Talk:Calgary/Archive 1

Politics

The fact that most of the "Political Scene" section (regarding current times) talks about left-wing politics seems to really be a bit of a stretch.

Seems to be a bit of bias regarding newspapers. Will change.

From what I understand, Albertans are generally pretty conservative.

brenden 06:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well most are, but some aren't. There's no point in stereotyping. Remember that this is the province that elected the Social Credit party -- a pretty radical move. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:55, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Radical perhaps, but certainly not radical in the left wing sense. In fact the socreds are further right than the conservatives. In others words those who aren't conservative are reactionary. Scary thought. Although Calgary's mayor is a Liberal, or did he not get re-elected? Earl Andrew 18:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dave Bronconnier is still the (Liberal) mayor. The city also elected a few Liberals to the Provincial assembly in the 2004 elections. Re the socreds, I thought that reactionaries wanted to change the system back to "the way it used to be". The socreds may well be right wing but I don't see how introduction of a basic income for every citizen fits into the reactionary category. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:49, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Fastest growing ?

Could someone please tell me where the data comes from interms of Calgary having the fastest growing population. When I checked the Statscan website, the latest available was for 2002/03 and it showed Oshawa, Ont. having the fastest growing population followed by Toronto. Furthermore, when I looked at Statscan's Airport Movements Report, Toronto's Pearson consistently had the highest volume of what it classifies as "private" aircraft movements which is what corporate falls under. As well, where do you get that it has the highest concentration of wealthy entrepreneurs under 40? How do you define a wealthy entrepreneur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.89.34 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 December 2004

When I checked CNSNEWS.COM, they reported the # of Americans living in Toronto at 250 000 and Vancouver's American pop at 200 000. This is fairly similar to what is reported in the US state department's website. Since when did 80 000 become greater than 250 000? If you are going to use stats, please make sure that they are fairly accurate, otherwise it makes a mockery of what what is being said about Calgary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.89.34 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 12 December 2004

You must realize that it is 80,000 in Calgary itself as there aren't really any suburbs. Whereas Vancouver and Toronto's 250,000 are spread over other cities (ie suburbs). -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2004 (UTC)

What is your source for this? Nowhere did I see that the 250 000 figure is for the entire GTA, but Toronto, besides, according to the above mentioned sources, more Americans live in Mexico City than any other city outside the USA. Furthermore, according to the last statscan census, the immigrant population by place of birth for Calgary shows about 10 000 stating USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.89.34 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 December 2004

Considering that the population of Vancouver itself is just over 500,000 people I doubt that more than 30% of Vancouver is American to put your numbers in perspective. Toronto I agree its possible. I personally didn't put that paragraph in anyways but I have seen in past statscan reports that Calgary as a city does indeed have the highest portion of people with american citizenship living in it.--Djsasso 05:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As always, when it comes to statistics, much clarifiation is needed. Is Calgary the fastest growing city in Canada?? Well, if you go by percentages and average it out over the last ten years, and compare only to large metropolitan areas, then yes it is the fastest growing. If you look at Airdrie a small city near Calgary, it is a faster growing city based on percentages.

As for the number of Americans in the city. Percentage wise it has more Americans than any other major city. The 80,000 put it at roughly 8% I have never seen a figure that shows Vancouver having 200,000 Americans, but I could see Toronto having 250,000. That would give it a roughly 6% American population.

I have heard the figure of 80,000 used many times, but I'm not sure where it actually comes from. I did some searching around StatsCan's site and found some numbers, but they aren't close to the numbers used above in this discussion. The numbers shown here [1]prove that there is a high percentage of Americans in Calgary, but Vancouver appears to have slightly more Americans percentage wise...at least according to these statistics. Keep in mind also that these Statistics are only number of people living in Calgary that were born in the United States. I does not cover the number of people with citizenship. --Surrealplaces

Calgary's layout

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of information on the city's layout or urban characteristics. This is especially worth mentioning because Calgary is (I think) one of the cities with the lowest ratio of people to space.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.178.93 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 December 2004

I was reading an article in Calgary, Inc. magazine today (unsure of which month, will find out on Thursday) that stated that Calgary takes up more space per capita than almost all cities in North America. I can provide a scan of the article for a source if need be.--Sven Erixon 08:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Although this may be a different reference to Calgary's layout (or a reference in a different manner) but should the map thing at the bottom of the page not have 'Chestermere' to the east as opposed to Strathmore? It is closer and although nearly considered a part of Calgary, I believe it is on much the same scale as Airdrie.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrin (talk • contribs) 16:26, 24 December 2004

Population wise no. Chestermere has around 5000 people (I think) and Airdrie approx 20,000. Strathmore has about 15,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.223.141 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 January 2005

Those populations are much higher now. More like 25,000 for Airdrie and 7,000 or 8,000 for Chestermere.

Approximately 27,000 for Airdrie (2005 civic census), about 7500 for Chestermere (2005 civic census) and 9000 for Strathmore (sign entering town). Through it's ridiculous growth in the last decade, I agree that Chestermere is the proper town listed as immediately east of Calgary.

Downtown Streets

Not at all. The streets could only be considered too narrow for cars. For pedestrians they are just great. And one of the best parts of living downtown is that you don't really need a car... -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:35, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Yes but the auto problem is confounded by the need for pedestrian use. Stephen Avenue Mall is a very narrow street. To the south, the 2nd & 3rd highest buildings in Calgary block out the sun for most of the day! If only we could shrink the blocks. I guess the solution to that is Calgary's +15 system. But Derek Ross, You are a very small portion of the population. The majority of the population live in the suburbs vs. downtown. The rest of the people who live downtown, generally go down to the beltline/Lower Mount Royal area for the evening, vs stay downtown and go out for dinner there! Downtown really needs some revitalization!

I think if you looked at other cities, you would see that most of them have elongate blocks of similar length to Calgary's. Stephen Avenue Mall and Barclay Mall are both plenty wide for pedestrian streets, as long as there is not much traffic (and Stephen Ave is closed to traffic during the day). The major automobile thouroughfares like 9th, 6th, 4th, 5th, 1st St., etc. are all sufficiently wide for traffic at 4-6 lanes ONE WAY a piece. Anyway, the goal should be to reduce automobile traffic, so narrow driving streets (like you might find in London or New York) might not be all that bad.

Well, sure, you're right there! But the Beltline isn't that far from Downtown anyway. I lived on 12 Avenue SW for a while and I found that I could walk to Downtown, the Beltline, or Lower Mount Royal in about twenty minutes or so. Admittedly it was a bit chilly in the winter but that's what thermal underwear is for ! And like you say, the +15 system is pretty good when you're actually walking around Downtown itself. Nowadays I'm living in the northern suburbs, so I normally use the bus and the C-train to get Downtown but on the odd occasion when I have to drive there, I find that the biggest problem is the expense of parking (which is why I generally use public transport). -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:13, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

True enough if I just took the C-train but as I said, I take the bus and the C-train. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:00, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Would someone like to fix the wording at the end of the transportation section. The Streets do start at 0 but the addresses start at 100. I'm not sure how to word it...

I think the wording that is currently there that says the number starts at 100 is great the way it is. --Djsasso 16:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The numbering starts at 100 for Avenue addresses but at 0 for Streets. This really confused me my first year in Calgary. I have updated the article to reflect this and included links to Google maps for the example addresses. -- JamesTeterenko 17:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Ahh don't think i had ever noticed that. --Djsasso 19:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Why does this article extend past the normal horizontal length?

On Mozilla Firefox, this article (not this talk page) seems to be extending too far horizontally, creating that annoying horizontal scroll bar. -Grick(^{talk to me!}) 04:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't for me on FireFox....its probably your own personal settings that is doing it. --Djsasso 00:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm running Firefox as well and it does extend. Phoenix2 02:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It also extends on IE. A little investigation indicates that it's something in the {{Canadian City}} section that's causing the extension. All cities which use that template seem to have the same problem. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the problem. There were a couple of weird div elements (one in the Latitude/Longitude row, and one in the Mayor row) in the template. They had a style attribute:

style="visibility:hidden; position:absolute;"

Can someone explain what these were trying to do, please? With a hidden visibility, they don't seem to have any purpose. -GrantNeufeld 18:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm still getting the horizontal scroll bar, Grant. Your changes have reduced the page width slightly but have not completely fixed the problem. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

NEP

I know it's universally accepted in Calgary that the NEP ended the oil boom, but I think this article needs to be more neutral.

"With the announcement of the National Energy Program in 1981 the oil boom started to subside. The NEP was cancelled in the mid-1980s by the Brian Mulroney federal government. Ultimately, oil prices would plummet and Calgary's economy would suffer"

The above text implies a certain order: The NEP, the bust, and "ultimately" there are lower prices that hurt the economy. It tries to suggest the industry started down before the prices did. It's more complicated than that. The NEP was brought in with high prices. The prices quickly plummeted after, and stayed down. The inflation adjusted "year average" price of oil peaked in 1981, the same year of the NEP started. [2] It's very hard to figure out which was to blame more, and which happened first. There was a lot of other government regulation, such as price controls, and export restrictions, which also played roles. Rather than sort this all out here, I suggest the article just list the factors, avoid opinion on which came first. The NEP article can take care of the controversy. --rob 3 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)

I tried re-wording it. I hope it sounds fair and accurate. There's a lot of definitions of oil prices and economic levels, so it's hard stating when a boom peaks. --rob 6 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)

Top section ripped from a travel agency pamphlet?

Sure seems that way...

The following paragraph was removed

"Calgary is a four-season playground with professional sport teams, world-class winter resorts and internationally renowned wilderness all within easy reach of this vibrant metropolitan city. It is a Canadian transportation centre and a central cargo hub for European freight into and out of north-western North America"

The first part is meaningless, since all cities have "four seasons" of play (of varying durations). Calgary is not the centre of transportion for Canada. Most coast-to-coast flights by-pass Calgary. Plus, Calgary is not close to being in the centre of Canada. The last claim about being a hub, needs some proof. I seriously doubt, but don't know, that Seattle or Alaska get a lot of European goods from Calgary. To be a hub, you have do more than just pass goods through a place. It usually implies some sort of aggregation and re-distribution. Otherwise, every town on the road could be a "hub". At best, Calgary is a "big spoke". --rob 6 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

I am not advocating that it be readded as it doesn't matter to me but Calgary does receive alot of goods from the NW and then ships over the pole to Europe. That accounts for most of the airports business. Anyone/thing going to Europe goes through Calgary unless you are taking some longer route. I don't know about how much US goods it does but I do know all Canadian goods go that way.--Djsasso 6 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Probably, that specific part of what I removed should be added back, with new wording and a footnote. If nobody else does, I probably will in the future. Thanks. --rob 6 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

My changes have been reverted out, but a re-deleted just this part "Calgary is a four-season playground with professional sport teams, world-class winter resorts and internationally renowned wilderness all within easy reach of this vibrant metropolitan city". This is nothing but pure advertisement. I have no problem with other changes, since they are now footnoted statements of fact. But, is unnacceptable to put pure promotion. Please tell me what city doesn't have "four-seasons" of play. What does that mean? The purpose of this page is not to draw tourists to the city. --rob 7 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)

Calgary is a West-Jet hub. It is also the fourth busiest passenger airport in the nation (not far from third either). Almost all WestJet flights to the US pass through Calgary and so do many domestic flights. The city is also a secondary hub for Air Canada. DHL, FedEx, Cargolux and Canada Post all use Calgary as a primary or secondary hub as well. It is also a road and rail hub. In the transportation industry, there is no distinction between "big spoke" and hub. I completely agree with you about the POV btw. But for clarification, by "four-season playground", the writer probably meant that people come to Calgary to indulge in various tourist activities that are specific to each season. Not that it matters. It should not have been there. --Tyson2k 7 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

I seem to recall that two big air cargo companies decided to ship through Calgary instead of Vancouver.

