Talk:Calgary/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Largest city and economic leader

Largest city

Over the last 30 months, numerous editors (one registered and five IPs) have felt it necessary the lead must twice mention Calgary is Alberta's largest city. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

The most recent edit summary provides an insufficient reason why this fact should be redundantly mentioned twice in the article's opening paragraph.

Three unique users (myself, 117Avenue and Brian Crawford) have reverted the attempts to redundantly mention this within the lead over the past 30 months.

All three population rankings are conveniently mentioned together in the third sentence – largest city in Alberta, third-largest municipality in Canada and fifth-largest metro.

The consensus here has been that there is no need to redundantly mention the fact twice in the same paragraph. Hwy43 (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mpr001, thank you for recognizing the redundancy. Hwy43 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Economic leader

There have been repeated attempts to add "The city is recognized as an economic leader within Canada" with Calgary Economic Development (CED) as the supporting reference.

The CED is funded by the City of Calgary, the private business sector and others with the mandate to work "with businesses, government and community partners to position Calgary as the location of choice for the purpose of attracting business investment, fostering trade and growing Calgary's workforce."

As mentioned in edit summaries, the CED is obviously a biased source for this assertion and is therefore not a reliable source.

It has since been asserted that the claim is based on Statistics Canada, which is incorrect and WP:SYNTH.

Rather, CED has taken select economic indicators from StatCan to support their opinion of Calgary being an economic powerhouse.[11]

A second source was added in an attempt to supplement the CED source, but it is also SYNTH as all its says is Calgary is forecasted (speculated) to lead all Canadian cities in economic growth this year (2014).[12]

Without question, Calgary is an economic leader within Canada, but the above two sources do not properly support the claim and letting the claim and two sources stand smells of WP:PROMOTION.

I have no problem with the claim being re-added if it is based on an unbiased reliable source that explicitly confirms the assertion. Hwy43 (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to be promotional, just trying to reflect reality. I have changed the wording to reflect the Conference Board of Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpr001 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Mpr001, thank you for recognizing the concern and revising the wording. The new content was a tad too granular for the lead section though, so I boldly moved it to the Economy section (last sentence of the first paragraph). In its place within the lead however, I have added a new sentence about Calgary having the second-most corporate head offices in Canada. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem with it being moved under Economy section. Is it the understanding that no info cited from an Economic Development Corporation for a specific city, is allowed? Mpr001 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Mpr001, that is not necessarily true. The bone of contention here was the content added was derived from CED's opinion of Calgary. You added other content from the CED website – Calgary's various economic activity sectors – that is factual rather than opinion and this content has not been deleted. Hwy43 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hwy43, but what determines what is opinion? In the Economy section for Edmonton it says "Edmonton is the major economic centre for northern and central Alberta". There is no citation for this and even if there were, how is this any less opinion then asserting that Calgary is an economic leader when there are citations that support this, not merely a derived opinion from the CED but supported by the Conference Board of Canada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpr001 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the best city ever?

Is the best city ever, ? what is that. User:Mdupont 24.124.15.166 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Garden variety vandalism and/or a test edit. I have reverted it back to the original. Thanks for catching that! Resolute 20:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"World city rankings" section

A discussion has been initiated to determine if city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. are appropriate/encyclopedic. The outcome may affect the current World city rankings section of this article, and numerous other city articles across Canada. Please join the discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

March 23, 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Calgary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

April 1, 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Calgary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Economics section

Its misleading to have "The Conference Board of Canada forecasts Calgary to lead the country in GDP growth through to 2016" since the report is from 2012, way before the drop in oil prices. It would be hard to find an economist who agrees with that today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.236.26 (talk • contribs)

I tried accessing two more recent publications from the Conference Board of Canada – Calgary: Metropolitan Outlook 1, Winter 2016 and Metropolitan Outlook 1: Economic Insights into 13 Canadian Metropolitan Economies: Autumn 2015. The Conference Board wants $910 and $2,970 for them respectively. Perhaps they can be viewed at a public library somewhere for no charge. Hwy43 (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Despite the paywall, the document highlights from Metropolitan Outlook 1: Economic Insights into 13 Canadian Metropolitan Economies, Winter 2016 states "Calgary’s real GDP will decline by 1.2 per cent in 2016 as low oil prices continue to hamper the region’s economy" while also stating "Strength in manufacturing, construction, and the services sector will help GDP grow by 3.3 per cent in Vancouver in 2016." This confirms the suspicion that the content is no longer accurate. Consider it removed. Hwy43 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Hwy43! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.236.26 (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calgary. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calgary. 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) 23:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes to "Sports and Recreation" and "Notable People"

Hello all,

I made a small addition to the information about the parks and pathways in the city. I moved this section the part about the sports in this category, since it appeared in the center which read oddly. I also added a sentence for notable people as there was no content present for that section before. Of course if you have more information about these or find what I added to be inaccurate please feel free to correct/change it! Mrshah3 (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mrshah3. Thank you for your contributions. I copyedited your edits to the sports and rec section. Also, I deleted the notable people additions as there are way too many notable people from Calgary to mention in the main article. As the editing community would never be able to arrive at a consensus as to which are the most notable people to mention in Calgary's article, we continue to leave it blank except for a link to the main article, List of people from Calgary. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calgary. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Calgary. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calgary. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Calgary. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

From Mull, or Skye?

