estimate from somewhere in the article, the demographics section being the obvious choice. TastyCakes (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this is only a Calgary/Ottawa issue. I think that if we can declare that these estimates are the best population indicators (evaluating accuracy and currentness) on these two articles, then they should be the best indicators on all city articles; either the estimates are considered 'better' than census (thus will be used to supplement, not replace, census numbers in articles), or the estimates are worse than census and should not be used at all. The issue of Calgary surpassing Ottawa is merely secondary to this. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well unfortunately I don't think we can objectively judge one to be better than the other. As was pointed out above, the census is more accurate for when it was done but the estimate is more up to date - there is a trade off there, and which is better seems to me a personal preference.  I think reporting both is a good idea when there is a significant difference between the two, and I think this is such a situation.  But again, is there no Wikipedia style suggestions somewhere as to what type of population data to use in situations like this?  TastyCakes (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
I moved my proposal to Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board as it is relevant Canada-wide. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New Picture Options
I have found some pictures that I think could be a good replacement for the old looking existing picture. Please tell me if you like any of them and if many people really like any one of them, with everyone's permission, I will change the existing picture to the better one. Nations United (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

With the directions and help of TastyCakes, I have also made a montage, actually two because the first one had a colour issue for some reason. If montage 1 didn't have the colour issue I would prefer that one because I think it looks really good. I think all three of these montages would be great and could be used for the infobox. If anyone can make these montages better, please do so, otherwise I think we should have a dicussion on which one to use. Nations United (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here they are:

Montage 1 Montage 2

O-Train
The "O-Train" is NOT "light-rail." The Bombardier engines and cars used on the current O-Train line are classified as "heavy-rail" of the same type used on inter-city rail lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjottawa (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, what makes the system "light rail" versus "heavy rail" is not the vehicles themselves, but their use. From the light rail article, it "generally has a lower capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems, but higher capacity and higher speed than traditional street-running tram systems", which fits with the O-Train's use. In any case, the O-Train is commonly known—and more importantly, referenced—as a light rail system rather than a heavy rail system. If this is to be changed, we need reliable sources specifically identifying the O-Train as a heavy rail system. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical population
What was Ottawa's population when it was incorporated in 1855? When it was chosen as a colonial capital in 1857? When the colonial government moved in in 1866? When it became a federal capital in 1867? etc. These are things we need in the article. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal
Hi everybody! There's a new Portal:Ottawa, check it out. --Extra999 (Contact me +  contribs) 03:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture in Infobox
Change it please. Why use an ugly picture of the downtown that does not depict the city very accurately? in that the city is more 'European' and is more renowned as a political, rather than economic, centre. ---华钢琴49 (TALK)


 * I reverted the image to one that includes the Parliament Buildings, the Rideau Canal, and the Chateau Laurier. However, we have looked for other options in the past—see further up in talk. Would you prefer one of the montages above? -M.Nelson (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ok. from a visual standpoint, the image with the caption 'rough Ottawa montage' is the best. However, since I do not know anything about the city apart from its status as a political centre, so... between 'montage1' and 'montage2', I prefer the former. have more editors weigh in? ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 00:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the montages with the parliament picture at the top, but I think the asymmetry in the middle row of pictures (size-wise) makes it look kinda weird. TastyCakes (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question about the new photo just added File:Ottawa montage.png ..is it just me or is there some-sort of rainbow effect in the first picture???Moxy (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right; I missed that too. I switched it with File:Ottawa montage-2.png which doesn't seem to have any issues. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed someone has created a montage. I have tweaked it and was wondering if I could post it on here and see what you guys think ... If someone could instruct me how to do that, or direct me on where to find instructions to post it on here I would appreciate it. I have made sure to use all free images already on wikipedia. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have figured it out. I changed the parliament buildings image, the current one is of poor quality and stretched. I changed the supreme court image because the coloring was dull. Tell me what you guys think. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your new montage looks good to me; I agree that the Supreme Court image does look dull. However, your montage has incorrect copyright tags—even though you created it, you can't release a derivative work of copyrighted images into public domain. Try re-uploading it with this tool, which should provide a summary similar to that found at File:Ottawa_montage_-_rough.jpg. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I uploaded it using the tool you suggested. But I think I may have named it the same as the old one ... I need to delete the old one ... here is the new one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OttawaCollage.png UrbanNerd (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good; posted to article. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added this below you guys ok with this???..Moxy (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The pic looks great, but the caption is a bit of a mess. I edited reworked it so that it's a bit more simple and nicely formatted; feel free to improve it further if you can. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The infobox image was reverting back to the one without the licensing info. This could be because i named both files the same and it wasn't recognizing the second image. I re-added the imgae with a different name. (OttawaCollage.png vs. OttawaCollageImage.png) If i have forgetton anything in the licensing or anything else, please feel free to add it. Thanks. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

cleanest cities in the world
Currently the article states that Ottawa is the 4th cleanest city in the world by Forbes. According to Mercer's 2010 Eco-city ranking Ottawa is tied for 3rd. Not that it matters all that much, just saying. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say lets change it to the most recent stats,,, unless Mercer's report is not as reliable as Forbes Moxy (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and updated it. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions
This bellow was recently added ...Not to good, but is there anything we can use here..not sure listing non-notable bands we can get away with....However good idea to mention music and perhaps some art stuff to. Moxy (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Music in the Capital: Ottawa has had a plethora of local bands and musicians that have contributed to the culture. On the iheart music website (http://www.iheartmusic.net/serendipity/index.php?/archives/420-The-18-hottest-bands-in-Ottawa.html) in 2006 they rated the top twenty local bands as voted by citizens, the listed was as follows: 20. Million Dollar Marxists 19. The Love Machine 18. The Empiricals 17. Weapons of Mass Seduction 16. Department of Foreign Affairs 15. Acres 14. The Fortunate Sons 13. Black Boot Trio 12. Andrew Vincent and the Pirates 11. Golden Famile 10. The Flaps 9. Poorfolk 8. Sarah Hallman 7. As The Poets Affirm 6. Crush Buildings 5. Relief Maps 4. The Soft Disaster 3. The Acorn 2. My Dad Vs. Yours 1. Hilotrons

Here are some more local bands in no particular order: Germattack, Furnaceface, Amanda Rheaume, James and Blackburn, Massari, Karl Wolf, Disco Inferno, Landin Williams,  Belly AKA Rebellious, Cris Quammie- CrisEntertainment, Jon Lajoie,  Lukey,  Black Cherry,  Eric Eggleston Band,  Deuce deuce,  Joe Louis, Tonya Renee, Fonetiks, Diamond, Chameleonic, H20, Bobby Lavigne


 * The website is interesting, it seems to have consulted "local experts" rather than "citizens", so maybe a single sentence about the thriving local music scene? I see no purpose in reproducing the list itself, especially if it's four years old most of those bands won't even exist anymore. Franamax (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I Heart Music is just a local music promoter/blog; for sure not a published RS and not particularly notable enough to say "in 2006, local blog I Heart Music said ...". If we were to put a local music bit in (actually, this article is missing an entire culture section), I'm sure we could find much better sources. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

About the previous picture of the Ottawa map with all the municipalities and communities that were annexed
I want to talk about the previous picture of the Ottawa map with all the municipalities and communities that were annexed, which no longer exists in this article. Any references about it? Let me know. jlog3000 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)