Internation Avenue

I am annoyed at the person who insists on using the term "International Avenue". This is the name of a Business Redevelopment Zone on 17 Ave SE. It is not the name of the actual street. Feel free to mention, as an alternate name, not *the* name.

From: http://www.internationalavenue.ca/about.html => "International Avenue is a vibrant business district with a diverse ethnic composition located on 17th Ave SE in Calgary"

Countless maps, like this transit map [3] and the rest of the CalgaryTransit.com web site, use 17 Avenue SE, not "International Avenue".

Go to http://canadapost.ca, input an address with both variants. Only 17 Avenue SE is accepted.

"International Avenue" is business brand name, used to promote an area.

Use of "International Avenue" is designed to promote a better image, for an area with a bad reputation. That's fine for the business community, but that's not the job wikipedia. As somebody already said, the whole article is written like a tourist brochure.

Many other streets, have an "optional" name, such as "Volunteer Way". So sound nice, but can't be used in addresses, and are rarely known by anybody.

--rob 7 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)

Here's more proof. The BRZ member business *all* use 17 Ave SE, not "International Avenue" in their addresses. http://www.internationalavenue.ca/direct.html

Now can we please use the same "17 Ave SE" that all business use? --rob 7 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)

I agree. Always have. --Tyson2k 7 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

I checked current wording, it's now fine. Thanks. --rob 7 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

Move from Calgary, Alberta to Calgary

...since there are no other Calgarys (if any) disambiguated in the page. Once more Calgarys (if any) get article, this can be moved back. -- Paddu 15:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But there is already an article for another Calgary, Calgary, Mull, so I'd better move it back immediately. Please discuss this sort of move before making it rather than afterwards. You've now caused a bunch of double redirects which didn't previously exist. You've also ignored the standard naming convention for Canadian towns and cities. To fix this I have moved the article back until a proper discussion can take place. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's not completely true. Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal ignore convention. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The standard naming convention for anything in Wikipedia is to use simpler names IIRC (at least that's what it was a few months ago). Since I thought I was following the standard naming convention (in the absence of any other Calgarys) I didn't discuss before doing the move. Since you know there's another Calgary with an article in the 'pedia, you should have made Calgary a disambiguation page. How are people supposed to know that Calgary, Mull is an article in the 'pedia? -- Paddu 7 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

How are people supposed to know that anything is an article in Wikipedia ? Well, they're not. They just have to search for it. Typing "Calgary" into the search box and pressing return won't work but typing "Calgary" and pressing the Search button will, returning a result for the other (and original) Calgary about half way down the first page at the moment. They could also read the Mull article, ... or the Calgary, Alberta article both of which mention Calgary, Mull. As to why there's no disambiguation page -- well, it's a matter of relative importance. People are far more likely to want to find Calgary, AB than Calgary, Mull. In other cases like Perth where the two major Perths are much more comparable in fame a disambiguation page is more justified than it would be for the two Calgarys. -- Derek Ross | Talk 8 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Just an interesting note... There is also another Calgary. This one is in Eastern Texas.

Ummm...I am pretty sure you are wrong. I even re-checked today, and found no such place. Do you have a source? --rob 8 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)

Yes there is a Calgary in Texas...just do a search on google or on mapquest.com.--Djsasso 8 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)

Thanks, I followed your advice and went to mapquest.com, and did see the star on the map for Calgary, Texas in mapquest, but it had no information on the community (other than location). The closest business to "Calgary, Texas" was out-of-town. I had already searched Google, Yahoo, MSN, my National Geographic Atlas, and other sources, and found no Calgary, Texas. Although the text "Calgary, Texas" appears in a bunch of pages, that are really about Calgary, Alberta and Texas. Does anybody have a link to anything about this place? --rob 9 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

update: The State of Texas[4][5] and the US Postal Service[6] do not seem to show a Calgary, Texas. --rob 9 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)

Other than to say I have actually been there I don't feel like going and searching for anything else to show you. Just because a place is very small doesn't mean it doesn't exist.--Djsasso 9 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

Whatever. --rob 21:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Calgary's neigbourhoods

The use of the word 'neighbourhood' is disingenuous, as Calgary is subdivided by the City (the municipal government) into 'communities' and 'industrial parks'. 'Neighbourhood' is limited to (occasional) colloquial use. Furthermore, many of the 'districts' mentioned ('district' is not used by the City either, adding to confusion) are amorphous entities which have never been defined (such as the "Stephen Avenue Retail district") or have never been used at all, in formal or informal settings. "Rivers District"? "Arts District"? These place do not exist on any known map, nor have the vast majority of Calgarians even heard these terms before (myself included). The subsection itself reads as though the user who wrote it has never lived in Calgary, has lived downtown and has an infatuation with it, or is promoting the inner city communities for a special interest group. It should be deleted or rewritten in its entirety. --93JC 21:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with some of this and as such have switched neighbourhoods to communities in most cases. However, lots of those districts you mention down town are on city produced maps and are labelled as such all over downtown on signs and flags on lamp posts etc. Most of those districts are used fairly commonly at least by people I know. That being said I didn't write this piece...I think it was actually compiled through many different people.--Djsasso 05:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Where are "the Rivers District", "the Arts District", "the Government District", "the Entertainment District", etc? In fact, of the "districts" mentioned, the few that ring any bells are the West End, the Office Core, the East Village, Chinatown and Stephen Avenue. Of these, four are communities (under the names "Downtown West End", "Downtown Commercial Core", "Downtown East Village" and "Chinatown"; link 1 , 2). "Stephen Avenue Retail District" is not. I know where Stephen Avenue is, but it isn't a "neighbourhood" or a "district" (or community), nor has it ever been, to my knowledge. Stephen Avenue Walk is a pedestrian mall from 1st Street SE to 3rd Street SW along 8th Avenue. Nothing more, nothing less. For the record this particular piece in question was written (by and large) by an anonymous user (IP address 68.145.178.93). The "Rivers District", "Arts District", "Government District" and "Entertainment District" are not marked on City maps (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/engineering_services/emaps/community_map.pdf) and have no community associations, hence they aren't communities, hence they shouldn't be included. --93JC 05:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The following paragraph should be reworded. Originally it talked of communities that surrounded "Calgary and districts to the South". Now, it properly just talks of "downtown". However, when this change was made, it became necessary to reword the whole paragraph to properly name the communities that directly surround downtown. Then, in turn, name the further surrounding communities. For instance, the Beltline surrounds downtown, more so than "Mount Royal" does.. --rob 05:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Downtown Calgary is surrounded by the first of the inner-city communities. These include Crescent Heights, Sunnyside, Hillhurst (including Kensington), Bridgeland, Renfrew, Mount Royal and Inglewood"

Political scene

I think this whole section, needs some better wording. I'm not sure of its value. Any claims of numbers should either have an independent citation, or at least a citation of the *claim*, and a statement it's only a claim. This business of a growing movement, related to the G8 opposition is rather dubious. Also, saying where demonstrators came from (Southern Alberta), was a mistake, since it's hard to back-up. Protests at major international events are poor reflections of local politics, since many people come from outside, and leave the next day. My changes left behind poor wording, since I did not wish to unilaterally rewrite this whole section. So, others are welcome to improve it. --rob 21:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone want to put in some information about city council in here? It seems to be obviously missing.

calgarytransit.com is misleading

I removed the claim the Calgary Transit serves a population of 933,495. This was taken out of context, from the CaglaryTransit.com web site. Technically, there is a grain of "truth". The *exact* entire population of Calgary(proper) as of April 2004 census was this figure. Naturally, CT claims to serve all Calgarians. Hence it claims to serve 100% of the census figure. However, repeating this number in the context of this article was misleading. In the context of this article, it implies that 933,495 make at least some use of CT, which is not the case. Using this logic, no matter how few people use the service, the same number could be claimed. We state the city's population (CMA) at the top of article, there's no need to repeat any figure for the total population under "Transportation". --rob 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Calgary Transit is saying that the service area services 933,495 people (in other words, the city proper). It is not a ridership value. Nevertheless, ridership information would probably be more valuable in this instance anyway. Even though I agree that the number is not really needed, I do not see nothing misleading about the website. I know that actual ridership #s are available from somewhere because I've seen them. These could probably be added to this article, or perhaps Calgary Transit. Tyson2k 02:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are national papers listed locally?

It makes no sense to list "National Post" and "Global and Mail" as Calgary newspapers. Yes, they are widely available in Calgary, but so is the Christian Science Monitor, Toronto Star, and assorted other paper. Of course, with the internet now, virtually all newspapers are available everywhere. This isn't the olden days, when what you could read depended on where you lived. The information on them in the links is redandant with all the other mentions of them. The link mentions who owns the papers. What if that changes? Will somebody go to every Canadian city article, and change the name of who owns the paper? I say just delete non-Calgary papers. Although, I can see an exception for "Calgary Area" or even Alberta-wide papers. This will make it consisten with the TV and Radio listings. Just imagine if we listed every TV channel available in Calgary. Does anybody agree or disagree. I won't do it if it's opposed. --rob 3 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Done. I kept "Dose", because it claims to have a local version. Note: National Post's owner does have a local version, it's called "The Calgary Herald", and it's still there. The Globe and Mail doesn't even have a Calgary section, let alone a Calgary version. If anybody adds them back, I ask you also add the national TV channels, which happen to appear daily in Calgary as well. --rob 6 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)

That makes sense. -- Derek Ross | Talk 6 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)

Actually, The Globe and Mail does have a Calgary Edition (says so right on the front page), although the edition delivered to homes and the on-street boxes may, and does, vary. However, I would still not classify it as a "Calgary" newspaper as the differences in the edition are primarily in the advertising, and rarely editorial (editorial differences usually only arise when late-breaking, significant events occur, such as federal elections). -- Neil 31 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

The Calgary Herald is not a "local version" of the National Post. It's a separate newspaper with a separate history. Bearcat 07:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you suggesting should be changed (or changed back) in the article? --rob 08:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything should be changed; I fully agree that national newspapers don't belong in a city's list of local media. (Actually, I don't even think radio stations where the community of license is Drumheller, High River or Okotoks rather than Calgary belong in Calgary's article.) I'm just responding to a comment above that I disagree with. Bearcat 16:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Royal Conservatory of Music and the"Jubes"

The article had the following text:

The "Jubes" as they are known, are the resident home of the Alberta Ballet, the Calgary opera, the Kiwanis Music Festival, the Royal Conservatory of Music and the annual Canadian Legion Remembrance Day Ceremonies