This article (unknown date) would indicate it is the Calgary/Calligarry on Isle of Skye, not Mull. James Macleod was born on Skye. Well, I guess I can't upload it to here. See https://www.google.ca/maps/@57.0576447,-5.9116824,18.95z for the Skye location. AMCKen (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

City montage at top of page

The previous montage was extremely out of date. I have created a new one using my own images that is much better and represents the current city much more. This change should not be undone, due to the extremely outdated images used in the alternative. In that one, the skyline image is missing 3 of the 4 tallest buildings (all 3 built over the past 7 years), among many other structures. Chadillaccc (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the images in the older montage over the ones in the new one. If there is such a discrepancy between the skyline images, perhaps the new skyline image could be inserted in place of the old skyline image. Air.light (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Air.light: I actually prefer the new montage image compared to the new one. Like the user mentioned, it reflects the city much better. The city has changed a LOT in 13 years, when the current montage skyline image was last updated. The other images are kind of old as well. I say bring the new montage image back. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 01:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The link to the previous discussions in the archives are here for reference. The current montage (the one before this edit warring started) was uploaded in 2013. To elaborate on my previous comment, my problem with the proposed montage is with the composition of all of the images, how they seem to be quite zoomed in and lack perspective. Air.light (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Air.light: Fair enough, the old montage image has been restored for now until we reach a general consensus. @Chadillaccc: Is there any way you could retake the photos but make the photos less zoomed in, and make the skyline image keep the Scotiabank Saddledome? The Saddledome is still really iconic, and should stay in the skyline image. :) - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 02:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears the edit warring has stopped and common sense and collaboration is prevailing. Just to get this out of the way, an opinion that the montage is "out of date" and that a montage only using "my own images" are not valid grounds for unilaterally replacing the montage, and worse reverting the undo when being apprised of the past controversy and consensus surrounding the history of Calgary's montages. While the skyline is indeed out of date, and could and should be replaced within the existing montage, that does not make the other images out of date especially when nothing has changed in some or most of those photos since originally snapped. Replacing photos from the 2000s of certain things with more recently snapped photos of other things that exist is not replacing outdated photos. It is substituting photos with photos of different things. Also, no montage should be owned by only one photographer featuring only his/her images unless there is strong consensus to do so. Those without consensus can be published elsewhere outside Wikipedia.
If everyone can review the past discussions, one of the key montage requirements determined through consensus was providing a range of photos representative of the city as a whole, not a galllery of all things Downtown Calgary. The recently proposed montage effectively featured only photos of downtown environs excluding one of the stampede. Further, two different photos featured the same bridge that provides access to downtown. Calgary is more than a downtown core. It has cultural, historical and sporting landmarks beyond the downtown core that help define what Calgary is. Thus, the proposed montage actually does not fully reflect Calgary. That said, there is nothing stopping someone from creating a downtown-centric montage for the Downtown Calgary article, though surely there are options for the montage that come from more than one photographer. Hwy43 (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the update of the photomontage, I propose something like the montage shown below. It includes a variety of landmarks found all around the city with adequate significance within the context of Calgary's history.

Feel free to provide suggestions that could make this montage better in order for it to be featured on the main article. --Ikon21 (talk) 09:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chadillaccc:; @Air.light:;@KamranMackey:; @Hwy43:; and @Ikon21:: In case you are interested, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Relisted_proposal:_Allow_wikilinks_and_other_wikimarkup_from_Template:!_tooltip_text_in_photomotages_to_be_displayed_on_Media_Viewer. If this proposal is implemented, you would be able to put wikilinks, bolding, and italics into the Calgary photomotage captions and it would show up in MediaViewer.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Montage top image proposal

  • 1
    1
  • 2
    2
  • 3, to be retaken
    3, to be retaken
  • 4
    4
  • 5
    5
  • 6
    6