I changed it to remove Royal Conservatory of Music which re-directed to the the place in Toronto. --rob 01:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

pictures removed

I removed a couple pictures (named in edit history) that were tagged in a way, that they're now subject to deletion. I have no opinion on their status, or whether they should be used (if validated). I thought it's good to remove them now since we have plent of pics, and there's no need for a red-link. If the status of the pics can be addressed, I'm fine with their return. Also, I frankly think its pretty easy to obtain PD/GFDL images for Calgary, since I'm sure a lot of editors here live in Calgary, have a digitial camera, and walk by a place like Eau Claire, quite often. As well, deleted images don't show up on your "watch list" of edited articles, but my edit, and this talk, will. So, this is a heads-up to anybody who thinks its really important to have those pics. I dislike those sudden surprise image red-links that have been happening in other articles. --rob 11:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Downtown Calgary photo is one that I personally took. The Eau Claire photo is from the Calgary Downtown Association, and they allow people to use it online with restrictions. I have updated the tags on both these photos accordingly. -Tyson2k 17:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, and thank you. Also, I stopped at two, so I hope the other images have also been verified (but I won't remove any more myself) --rob 18:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Attractions and landmarks

As you have seen, I put this information in a table. I didn't use the standard quadrant system, since I wanted to keep downtown attractions together, and then show the position of other places, relative to downtown. Without actually making a map, it's impossible to show things perfectly, but I did try to sort each sub-list based on distance from downtown. I changed the name to "Attractions and landmarks", to make it inclusive enough, that I could put something in every box (but due-North is still blank). I thought the airport was a major landmark worth mentioning, but I'm not sure if it's an attraction.. --rob 05:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • another thing i think that could be put up there, after having it's own article deleted could be peters drive in for due north. as far as i know, it is the only major buisiness in western canada still using a cashier and refusing debit Chickendude 07:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Peters' Drive-In isn't a "major business", nor is it the only business in Calgary let alone Western Canada to not accept debit cards. Many businesses in the city do not accept credit or debit cards simply because they don't have the necessary cashier's tills. It's not particularly remarkable (with respect to not accepting debit cards; whether Peters' Drive-In in remarkable in and of itself is dependent on your taste for greasy hamburgers and fries and thick, massive milkshakes). --136.159.248.31 19:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • could you please get an account before remarking on my comments? thank you.

also, i would like to hear some of these other buisinesses that don't have the proper registers to accept debit. --Chickendude 05:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • i did not imply that yuo should nee an account to make comments or disagree, but it sounded as if you were calling my opinions false. also, i would still like those other examples--Chickendude 08:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Chickendude, if you need an example of restauants who do not accept debit in Calgary, not all Tim Horton's locations , Alligator Pear does not accept debit and most of the food vendor stands at the Saddledome accept debit cards. CWood 21:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Other Names

A few names that I have never heard used for Calgary have been added to the list of other names for the city:

• C-Spot
• C-Town
• Cowgary

Can anyone site an actual source for these, or are they just made up? --GrantNeufeld 10:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

They are not all as popular, but I have heard them all used. -Tyson2k 16:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone have any references or citations for these? --GrantNeufeld 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... they are nicknames. I will look, but these kinds of things--unless they are REALLY well known, like say, "The Big Apple"--are not generally published you know. Nicknames are made up by avaerage people and used by some proportion of the populous, so if you've heard them used enough for them to be considered relatively common (and all of these, I have heard, and so too clearly did the person who added them to the article in the first place), then that's that. I mean... it's word-of-mouth really, these aren't statistics. This is not your typical encyclopaedic information.

So far, two people claim to have heard these names relatively commonly, so perhaps the best reference would be for a few more people to agree (or disagree). -Tyson2k 23:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

As a Calgarian, I have never heard any of these terms. If the best reference we can find is that some people have heard of the terms, then it should be removed from the article. Please take a look at the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability or the related policy Wikipedia:No original research. Simply stated, if you can not find the information in a credible published source, it should not be included in the Wikipedia article. -- JamesTeterenko 00:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If you listen to a "pop" radio station for more than 5 minutes on any given day, you would have heard the name C-Spot... this one is quite common and should be verifiable. As for the other 2, no good source can be found, then I say nix them. -Tyson2k 01:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As for the verifiability of these items, there are certain things that you will not find in the World Book... nicknames are one. Personally, I would rather nicknames were removed from Wikipedia altogether... for all cities. However, if people can agree that they are common... I mean, no this does not jive with Wikipedia's Policy exactly, but there is still a big difference between "original work" and "widely recognized" despite publication. Unless you can tell me that the nicknames listed on all the other city pages have their sources in a "credible" publication, maybe somebody should spend a good few months cleansing them from Wikipedia. I mean, let's face it... there are PLENTY of things in Wikipedia that do not conform to policy letter-by-letter. What is the harm in unpublished information that is agreed upon by consensus? Is this not one way that Wikipedia is BETTER than your average "book of facts"? -Tyson2k 01:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If other articles have information that is unverifiable, then yes, that unverified information should be removed. For example, the comments about "steeped" becoming a new Canadian term meaning "cool" has been removed from the Tim Hortons article. (See here.) Should someone spend some time cleansing Wikipedia? Yes, we all should. It is a wiki after all. If you feel you should concentrate on all the nicknames, have at 'er. If the term C-spot is used on some radio stations, then it may become a term that sticks. However, I still say it should be removed until it is documented in a credible source. Finding a reference in a couple of newspapers would be reasonable enough for me. I'd even be happy with a list that looks even somewhat verified like this City nickname page. What would even be better in the article is to give context as to how a nickname is used and the history behind it, because it is obviously not used by everyone. What I think is more interesting than the nickname-du-jour is the fact that most local Calgarians actually pronounce it as Cal-gry (two syllables) and most people from other cities use three syllables (Cal-ga-ry). -- JamesTeterenko 22:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As another resident calgarian, who by chance listens to "popular" radio stations, I personaly have never heard any of those nicknames, as i would have if tyson2k's statements would have been correct.Also, i've never noticed that myself but i guess the majority of residents do use it as a two sylable word, as i am no exception. --Chickendude 05:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well, since Vibe 98.5 actually COINED the term "C-Spot"... I would be very suprised if you'd never heard it on that station (it is used there very frequently). Try doing a google search. You will find that these names come up a lot, particularily in threads. No, they are not commonly used, and no, I am not advocating that they be added to the article. However, I DO ask that you DO NOT accuse me of fabricating information. -Tyson2k 09:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the term Cowgary plenty, especially around Stampede time. --EatAlbertaBeef 22:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Street Numbering Starting at 100

So, with the example given in the article:

An interesting quirk is that the numbers actually start at 100 for addresses on Avenues and 0 for addresses on Streets. For example, 550 8th Avenue SW is between 4th and 5th Street SW and 550 8th Street SW is between 5th and 6th Avenue SW.

What is that actually saying? It seems to contradict itself. Streets and avenue addresses appear to be numbered the exact same way. FireWorks 08:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In the first example 550 is between 4th and 5th; in the second it's between 5th and 6th. Indefatigable 15:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oooooh. I can see how a person can miss that (since I just did--I was looking for the avenue numbers to start at 100, though, as opposed to the building numbers, like "10550 8th St". Perhaps some rewording would be useful). Um... Is it really worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, though? I mean, if you end up in front of 650 8th Avenue SW when you want to get to 550 8th Avenue SW, you just go a block over. FireWorks 00:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is worth mentioning. I don't think most of that paragraph is, as I have said long before when it was first added. It belongs in a road atlas, not an encyclopedia. --Tyson2k 06:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that that's a reasonable argument for its removal. I'm going to go ahead and cut it. If Djsasso or JamesTeterenko or anyone else think it should stay, I think it needs more justification that it's slightly quirky or confusing. It's not something most people would look to find in an encyclopedia article section about transportation. (And if they are, they're not very good at research.) FireWorks 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I decided to do some major trimming. A lot of these details are excrutiatingly minute trivia that you might expect to find on transportation department documents. FireWorks 19:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Road and address numbering system

While I agree that the road numbering information is trivial to Calgarians, I believe it relieves a significant source of confusion to first-time visitors to Calgary - no other city that I know of has the numbering system Calgary does, with the exception of Edmonton, which also includes the street numbering information in its article, possibly for the same reasons (different author).

Respectfully, I need to disagree with the notion that “Wikipedia articles should attempt to remain somewhat general” -- many Wikipedia articles are extremely detailed, as they should be, and for Wikipedia to provide maximum value to the widest possible audience, arbitrary limits should not be imposed on level of detail. There are no limits to the breadth of articles, and it's not clear to me why there would be arbitrary limits to their depth.

By deleting the section, we are excluding an important audience (that of first-timers to Calgary). Someone help out please, and vote to reinsert the information (that is, if anybody agrees). Anybody? It sure is quiet out there...

[Anonymous]

Add my voice to those who want street numbering mentioned, if it is unique to Calgary. I am not clear at all on how Calgary's system is different. So, it should be mentioned both what is in Calgary, and what is in other cities. I always assumed our street/avenue numbering system was typical for cities with standard rectangular blocks. If I'm wrong, I'ld like an explanation. The above comment makes an excellent point, that this article should be geared more to visitors, who want to learn more about the city.

No, Calgary's system is quite unique. I do believe Seattle does have quadrants as well, however I'm not sure if they use a Centre Street and Centre Avenue to delineate those quadrants like Calgary does.

Actually, Calgary's numbering system is not quite the same as Edmonton's. Edmonton centres on 100 Ave & 100 St and does not have quadrants. I am not aware of another city that has a similar system as Calgary. -- James Teterenko (talk) 21:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edmonton now has quadrants. As the city pushed further south, the numbers kept decreasing until south of Millwoods where it reached "zero" -- so now the avenues are designated with N or S.

Admittedly it can't go much further east without running into the river or the next city; but the theory is there. Cadillac 15:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I understand what you're saying. However, I do believe that certian Wikipedia articles such as Calgary's must stay general to an extent, and only because it is discussing the city as a whole, which is relatively general subject matter. You are absolutely right in saying that Wikipedia does have specific articles, but they are accompanied by specific article titles. For example, the article entitled "Calgary" lacks specific information on the Calgary Zoo. However, there is also and article entitled "The Calgary Zoo" to field that information. In this instance, since Calgary does have a somewhat unique street system, it could be worthwhile to make a new article specfically regarding the street system. I'll leave this to your discretion. If this content does find its way back into the main article (I will not delete it again -- although I cannot speak for others), then I think it should be shortened if only to maintain the flow of the article. PS: There are soft limits on the length or articles (although not the breadth), which is 32kb. Thus, if an article such as this one is to remain both small AND diverse, then one must be selective about the information that is presented. - Tyson2k

With regard to the inclusion of the street system in Edmonton's article: that article is so short and lacking in relevant information, that it may very well have been placed there only to take up space :)

+ + + + + +

The section that was on this page earlier regarding the street numbering and naming system was removed because the information provided was relatively trivial. Wikipedia articles should attempt to remain somewhat general. This kind of information only adds needlessly to the length of an already lengthy article. This is the kind of information that belongs in a "road atlas", not a general reference article. If it is determined to be genuinely important (and I'm skeptical of this), then it should be significantly shortened, or perhaps even made into its own article... this is not up to me, and I don't think its necessary, however. -Tyson2k

Here is the passage:

Road and address numbering system

In Calgary, roads and addresses are numbered relative to the intersection of "Centre Avenue and Centre Street", which is the logical centre of the city. Avenues run east-west (parallel to Centre Avenue), and streets run north-south (parallel to Centre Street). Roads and addresses are also given a quadrant designator relative to the centre: Northwest (NW), Northeast (NE), Southwest (SW), and Southeast (SE).

Street numbers increase with distance west or east of Centre Street (for example, 14th Street West is 14 blocks west of Centre Street, and about 4 blocks farther west than 10th Street West)

Avenue numbers increase with distance north or south of Centre Avenue (for example, 16th Avenue North is 16 blocks north of Centre Avenue, and 4 blocks south of 20th Avenue North).

Note that due to topography and obstructions, numbered streets and avenues are sometimes separated into disjoint pieces. For example, Centre Avenue only logically intersects with Centre Street -- physically, Centre Avenue is broken into sections east and west of Centre Street, on other sides of the obstruction created by the Bow River.

Addresses with odd numbers are located on the west side of a (north-south) street, or on the south side of an (east-west) avenue; conversely, even-numbered addresses are located on the east side of any street, or the north side of any avenue.

The basic numbered streets and avenues are complemented with major thoroughfares known as "trails", which are given names that honour Calgary's rich western and native North American culture -- examples include Sarcee Trail, Stony Trail, Shaganappi Trail, Deerfoot Trail, Crowchild Trail, Blackfoot Trail, etc.

First off, can people please start signing their comments? Hard to follow which ones came first and which ones came next. Regarding the paragraph regarding the grid pattern and its numbering system is an important future to the city's urban planning and has been attributed to the ease of navigation praised by visitors. I agree the exact delineation of the quadrant border IS trivial, however. As far as I know, Edmonton is also divided by quadrants, but its used is not as vital as that of Calgary. I think the version of the paragraph I have accountered at the time of my first edit of it is just right. --Kvasir 15:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is interesting (and frustrating) is that while in both Edmonton and Calgary, the streets run North-South and the Avenues are East-West; in Red Deer it is the reverse. Transplants into Red Deer find it confusing.Cadillac 15:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

history of annexation and where to put it

This article is pretty big, so this may need to go in a spin-off article. But, I think history should definately include all the annexations that have added to Calgary. I actually don't know how many there were. Some former towns like Bowness, Alberta have their own article, and can be linked to. Other(s) like Rouleauville (now Mission?), don't even have an article (as far as I know), but would be worth mentioning.

Since I don't know how many annexations there were, or how many communities were added, or what's to be said of each, I'm not in a position to judge whether it warrants inclusion here, a new History of Calgary, or even an Expansion of Calgary. But maybe its worth talking about. --Rob 13:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

you have a very good point. My grandmother, who is 90 right now, used to live inforest lawn when it was it's own town and it was a 20 min. drive!. also, another one that i remember as being it's own town was mackenzie lake, or sundance. i can never remember wich. but i agree, that this should have a place in the article or have it's own spin-off article. --Chickendude 05:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that either McKenzie Lake or Sundance was ever a separate town, but Midnapore was at one point -- perhaps this is what you were thinking of? 70.72.35.220 23:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Why does Calgary need an annexation article? I don't see these for other cities in general. Calgary is certainly not the only city to have a history of annexing land (in fact... all cities have this history). This information is relatively trivial, BUT does have a place in an article dedicated to Calgary's history. If a spinoff article is created, then I recommend a broader subject matter. -Tyson2k 09:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not really mean that it was trivial. I was only suggesting that annexation is not a unique phenomenon and that Calgary is no special case. All cities annex, and to my knowledge, very few cities have a Wikipedia article dedicated to the subject. You'll note that Calgary has only ever annexed very small towns and rural land. Some cities have annexed other large cities, and still do not get their own Wiki article. Some annexations have been very controversial... none of Calgary's have... So all I am saying, is that I don't think it is a significant enough topic to warrent having its own article. I think a section in a history article would be great. Anyway, I'm not going to argue. If you feel so strongly, then why don't YOU just start the article? It doesn't appear that anyone else has the motivation. -Tyson2k 23:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, i was thinking of midnapore. thank you.

also, this could warrent a whole new article on it's own, for the annexation of land in all major cities. I am now out of this conversation. Previously, I added comments, and then removed them (wishing to re-think this later). They were then re-added by another, then over-written, by that same person; who then accused me of editing his commens (falsely). Diffs: my removal of my own comments, his re-insertion of my comments, and his overwrite of my comments with his response to those very comments. Frankly, this whole matter is hardly worth such sillieness. Now normally I would just strike-out my own comments, but if they're not responded to yet, I see no harm in removing them. --Rob 00:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC) The preceeding comment was regarding a matter that was a simple misunderstanding, and is resolved (e.g. nobody is trying to remove anybody else's comments). --Rob 02:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Just came upon this article. I think perhaps the annexation of former towns and villages should be small entry into the first section of the article, the history section, perhaps just a sentence or two, and then the names of said towns and villages could be linked to stubs for further discussion.. comments? Boones 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers

Having contributed to the Gauntlet in the past, I have to object to its inclusion on this page - which should be reserved for newspapers that are in the scope of a "city" paper. I would think this should include either subjects dealing with the city (not just the university community - yes, national events are covered but only within the scope of the university's reaction to them) or else distributed city-wide. The Gauntlet fails on both counts. Michael Dorosh 16:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

New Tall Tower

since im from clagary i tend to keep an eye on this articicle. in 2007 encana(which is a huge oil company) is going to build a multi-bulding office complex with one of the towers being about 48 stories tall and the other being either 58 or 62 stories tall so its going to the biggest. you might want to add that in the article.

By the way all the info about calgary being the fastest growing city and all the head office stuff is true. they add like a nebiorhood here every year.

<Heh, heh>, glad to see that I'm not the only one who types "Clagary" all the time! Rest assured that as soon as the tower is built, we'll update the article. It's a bit premature at the moment though. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we don't normally mention things in articles unless they have already happened or already exist. -- Cheers, Derek Ross | Talk 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I plan to add a blurb on the article, List of Calgary's 10 tallest skyscrapers and possibly even start a dedicated article on the project as soon as Norman Foster, Sturgess and Encana make the conceptual/schematic design available to the public this spring sometime. Right now, we know very few details. --Arch26 05:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that somebody has already written an article: EnCana Office Complex. This is not the correct name of the project, but it will do until we have more information. Once we have it, I will move the page and re-write it. --Arch26 05:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Disallowed Goal in Stanley Cup Playoffs

I have removed this edit from the article: - "(**) There is still debate over whether Martin Gelinas really scored in game 6 of the 2004 Stanley Cup series. If he had, the Flames would have 2 championships"

Just because it was a bad call, it does not have to be put as a denotation next to Stanley Cup Championships. A bad call is a bad call. Every game has questionable calls, this one just happened in OT in Game 6. CWood 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Iraq

I agree it was not a war "on" Iraq, but nor was it a war "on" Saddam Hussein only. You know, they probably named the article "Invasion of Iraq" for a reason, so why on earth would we need to wikify it as something else? Seems very POV to me. Let's keep the NPOV designation, which just happens to be the actual name of the article. I also think that entire political section occupies too much space in this article, as the groups it discusses are small and insignificant. Even if 10,000 people did protest the war in Iraq (given that the numbers come from event organizers, though, how likely is it that the higher number (which varies from the lower by 100 percent) is accurate?) that is still about 1 percent of the city's population and the statement is made that some of them came from outside the city. To put it in a brief manner, what do 2,500 shit-disturbers (a quarter of 1 percent of the population) have to do with the political outlook of a city of almost 1 million people? How many people in Calgary really care about the Iraq war in any significant way - it just isn't a part of daily political life.Michael Dorosh 19:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

June monsoon month

Under the climate section it says: with the month of June jokingly referred to by locals as the 'monsoon month'. I lived in Calgary for 7 years, and before that grew up ~50 km away and have never heard this before. Is this really widespread enough to be here? I don't really think it's one of the things that should show up when someone's looking for information on Calgary - particularly if it's only used by a small subset of Calgarians. Any thoughts? --Sheena V 21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I grew up here and have never heard that phrase used to describe the weather here. —GrantNeufeld 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition I would suggest that the whole section is a bit unclear. It might be more useful to add a climate table similar to the one here. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard the term... not even last June. There is simply nothing monsoon-ish about about Canada's dryest top 10 city. Not even jokingly.... and not even in its wettest month. Seriously though, I have never heard this expression outside of this article. I also agree with Derek Ross... the section needs some editing, and a table couldn't hurt. --Arch26 05:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a common phrase. Perception is probably skewed because we had our wettest summer in ages last year - it rained solid for at least two weeks, every day, which is unusual here. And I know because rainy weather is my favourite and even I was bummed out by the time we entered the second rainy weekend! But even then, if anyone said "monsoon season" it was probably inspired by that one unusual month. I've never heard it myself. Michael Dorosh 06:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Land area

My source regarding the newly added land area comment (about Calgary being bigger than Toronto and New York City) is the Wikipedia articles. In the case of New York I am only referring to actual land area, not the waterways that are also included. At present, Calgary is about 5 square kilometres larger than NYC but if the 150 sq km annexation goes through this year or next, its lead will increase. By comparision, however, Calgary is still a little more than 1/2 the size of the city proper of Los Angeles. 23skidoo 18:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Hi, I removed this article from the Wikipedia:Good articles nominations list due to the following:

• No reference section. You've done very well with this entry and the writing is great, but you must have a reference section. Inline cites are not required but would be preferred for an article of this topic and length. Once these concerns are addressed, please nominate it again! Thanks! Air.dance 09:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, this article came close, but did not manage to get good article status. I would like to add it back to the bottom of the queue of nominations page because I believe this to be a GOOD article that deserves this status. As per the above comments, I have added a references section, but as you can tell, it is still mostly empty. COULD PEOPLE PLEASE ADD REFERENCES THAT THEY KNOW TO HAVE USED IN CONTRIBUTING TO THIS ARTICLE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? If this is the only thing we're missing, then we should just do it. --Arch26 09:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

cleanest city?