@Nkon21:, @Hwy43: Not a fan of the top montage picture, I think either of these are better and have a completed Telus Sky. -- Acefitt 06:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, great quality images! I prefer the one on the bottom as it shows more of the skyline than the other one. As it's a bit dreary, maybe you can do a little cropping or color adjustments to it? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, but most likely end up just taking another shot from that same spot in better conditions. -- Acefitt 19:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
These are nice pictures, but I think any skyline shot that is missing the Calgary tower is probably not the best skyline pick for the main infobox image. -DJSasso (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I considered that, but the pictures from the south just aren't good. Other option is an updated picture from the 12 St bridge over Memorial. Neither is as good an overview as Crescent Heights. -- Acefitt 20:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I guess it comes down to what is most important, an overview of the skyline or pictures of the most iconic things in the city. I know 5 or so years back when the original montage was decided on the goal was to get an overview of the whole city while including the most iconic landmarks in the various pictures. If you think of skyline shots you see in other media, they always include the Calgary tower as it is probably the most iconic landmark in the city. I believe we originally had the skyline as taken from above the Saddledome which got both in the picture. Now I am not sure if we need to do that or not but it is another option as well. Though the memorial bridge one is pretty good. -DJSasso (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Added in a new Saddledome option as #5. I have wider shots from that location. It includes the Tower which I guess people care about, but in recent years this angle has become biased to shorter East Village residential towers in the foreground which makes it not representative of the skyline, IMO. One could also argue that the Tower deserves it's own photo in the montage, I wonder if I could get a Stephen Ave shot that includes the Tower to get both in one. -- Acefitt 16:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Swapped to image 6 as that is the same as the existing viewpoint. The others are still options. -- Acefitt 06:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nkon21: What's the point of the montage image and the Skyline section image being the same? -- Acefitt 13:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Why ask me that question when you changed the image to the exact same one in the montage? It's only a year older, which is really not that long. Since the lighting in that image was different and it includes the Calgary Tower, I figured it would be a better fit for that section, but apparently not? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nkon21: You replaced it with the old image. You're set on using this angle for some reason, so all I did was replace it with the updated version of that image, which also includes the tower so I'm not sure why that's being mentioned. Neither should be used as all, but what I'm saying is that we should at least use the most recent version of that photo. So I swapped it. -- Acefitt 19:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Acefitt: Sorry, but the new lead montage image in my opinion looks awful. I am not really in favor of the unsightly pinkish and orangish hue let alone cramped skyline shot over the other one. I believe the other image works best. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The "unsightly" colour is caused by a thing called sunrise which is sought after in photography. In any event, I believe the other one is terrible so it will have to be a vote, and if we're making up the rule that golden hour is excluded then I vote for 1 or 3. -- Acefitt 22:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Normally, golden hour lighting from sunrise would look something similiar to what's shown on the right, not your image 4. No offense, but it doesn't look realistic nor that appealing in my opinion, the hue and composition just looks odd. The towers are also too close to each other. My vote is for image 6, as all the other ones are either too old or leave out the iconic Calgary Tower, and the stadium distracts the focus and obscures the skyline view with image 5. Tbh, I don't understand what your deal is with image 6 angle. I think it looks fine. Same with the previous 2018 image. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Tampa, Florida. View of downtown to north, from the Embassy Terrace Hotel. Near sunrise.
Funny to use a picture of another city when the light you say is ideal is exactly that in #1. Anyway, I'll see if anyone else cares to vote. I already said what's wrong with 6. -- Acefitt 00:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
#2 is an excellent picture. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I would probable go in order 5 4 3 6 (though a newer version of 3 might jump up the list) -DJSasso (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I think there's a spot on the north side of the river that's similar to 2, but the Calgary Tower is visible, which would check all boxes. I'll see what I can do. -- Acefitt 02:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I like 2, only reason its a deal breaker for me currently is the lack of the tower. So something similar with the tower would be good for me. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you all think about this: File:Calgary Montage 2020.jpg? It seems that File:Downtown Calgary 2020-4.jpg is not going to be deleted. It doesn't have a pinkish or orangish hue and includes the Calgary Tower. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 16:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. But the Calgary natives here might have a different opinion. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Not a fan at all. Further, {{Photo montage}} works better and allows the images to be swapped. -- Ace*YYC 23:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Using {{Photo montage}} it is impossible to change the contrast and color of the images besides resizing and cropping them so that they look better in a set of images. In my opinion, when choosing a montage, it is supposed to be used for at least 1 year. No need to swap images all the time. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 02:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Why would the contrast and color of anything need to be changed? The 1 year rule is not a thing, nor is anyone asking for that. -- Ace*YYC 22:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There are several reasons to edit an image, I don't even need to explain why. There's no "1 year rule" (As I said, it's just my opinion), but it is obvious that it is not necessary to swap the images every seven days, especially when we know that there will always be people that prefer something else. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 05:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calgary/Archive_4&oldid=1219728392"