I have seen a few articles, that list calgary as having a exceedingly high standard of living, wich is mentionned in the article, but also as one of the cleanest cities in the world. Has anyone else heard anything like this? it depends what article you look at but Calgary is almost always listed near the top.

i Also heard that calgary has one of the most diverse population, rated by number of languages spoken. but i am much less sue on that one Chickendude

I don't know if we're near the top for diversity (I'm pretty sure Toronto does have the top spot), but we do have quite a lot of languages spoken here. One high school, for example, has somewhere between 50-100 different languages represented by its students (Forest Lawn). —GrantNeufeld 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Calgary has much more ethnic diversity than most eastern Canadian cities. Toronto has more, Vancouver has more... Montreal, I can't be sure, but Calgary is at least fourth. --Arch26 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanest city might be a bit of a stretch too. Don't get me wrong, Calgary is pretty clean but I've visited Switzerland and my impression was that some of those Swiss cities are almost squeaky clean ! -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the definition of "Clean"? Not to be pedantic, but it sounds awfully subjective and sounds like something for a rah-rah tourist page. If there are internationally accepted standards (and a definition) for cleanliness, and we have demonstrably met them and exceeded them in some measurable way, then add it to the site (if there are printed references, which the original poster has not mentioned the existence of). Otherwise, the page just looks silly. May as well add that we have the "bustiest girls" or the "fastest cars" or something equally unsupportable while we're at it. I took a girlfriend for a walk through my old neighbourhood and she was apalled by the amount of litter in the street. I do a lot of walking and it seems no better or no worse wherever one goes. Michael Dorosh 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Calgary was found to be "clean" by some of those think-tank studies which rank cities. I dunno... think-tank or not, they're still subjective rankings. However, Calgary WAS found to be one of the cleanest cities in Canada in terms of air pollution by an Environment Canada study (I have not yet looked for the source again). This was accomplished scientifically by measuring the amount of particulate in the air averaged over time. There was more pollution than some large cities (like Vancouver), but it was still pretty low. --Arch26 03:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

i found a link on cbc(from google) http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2002/03/11/cities_020311.html

it reports calgary as ranking first for cleanliness, from William M. Mercer.Chickendude 08:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Article size

I think this article is starting to get long, and at the same time, is lacking in-depth info on some topics. Currently, it is one of the longest and largest city articles in Canada. As such, I think we should start breaking some areas up into sub-articles. The article, Seattle, Washington is a good precedent for this approach. This is also a process that is beginning with the grotesquely long, Vancouver. I suggest perhaps starting with the transportation section. As one of this article's longest sections, it could benefit from a sub-article entitled, Transportation in Calgary. This article could be part of a network of articles under the category, [[Category:Transportation in Calgary]] to replace the existing, [[Category:Calgary Transit]]. There are also some sections such as, media, and industry and employment that could do with some expansion and the creation of sub-articles. Any thoughts? --Arch26 06:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I could certainly expand on the military aspects of Calgary in a separate article. Certainly the WW II stuff really doesn't need to be on this page. I naturally agree that many of the other sections could also be moved - but not if they are just laundry lists, ie "List of Radio stations in Calgary" would be utterly dull unless someone had some history to relate, etc.Michael Dorosh 06:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No lists. To clarify, I think a media page could be far more descriptive. A good example is, Media of Vancouver. --Arch26 07:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Since it was one of the messiest and clunkiest sections (and longer than the sports sections for most other cities), I started by creating a sub-article for Sports in Calgary. As such, I have also shrunk the sports and recreation section of this article. The new article could use some better formatting and some expansion. I am also unsure about what to do with the lists of sports teams. Should they go in only one of the two articles, or both? For now, I have put the lists in both. --Arch26 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have done some more work standardizing the categories of this article to resemble the articles of other cities which have reached good or featured article status. I have also moved the long military section to a new sub-article called, Military in Calgary. --Arch26 09:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Media outlets have been moved to sub-article (List of Calgary media outlets). I also suggest starting an article called Media in Calgary to add more description. --Arch26 08:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

To do

There are quite a few things that need resolving in this article that can only improve it. I have started a "to do" list above. Feel free to add/remove from it as users wish. --Arch26 08:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Calgary Wikipedia Meetup

Finally going to try to get some local Wikipedians together for a meetup here on May 15. Please refer to Wikipedia:Meetup/Calgary. —GrantNeufeld 09:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan area

Simple edit of 'Mackenzie' area changed to 'McKenzie' to reflect spelling error :) - CanuckGod

Just a little FYI. Calgary's Metropolitan area is from Crossfield in the north west for a bit and south to Highway 22X and along the Bow river. Our population is the people in that space divided by that space. Mainly Agricultural lands. Edmontons is so big because it encompasses all the way around the city!

You refer to Calgary's metropolitan area as StatsCan sees it (the CMA). And you're right... it does not include very much south of 22X. However, the province sees it differently. In fact, the population of the Calgary Region (roughly the same boundaries as the Calgary Health Region) is much closer to 1.1 million. As for Edmonton, it has an abnormally large CMA. It's something like 10,000 sq. km. I think this makes that city's metropolitan area among the most expansive in N.America (and probably one of the least dense too).

Having 4 people living on 40 acres would really shrink the density of a CMA. Toronto's CMA is virtually built up vs. agriculture in Alberta.

Wow, the Edmonton-Calgary corridor is so densely populated, just like the Greater Vancouver areas,Ontario's Golden Horseshoe, centred around Toronto, Ottawa/Hull's or greater Montreal's. The whole article sounds like something put out by the Business Development Department. Of course, we all know how honest the business community is, not to mention their integrity. I also like the way that the boosters have blocked acces to editting of what they have put on the main page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.210.8 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 5 May 2006

What are you talking about? Nobody has blocked anything. From what I can tell, the article is pretty fact based. The Calgary-Edmonton corridor data comes from StatsCan, not economic development agencies; and according to StatsCan, it IS amoung the most densely populated areas in the nation. If you have specific problems with the article, could you please point them out so that they can be fixed... or make the changes yourself if you see fit. Vague and sarcastic comments do nothing to improve the quality of the article. --Arch26 06:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Language

"Although Calgary's winters can be downright cold" "The city's deep south is probably expanding the fastest" "The city also has a large number of urban parks" This does not strike me as proper language for an encyclopedia article. downright is obvious, probably shouldn't be used in this type of article, and large is a rather subjective term. These are just three examples, but the article is full of subjective language that doesn't provide any citation for basing its point on.--Crossmr 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Richest ?

Where do they come up with the line that Calgary is Canada's richest city based on per capita income? I thought Oakville Ontario had the highest. Also, when stating that Calgary is the 3rd largest city in Canada, this is refering to the city proper which encompasses the entire urban area. It is a little misleading. Vancouver and Ottawa are smaller in population within the city proper, but when looked at from a continuous urban area, they are larger in population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.89.34 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 25 November 2004

This page refers to the city proper, and nothing else, so I don't think it is misleading. Earl Andrew 07:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Get serious, when speaking of the relative sizes of cities the metropolitan population is always used. Otherwise we sould say that Winnipeg is much larger than Minneapolis and even larger than Vancouver, Seattle, or Boston. Comparing city proper populations simply does not make sense. Calgary is Canada'a fifth largest urban area after Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa-Gatineau. --206.45.167.14 23:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What is your source for Calgary having the highest per capita GDP? Furthermore, this does not necessarily translate to highest income per capita. According to Statscan, Oshawa Ontario followed by Ottawa and other cities had higher median household incomes last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.210.8 (talk • contribs)

You're right. Too bad that GDP per capita and median household income are different things. One refers to income, the other refers to production. --Arch26 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone tell me what the source is or where I can find out about Calgary having the highest per capita income? I question the validity of this

I'm going to hazard a guess and say census canada. --Crossmr 02:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

According to StatsCan (though, it's an old study from 2000), Ottawa is the only city with a higher average family income than Calgary in the major city department. There are a few other smaller ones like Oshawa, Yellowknife, etc. --Arch26 17:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Location map

The location map (Image:Altacal.png) used in the infobox has been flagged for deletion by next week if license details are not provided. Arch26 (talk · contribs) uploaded the image, but has not yet responded to the request to provide license details. —GrantNeufeld 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Arch26 05:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Annexing of Land

From what I saw on the news tonight they haven't announced a tentative agreement. It is the first of 5 steps to reach an agreement on the land. --Crossmr 05:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think that its inclusion in the article as a current event is a little uneccessary. It's not really all that encyclopedic (or at least, it's too specific for this article). Why not wait until the land is actually annexed and then respond by updating the city area figure? If a general blurb regarding annexation is warranted (perhaps associated with the "blurb" on urban sprawl) then fine. But this is only a fairly minor current event (minor relative to the broad subject manner of this particular article that is), that has little tangible consequence to the overall understanding of the real civic issues in Calgary. --Arch26 06:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That to. From what I gather the intent of this land is to provide for a lot of years to come. Its not like they're initiating an immediate project to fully develop 150 square KM of land within a matter of 5 or 10 years. I really don't see the need of this information until the deal is complete. --Crossmr 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Must admit that I don't see the need to add it at all. This is surely not the first time there has been such an annexation but we haven't bothered writing about the earlier ones. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo

By 1860 settlers began arriving to eat buffalo.

There must have been more to it than that! That's like emigrating to South Africa because you like the taste of springbok... -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Urban footprint

In the 4th paragraph, it says "Geographically, Calgary has a larger urban footprint than Los Angeles." The area of Calgary is approximately, as listed in Wikipedia, 712 sq km, and that of L.A. is 1290 sq km. The author should clarify or correct this. -- User:Marcwenger

There is no single "author". If you think that it is wrong, you should have corrected it yourself. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:56, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Calgary has a smaller land area than LA. LA is among the most sprawling cities in N. America, and this comparison did not seem accurate. I too, found 1290 sq. km for Los Angeles. I will adjust this in the article. Calgary's land area is much closer to that of New York City (proper), and I feel that this is a more telling comparison anyway. -- Anonymous Editor

That's more like it! Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:22, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who put the 712 sq km fact in. I read it in a pamphlet a year ago or so. Then today I checked out a website, trying to find satellite pictures for Calgary (There are alarmingly few) to try to find my house. Then I saw that the website I checked said that Calgary had 789.9 sq km. So, I put that fact in, although it's not hard to believe, since taking Highway 2 from north to south takes maybe 20 minutes without traffic, and about 1 hour with, or am I thinking of McCloud Trail? Either, way it takes 40 minutes to get from the C.O.P area to the International Airport, so that's a good benchmark. -- RPharazon 2:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Omg, that totally made my day. -b 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

I had some problems with the "demographics" paragraph that was added on June 8 and I thought I should explain why I rewrote it. Firstly, I have no clue why it was haphazardly appended to the "History" section. Secondly, I checked the statistics with StatsCan and had to change a few. The author also stated that the city's population would increase by 100,000 by 2006 and that the population would be composed of 83.2% Caucasians by then. I am of the mind that statistics that project beyond the current year are not useful when describing the demogrphics of a place. They are good for trends only and are usually wrong anyway. I would also like to know what the author meant by, "1 in 4 Calgarians are non-professors"...? I suspect this refers to atheism, in which case it was very unclear. For now, it's been removed. I also had to fix the grammer.

I will quote the original paragraph in case anyone takes issue with my changes:

"The city of Calgary is booming, and it's age groups prove it. About 20% of the population is under 14, and only 9% is over 65 years of age. The older population rate is one of the lowest in Canada. High fertility, internal migration and international migrants are expanding the city rapidly.

By 2006, it is expected that Calgary's population will climb 100 000 people. Around 83.2% is White (2006 est.) and the White population consists mostly of those who are English, Ukrainian, and a small number of Italian. 5.9% of the population is Chinese, 4.6% Asian, 2% Filipino, and 1.6% Black. The remainder is mixed, non-White Hispanic, and West Asian. Christians are the largest religious group number 67%. 1 in 4 Calgarians are non-professors. Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and Jewish make up smaller percentages."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyson2k (talk • contribs) 03:58, 9 June 2005

There was an altered comment here, too late to tell if it was Tyson2k who changed it logged out, or someone random.--Crossmr 02:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Municipal Government

I think the article needs more information on the municipal government. I've been working on Calgary_City_Council - do you think we could merge parts of that to this article?Ozzykhan 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Most Head offices ?

Could someone please tell me what the source is for Calgary having the 2nd highest concentration of head offices in Canada is? When I checked statscan, all I could find was the number of head office workers and it showed Montreal as having the 2nd highest number of employees after Toronto.

In an article by Bruce Little in the Globe and Mail last year, he stated that Vancouver actually had the 2nd highest number of head offices in Canada although Calgary did have more head office workers than Vancouver did. But Montreal still ranked second in terms of # of head office workers.

This is actually a very widely known and well published fact. Information is not hard to find. Calgary definitely has the second highest concentration of head offices in the country. Other cities such as Vancouver and Montreal have only more offices that Calgary in certain sectors, not overall. Here is one link, [7]. Just do a Google

search

I don't think that this link is as objective as Statscan's. I tend to believe their research more than that of the Calgary Business Development Association. Especially when I see a statement like "it is home to all of Canada's leading financial, law and accounting firms." I never knew that the major banks considered Calgary to be their home. Are there any other websites re:head offices that you can direct me to, especially where the number of head offices by city is listed?

Try Emporis. They are database company based in Germany whom I believe to be reasonably unbiased [8]. This fact commonly appears in newspaper articles as well (it is by NO MEANS obscure). I would reference the articles if there wasn't a charge associated with accessing their archives. Unfortunately, StatsCan does not do research of this sort as it is outside of typical demographic issues. I do notice, however a StatsCan article indicating the Montreal has a higher number of people employed in head offices than does Calgary. This statistic (although it is old and things have changed massively recently) is correct, it does not reflect the gross number of head offices in the city. Actually, I believe that a majority of your confusion stems from this fact. This is the realm of business and economics, which is why trusting the "Calgary Business Development Association" should not be so far fetched. I will try to find hard numbers for you... I do recall seeing them before. In addition, Calgary is home to a number of major REGIONAL offices for banks and law firms (including most of the largest).

Here is another link from CBC [9].

When I checked the Toronto Stock Exchange's website, it showed well over 100 firms with head offices listed in Vancouver. The claim that Calgary has the 2nd most head offices may commonly appear in some papers, but this is not what I saw in an article by economist Bruce Little in the GLobe and Mail last year. The claim to 2nd most head offices may just be an urban myth that keeps feeding on itself. You are correct in stating that this is the realm of business and economics, however business development associations are there to "toot" their own horn and sell their cities, as a result the information they provide may not be totally accurate or may be skewed. All that I ask is for the source of the study that ranks Calgary second, along with an accompanying explanation. So far, the only one in existence re: rankings of head offices and cities that I have found comes from statscan.

Falsifying data is generally not in the best interest of an organization such as the Calgary Business Development Association. At worst (and reasonably likely), the data has been skewed. Regardless, trying to find hard numbers for you has proven to be generally fruitless, as they are extremely inconsistent. I have seen many sources citing 76 for Calgary. The Macleans article that I have included here [10] indicates a number of 204. I have also seen numbers of over 500! Likewise for other cities. In fact, anytime I read anything about Montreal, the article usually points out that the city is continually losing head offices to other centres. Vancouver may have 100 companies listed on the TSX, but this number is otherwise useless. Neither you nor I know how these numbers are determined, and since I have seen such a wide range of values, it is not likely that these methods are consistent anyway. In fact, what definition of "head office" or "corporate head office" is being used here? Does it include regional offices? Does it include any unincorporated companies? Is it only companies on the FP500? If it is really bothering you, it may be worthwhile to phone the Calgary Business Development Association yourself to ask them where their data comes from. However, for the sake of general knowledge, and certainly for the purposes of Wikipedia, it is probably fair to assume that Calgary sits at number 2. I say this only because of the shear number of sources I have seen that support this case; Bruce Little's article being the only exception so far. Some of the more notable sources that I have seen publish this data (many on numerous occasions) include: The Calgary Herald, The Calgary Sun, the National Post, The Financial Post, Maclean's Magazine, The Edmonton Journal, CBC, The World Book Encyclopedia, Emporis, The University of Calgary, and a large number of websites (some of which are in the business of promoting Calgary, and some of which are third party). I would like to think that myths do not self-perpetuate to such a great extent (without the meddling of the US goverment of course), especially when fact checking companies like Emporis are involved. If you would like to despute Calgary's place based only on the number of firms listed on the TSX and Bruce Little's Globe and Mail article, then be my guest. However, I would be inclined to figure out where these numbers actually came from first. I too would like to know what you find. Until there is substantial media indicating otherwise, Calgary's status as number 2 should be regarded as "fact", at least for the purposes of this article.

You are correct in saying that there is much ambiguity in the number of head offices. This is why it is perhaps not a very meaningful statistic. Furthermore, it is also why why statscan does not publish head office data based on # of units, but on number of managerial employees. I have spoken with the econometricians at statscan who have worked on such studies (their names and contact #s can be found at the end of the studies found on the statscan website)they believe that the number of units is meaningless due to the fact that for tax and liability issues some companys set up many other companys. For example,a bank may have several other companies created. Thus the number of head office units is more a reflection of these legal issues than of other economic factors. If the law is such that a company is better off setting up other divisions rather than keeping one company unit, then more units are created with employees shuffled off under these units. You state that the Financial Post also states that Calgary has the 2nd highest # of head offices. In a January 2005 report, they also state that Quebec has more of the FP500 head offices than Alberta, 156 to 104, respectively. Since head offices are usually located in major cities, then we can most likely assume that Montreal has more of the FP500 head offices than Calgary. Hence since what exactly is meant by head office and head office units is ambiguous, then to state that Calgary has the second most head offices units is itself an ambiguous statement and therefore should not be considered as a fact. A more accurate statement would be to say, based on Statscan's most recent study which is slightly more than a year old that Calgary has the third highest number of head office employees. This study showed that Montreal had about 35000 head office workers compared to Calgary's 16 000. I doubt it that Calgary has surpassed Montreal in this regard since this study was carried out. Statscan is a highly respected non-biased institution that all Canadians pay for. It is there to report facts as accuartely as possible. It is not there to push a cause for some particular group. If we wish this site to be accurate, then perhaps we should strive to make it as least ambiguous as possible.

I don't have any proof but I have seen, heard and read the statistic quoted an uncountable number of times. I'm not sure of the requirements for something to be considered a head office. --Sven Erixon 08:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Statcan's latest report on head office counts (The Daily, July 13, 2006) Calgary is 4th after Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver in terms of number of head offices. Furthermore, it ranks third after Toronto and Montreal in terms of head office employment. (BF) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.210.8 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide a link? I can't find the daily for July 13 on statcan's website. - Qyd 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. I'm going to replace the pdf external link in the article with the equivalent html reference - Qyd 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, according to Statcan (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-010-XIB/11-010-XIB2006007.pdf), Calgary has never had the 2nd most number of head offices in Canada. Their July 13, 2006 study goes back to 1999 and in each of the years to 2005 (the last year of the study) Calgary has never had the 2nd most head offices. (BF)

The article is pretty clearly talking about head office employment, not the concentration of offices. Did you read it? Calgary only recently surpassed Vancouver for head office employment, making it third after Toronto and Montreal. It is still second in terms of the number of offices however. --Arch26 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it. If you refer to p.28 of this statcan link (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-010-XIB/11-010-XIB2006007.pdf) you will see that the number of head office units is given. According to Statcan, Calgary has never ranked 2nd, at most it has ranked fourth. Perhaps you should read the report. (BF)

Yes. But a "head office unit" is only defined as an office who's role as a "head office" is divorced from its operations unit. Many smaller offices, of which there are many based in Calgary are not distinguished as their own units (despite their being a head office). In fact, in many cases, a true head office unit only exists when the company is large enough to have multiple other offices that aren't head offices. Often, a company with a single office (which also happens to be the head office) does not have a true "head office unit" (however, this is not always the case, particularily with larger companies). The relative abundance of smaller companies based in Calgary (relative to Tornoto, Montreal and Vancouver) is the reason for its having only the 3rd highest head office employment and the 4th highest number of "head office units". Nowhere in this article is the actual number of offices given. The reason for this is simple: since the article is discussing head office employment, accurate statistics can only be obtained when head office units are studied. In all other cases, it is impossible to differentiate between head office-related employment and operations-related emplyment. --Arch26 06:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, you are using a different definition of a head office than that used by our national publicly funded agency. Could you please refer me to an actual study stating its methodology and what is meant by a head office and a ranking of Canadian cities, specifically where Calgary is rated 2nd? Similar to a study that Statscan has done? I still trust and believe Statscan's findings and find it hard to refute their study, methodology and non-bias.

I am actually using the definition provided by Statistics Canada [11] (the national publicly funded agency that you pointed out). You are using a definition that you apparently fabricated. As for methods, Statistics Canada only published "head office unit" counts (this is clearly stated in the article that you referenced). In the Statistics Canada link that I provided, a distinction is made between a small head office (where head office functions are undifferentiated from operations) and a true "head office unit". I can only speculate that the reason everyone's favorite publicly funded agency elected to only publish data on head office units was because that is the only information that is relevant in a discussion of head office employment (where office roles are differentiated). The aforementioned is speculation only because--as you know--Statistics Canada does not make their specific methods publicly known. All the information that you need to know is that a "head office unit" is NOT the same as a "head office" (as defined by Statistics Canada) and that head office employment is not the same thing as the number of head offices (common sense). Therefore, I cannot honestly say that the article that you provided does anything to refute the figure of second highest in Canada (printed in other sources). That does NOT mean that Statistics Canada is wrong; it only means that they were measuring something slightly different. --Arch26 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Something I just noticed to help clear up confusion: The thing that is NOT clear in the article however, is that there is a MAJOR distinction between any head office and a corporate head office (that is, the head office for a CORPORATION). Calgary is home to the 2nd highest number of CORPORATE head offices. This is very important because it also refers to something completely different (here are three links: none are published studies, but they are all from reputable enough websites: [12], [13], [14]). I will be correcting this in the article. --Arch26 05:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another: [15]

I have not fabricated anything. All that I am saying is that according to Statscan's research and definition of a head office unit, i.e. number of head offices, Calgary ranks fourth and not second in Canada. All of these links provided just state that Calgary ranks 2nd, but none state their source. I believe that it is an urban myth that just keeps getting repeated. Unless a reliable source of the study is stated, then I will keep believing what Statscan publishes.

For crying out loud! NOBODY IS DISAGREEING WITH STATSCANADA! All I am saying is that a figure of #2 for corporate head office counts is NOT the same thing as a figure of #4 for head office units. Different things are being measured. They are not mututally exclusive. Nobody ever said they were. I will work on finding a more concrete source for the former. --Arch26 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On p. 22 of Statscan's report, one can clearly see on the graph that head office units refers to number of head offices. Furthermore, according to the report, the head offices measured refer to business/corporate (p.20) head offices. Until you can find a current study contradicting the latest one done by Statscan, I think that you should go by this and state that Calgary does indeed rank 4th in terms of number of head offices.

StatsCanada actually defines a head office unit as an office which is autonomous from the operations unit. So just because they used the term "head office" casually in one sentance does not mean that they are exempting the term "head office unit" from their own definition. And by the way, the term corporate is never associated directly with actually data on the number of head office units in a place. It is apparent to me from reading those sections that they are talking about all head offices. I also don't think you know what the term corporate means: you indicate above that you believe it is synonymous with "business". It is not. It refers only to businesses that have been formed into corporations (that is, has been incorporated). --Arch26 00:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to the Statscan study clearly states that one of the reasons for the study is to examine the effect of foreign takeovers on Canadian corporations. The study is examining corporate head offices. I am quite aware that a business is not necessarily a corporation. The reason that I used the term business is because Statscan used it in their summary, but when one reads the actual report, they are referring to corporate head offices. Again, until a current study from a reputable source is found stating that Calgary has the 2nd most head offices, I suggest that we use Statscan's findings and state that Calgary ranks 4th in terms of the number of corporate head offices in Canada. I do not know why you're stubbornly sticking to 2nd? Could you please look at p.22, the graph clearly shows that a head office unit does refer to the number of head offices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.210.8 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are badly misinterpreting the study and making assumptions. The introduction explains to the reader why the study is pertinent. It is not an explanation of their methods. It does not CLEARLY state that the numbers given refer to corporate head offices. Until you can find more clarification, somebody will ALWAYS be able to refute you. Don't call me stubborn... you have been trying to fight this for months now and it is tiring. If it bothers you so much, why don't you phone or email Calgary Economic Development yourself (they are the ones who proclaimed Calgary as being number 2 and presumably did the study) and ask them where they got their data. I cannot honestly be bothered. This stupid, pointless and mostly irrelevant diatribe has taken up far too much time as is and I don't really care to participate in it anymore. Unless you can get a consensus, the article stays the way it is. But seriously, since this issue matters so much to you, I IMPLORE you to send that one simple email to find out once and for all. Beyond that, I have nothing more to say, except that you should really start to make it a habit to sign your comments. --Arch26 05:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not making any assumptions or misrepressenting any study. The study is there for all to see.If in WIKIPEDIA you make a claim that contradicts what Statscan's recent research states, then you should back it up with a proper study from an unbiased source, since you are the one who is managing this sight. Who I am is irrelevant. Let us stick to the issue. You said that you will try to find a study for your claim. Obviously you have not found it. Until you do, then I think that we should stick to what Statscan has found and state that Calgary ranks 4th in terms of number of head offices. Until you can back up your claim, I have no more to say on this issue.

You do of course realize that I updated the article a long time ago right? I have included BOTH figures and appropriate in-text references for each (I am still looking for a BETTER reference as requested by the way). This is consistent with all Wikipedia procedures and should have been enough of a compromise to make you leave this poor bloated talk page alone. After reading the article again, I still don't think the study is as clear-cut as you do, but I think it's just time to agree to disagree and make a compromise. You should do the same... And since you are the one who is so adament that Economic Development is wrong, I still don't see why you haven't bothered to spend the 30 seconds it takes to ASK THEM yet. This is your beef, not mine. --Arch26 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed EDC and they have yet to respond to me. I have also called Statcan, (the name of the statisticians conducting the study is listed for all to contact). They stand by their findings. Again, I believe their unbiased report more than I believe EDC whose mission is to sell something. BTW, what is their claim based on, obviously it is not public knowledge. Perhaps as administrator you can back up the claim with an unbiased study that is there for all to see. I am still waiting as most seekers of truth would be. You are making this claim in Wikipidia without an appropriate study to back it up. You do have a valid source (Statcan) that has conducted a study that you should rely on more than any other. Until you find otherwise, then it should be stated that Calgary ranks 4th in terms of number of head offices. Until you can back your claim up, then please do not "bloat" this "poor" page.

It is simple how they come up with Calgary being #2. It is the number of companies with gross revenue greater than some cut off that have their senior management based in the city. Stats Canada is measuring something completely different stop being a douche bag and leave it alone already.

Well with the exception of the "douche bag" comment which is completely inappropriate, I agree with you and it is what I have been saying. Nevertheless, for the sake of fairness and accuracy, I have removed the statement from the article completely until a more agreeable reference can be found. --Arch26 06:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

To the eloquently spoken person who has made the inappropriate comment above, could you please provide more specific details about your comments re: number of head offices related to gross revenues?, i.e. can you direct me to the study or report, or is it just hear-say again with no appropriate backing?

If you refer to the July/August 2006 issue of the globe and mail's report on business magazine at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/robmagazine/, the top 50 companies by revenue are listed. Again, by this measure Calgary does not rank second, but Montreal does, after Toronto. For those stating that Calgary ranks second by measure of revenue, was some arbitrary cut-off chosen until Calgary came in at 2nd, if it indeed is at this rank? You see why Statscan's measure is better. It is unbiased and more inclusive.

Ok here is something that can be reported as fact. Calgary has the 2nd most head offices in canada when using the measure: # of head offices by the top 50 most profitable companies in canada source http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/tp1000/index.php Now you can go cry in a dark room frenchie

Nashville of the North?

Who wrote "Calgary is affectionately called the Nashville of the North"? This is not true. Calgary has almost no music recording industry. There's an "active country" scene once a year during Stampede, which sees country music being played, not recorded. Nashville is a recording centre. Also, Nashville North implies something like the "opry". Nothing in Calgary resembles that. Hopefully the author will delete this.

I am not too familiar with the country scene and Calgary, and I would never refer to Calgary as Nashville North. However, I have heard the term tossed around in Calgary a few times. Country music is fairly popular here, especially when compared to other Canadian cities. I do not see any statement in that paragraph that is inaccurate. Whether that name is appropriate or fair to the country music industry in Nashville is an entirely different issue. The article as it is currently worded does not claim that Calgary has a music recording industry. -- JamesTeterenko 21:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It also is the location of the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame.--Djsasso 19:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the annual Canadian Country Music Awards.

Nashville North is the name of a building on the Stampede Grounds which features live country music during the Stampede[16]... Perhaps this is the source of the confusion??? SKE 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Error on the page

There is an error with the area of the city.. In the article it claims the area is 721 km/sq.. on the right it claims it's 789.9 km/sq.. And with the recent annexation of 150 km/sq neither number is really correct.(Anonymous comment)

If you have a source for the correct figure, please feel free to make the necessary corrections.Michael Dorosh 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, please DON'T put new annexation data in when it's not even official. 150 sq. km isn't even the right number. I have no idea where that came from. Why don't we just use StatsCan's 2001 number of 701.79 sq. km. I don't know where the other figures came from, and so StatsCan seems like the logical place to go. Thoughts? --Arch26 07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

John Glenn

I don't think I support blanking the existing information in favour of linking to something on a possible questionable motive. The change was made by someone who created the John Glenn article, which is currently being checked for possibly copyright violation. Until this is sorted out and we can definitely say who was here first, lets leave it as is. Anwyay I don't support a change without discussion fo the matter at least. --Crossmr 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The John Glenn article has some reliable sources; it's true that the article was poorly concieved in the first place, but it might well be true nevertheless. It may be quite intresting from the historic point of view. And let's not scare away new contributors ;) - Qyd^(talk)21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to, just trying to err on the side of caution. When the same individual creates an article on a person then goes about putting information about that same person in two different articles contradicting what they're saying, I prefer to ensure its accurate before letting it sit. Nothing personal to trailmix. --Crossmr 23:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate some support here. The copyright violation is only for a photo and only because I am new to wikipedia and wasn't sure which category to choose when I uploaded it - it's not truly a copyright violation.

John Glenn was the first settler in Calgary, I'm not trying to take anything away from Sam Livingston - I admire him too, he and John Glenn were good friends and fought for western rights together.

I'm also not trying to be difficult, I just know what I know and the facts back me up. No one who knows Calgary history will state that Sam Livingston was the first settler. -- (unsigned comment by TrailMix)

No worries. We don't deny that John Glenn was probably in Calgary first. We just need convincing and you're doing that. I know it's not easy when you first start contributing to Wikipedia but it gets better. Cheers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I was the person that flagged the copyright violations. It is more than the pictures. For example, the second paragraph is nearly a verbatim copy of the second paragraph of this page. The page clearly says at the bottom that it is copyrighted. There is no doubt in my mind that there should be an article about John Glenn in Wikipedia, but it must properly fall under GFDL. As for who was in Calgary first, I am not sure, but I did do a bit of digging. Most web sites I examined are vauge about who was in the area first. Any site that claimed one to be "the first Calgarian" did not appear to be a fully unbiased reliable source. -- JamesTeterenko 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I may have taken artistic license on the text, I didn't realize that was what they were talking about as I didn't see the page as it is now until it was mentioned above today, as I mentioned earlier, I am new to Wikipedia and I wasn't aware of all their rules (I know, I know, I should have read it first).

So you are saying that the Government of Alberta site, the University of Calgary and the Bow Valley Ranche sites are not unbiased? For the record, I am not part of any of these organizations and had nothing to do with their text.

I've pondered why some sources are so vague, basically I have decided it is because SL has been alluded to for so long that people are having a tough time back peddling on it now - it's tough to skew history and then admit it when people are trying to correct it.

Most of those sites only go as far as saying that his house was the first house built in what is now Calgary by a person of European descent. They don't go so far to explicitly say that he was the first person of European descent in the area. Anything that I have seen shows that Livingston and Glenn were here around the same time, but none show exact dates, only approximate. I wouldn't exactly consider Bow Valley Ranche unbiased, since they have Glenn's house. -- JamesTeterenko 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bow Valley Ranche doesn't have John Glenn's house, it is owned by the Alberta Government. I'm not going purely on online articles, there aren't that many and they are subjective. We are talking about the 'First European Settler' so since he built the first house and he is European...

I'm not sure why you are resisting this so much - you mention that the sites you have seen say they were here around the same time - if we accept that - then you can't say that Sam Livingston was the first Euro settler either - but you are quite happy to do that - do you have a personal interest in this story? (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just wondering).

I realized shortly after I left that message that misspoke about Bow Valley Ranche. They just have the site, not the actual house anymore. Sorry about that. My point was that they are at least somewhat biased. I don't have a problem with rewording the statement that Livingston was in Calgary first. Maybe something along the lines of "Livingston & Glenn were among the first settlers". As for assuming first house = first settler, I would be careful about that. Since they both appear to have arrived in Calgary around the same time, it is possible that the one that settled first had a temporary shelter but the other had a permanent home built first. As for personal involvement, I have no tie other than I am interested in this history and want to make sure Wikipedia is accurate. As an example, I created the original articles on Fort Calgary and George Clift King. By the way, you will probably want to sign your talk points with four tildes (i.e. with ~~~~). This will be converted into a signature with your username and the time. Welcome aboard! -- JamesTeterenko 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I should mention a couple of things, what I'm basing this on is the written words of 2 of John Glenn's sons and other documentation I have. The Calgary Sun and the Calgary Herald have both done their homework and an article about John Glenn (and the preservation of his cabin) appears in both papers today.

I am John Glenn's Great Great Granddaughter, so yes, you could say I am biased as well. However, I do know that John Glenn arrived in September of 1873 and Sam arrived in 1874.

Thanks for the info on signatures! Trailmix1234 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually interesting, I just read your articles on Fort Calgary and George King - unfortunately they are both inaccurate. Did you know that John Glenn helped to build the chimneys at Ft Calgary? Do you know that he purchased the first land in what became Calgary? I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it isn't accurate. Trailmix1234 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do believe I have heard about the two items you mention about Glenn, but I don't think that either the Fort Calgary page or George King page conflict with that information. Note that I only created the original articles, and they are not actually "mine". Others may have contributed and extended them. I see you have edited the King article. The information you removed can be verified in a few sources. I will take that discussion to Talk:George Clift King, the talk page for the article. I have read the article about John Glenn in the Herald. The only claim that it makes about him being first is, "In 1876, he became -- with Sam Livingston -- the first settler to cultivate cereal crops in the district." I have not been able to find the article in the Sun. If there are any other things that you feel are inaccurate in any articles, please mention them in the talk pages of the given articles. I'll help investigate and weed out any inaccuracies. Also, an important side note: using personal papers to write articles isn't appropriate for Wikipedia as it is regarded as original research. Please review the policy on this matter. -- JamesTeterenko 03:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm finished with this dicussion but I must say, I thought Wikipedia would be fun and interesting, after all one of their rules is 'ignore the rules' - but so far it's just been annoying. Trailmix1234 02:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

there are policies in place to protect the integrity of the information placed here. Otherwise wikipedia becomes completely useless to those who want to use it as any kind of unsubstantiated information could be left to sit in articles. Discussion is an extremely important part of wikipedia, especially when something is in contention. --Crossmr 02:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok Crossmr, I take your point and you are correct, I was just getting a bit frustrated originally because everytime I posted something it was replaced. So I gave it a rest and now I'm back. Does anyone else editing this page have a problem with me posting information that John Glenn was the first 'documented European Settler' in the Calgary Area on this page? I have loads of documentation to back it up - which I'm happy to provide. John Glenn was also the purchaser of the first lots of Calgary when they were sold, I think it's important that he be mentioned in this article - any objections? Trailmix1234 15:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Support: the sources seem reliable. Qyd 16:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support: same reason as above. Arch26 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hailstorm Trend

That link is proof of nothing. You make the claim that 2006 has been an active year, but that link only states that in the 1990s they were more frequent. It provides no information to support the statement that they're more frequent in 2006 and that its a continuation of a trend.--Crossmr 06:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's true, however there have been a lot of hail storms this year. At least one per week since the beginning of June. We had a pretty nasty one in the last couple of days (don't remember exactly one). I don't think it has any place in this article though. Sven Erixon 07:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Can you cite any studies that show there actually has been a lot? You can test that claim statistically, but until a published source says there has been a lot, we can't say that in the article. Putting forth that opinion without a source is original research as we're basing it on our own observation.--Crossmr 13:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Even if I could find evidence, I don't think it belongs in the article anyway. I was just stating that there has been a lot. I agree with you that it has no place in the article. Sven Erixon 14:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Well when they are becoming frequent and nasty, they do become notable. Especially when you start recording hail the size of golfballs. Thats a notable climate change, depending on the frequency and how bad they are. But we do need reputable sources for any claims made.--Crossmr 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is getting a bit long. I'm thinking about setting up Werdnabot to archive it like is done on some other pages. Maybe any discussion over a month old would be fine? Anyone have any objections to that?--Crossmr 19:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving is enabled. Any sections that have no comments in the last 30 days will get archived. It only archives sections that have at least 2 signed comments in them (so make sure you sign comments, and use the unsigned template on anyone who forgets). This way if someone asks a question and no answer is forthcoming it should remain until at least one person answers. Any older sections that I had trouble finding the sigs for I'll archive by hand to the same page once Werdnabot goes through and does its initial moving.--Crossmr 02:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

GDP

I was scrolling through some of the Chinese cities today and I noticed they all had GDP and GDP per capita. Could we find that for Calgary too? --Argonith 22:09 July 19, 2006

Climate

I removed the statement that Calgary is Canada's third warmest city after Vancouver and Victoria as this is completely untrue. Among major Canadian cities Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax (this list is not exhaustive) all have warmer daily average temperatures. Calgary is in fact well down the list, but does have the mildest winters (and the coolest summers) of any major prairie city.--207.161.43.149 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to a study from Environment Canada which I once read on their website and now can't find, this is true. Of major cities, Calgary was the 3rd mildest after Vancouver and Victoria. A number was determined that was based on several severity indicators (not just average temperature), and Calgary was 3rd after the aforementioned and followed by Toronto. I will try to find that study again. --Arch26 06:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That was indeed the study, and yes Calgary did place 3rd for major cities (I think some smaller ones like Kelowna might have come before along with Vancouver and Victoria). But I also agree that its inclusion in this article is not really necessary and that it is not really all that relevant in the end. --Arch26 00:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I found some information on this subject at the Environment Canada site:

Weather Winners

You can find Calgary's ranking in each category here:

City Ranking

Ozzykhan 15:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, the statement said "3rd warmest", which clearly was referring to temperature only. If you look at Environment Canada's average annual temperatures, Calgary is well back of most of the large cities in Eastern Canada (I think all of them except Quebec City) as well as Vancouver and Victoria. I think what you're referring to is a study which looked at overall climate severity, including average wind speed, number of overcast days, number of days with precipitation, discomfort from humidity, etc. Calgary may have finished 3rd in that study, I don't recall the results. In any event I would suggest that this type of study, which combines various factors to come up with an overall ranking, is highly subjective. If I was a snowmobile enthusiast I would not want to live in Calgary with its frequent thaws and general lack of winter snow cover. I would rank Winnipeg or Thunder Bay as a more favourable climate. Conversely, if I was a beach bum and liked hot sticky days, I would prefer Southern Ontario or Manitoba. The assertion in this article, however, was that Calgary has the 3rd mildest climate in Canada, which is patently false. I removed the statement accordingly. --207.161.5.32 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use

I believe these images do satisfy #8, they illustrate the subjects of that particular section. Reading the current language we have on the logo fair use tag, it says "to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question", these are used to illustrate the sports teams in question. The Olympic logo servers the same purpose.--Crossmr 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They should stay. Teams are associated very closely and RECOGNIZED with their logos. The logo IS the team's identity. I think that's grounds for inclusion. --Arch26 05:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Calgary media outlets

I believe that this section should be removed, and the link to the main article moved to "See Also". Any of you disagree? Sven Erixon 10:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that the existence of this section is standard formatting for Canadian cities. A better idea would be to flesh out the section with a short and very generalized paragraph about media in Calgary? Anyone want to write it? --Arch26 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Calgary, Alberta → Calgary – Calgary already redirects to Calgary, Alberta. All other uses are much less common. Usgnus 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support Ozzykhan 20:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Polaron | Talk 20:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. There is no need for disambiguation here. And the proposed move is consistent with the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Canada. Skeezix1000 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support it is a logical move --Edgelord 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per the move of Saskatoon. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per above. Resolute 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Modest Support - For the sake of consistency with other Canadian cities (that is, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and apparently, Saskatoon), I think it should be moved. HOWEVER, I think that not including the province is somewhat unencylopedic and we should follow American examples whereby the state is included as part of the full name regardless of the alleged importance of the city. --Arch26 01:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Including the state is not encyclopedic - no encyclopedia does that. The title of the article is supposed to specify the name of the subject, not any other information, including its location. Specifying the location -- the state or province -- is information that should be covered in the text of the article, not in the title. --Serge 04:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you're right. Mostly, I'm a fan of consistency. So if we move Calgary, we should start moving some others in Canada (obviously cities like London and Regina have issues in that their are other articles with the same name). --Arch26 06:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Enyclopedia article titles should not specify any information other than name unless, perhaps, it is required for disambiguation. --Serge 04:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I see a province/state (in North America) serving a role slightly similiar to a family name, which forms part of the "full name". Moving this, won't bring consistancy, as many places can't be so moved. It's nice to be able to predict the article name of topic, without checking first, and the only way to do that, is use the "City, Province" standard. --Rob 17:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - will bring consistency.Rob 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - "City, Province" is a consistent naming convention, robots and many editors would use [[City, Province]] links by default. Having a redirect (either way) makes this less of a problem. --Qyd 17:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (Disregard if this keeps from achieving consensus) --Qyd 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually according Canada city naming conventions page

and I quote Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Quebec City or Toronto, can have undisambiguated titles. So unless you plan to argue that there is a Calgary that is of close to equal value to this one it would be consistant with the convention to change it. --Edgelord 21:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support: Per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Supportobvious--DaveOinSF 04:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Because Calgary rocks enough to not have a province attached to its name. RPharazon 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose We've got a good convention and there's no reason to make an exception for this city, or any of the half-dozen other cities where this change has been proposed. —wwoods 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you actually read the Canadian convention except that was written earlier you would see that this execption follows the Canadian convention. I agree we have a good convention and it states we can make this change. In short your arguments actually go against the Canadian convention you say is good. --My old username 23:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Read again the entire discussion regarding Canadian naming conventions (it passed the second time around). The entire argument was that exceptions were necessary when applying "City, Province" conventions. And now this is quoted as a rule. While it may very well be legitimate in the case of Calgary, the use of "exceptions" is starting to be abused. --Qyd 02:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Qyd, you seem to have misread both the discussion that you have linked and the Canadian convention. See my comments below. Skeezix1000 12:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe there's ambiguity in the simple name or that "Calgary" is too vague without the province name? --Polaron | Talk 02:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Its true that may be possible. It appears that most of the Canadian city changes have not been abbusive. I think this city, Winapeg, and Flin Flon, work as exceptions. Its not like every small town is being chosen. --My old username 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what wwoods or Qyd are referring to. wwoods seems to have mistaken the American and Canadian conventions. As for Qyd, the link he provided is to a proposal to alter the Canadian convention, and that proposal was withdrawn, not "passed the second time around" as he suggests. Further, Qyd mentions abuse of "exceptions". The Canadian naming convention does not contain the concept of "exception", unlike the American convention. The Canadian convention simply states: "Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Quebec City or Toronto, can have undisambiguated titles." If a city meets that criteria, it need not be disambiguated. There is no limit on that criteria, or notion that it should somehow be limited to a handful of cities. Skeezix1000 12:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - maybe Calgary, AB can win a fight with the Calgary in Scotland, but what about Vancouver, BC vs. Vancouver, WA, or Edmonton, AB vs. Edmonton, England, and Edmonton, KY. What if they loose? Now you have Calgary just being Calgary, but Vancouver and Edmonton will have the province attatched? And that's supposed to improve consistancy? Kevlar67 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a better way of dealing with this sort of thing. See my comment below. --Arch26 05:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Easily the most well-known Calgary. The former (city, province) convention now only applies to the USA, and even some people there are trying to get that changed. Kirjtc2 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

It will bring consistency. Users who edit Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are usually so vehemently opposed to returning to the "city, province" naming convention that it's easier to go the other way. In addition, Serge is correct... no text encyclopedias (and not Encarta either for that matter) use the "city, province" convention. If they must differentiate between two cities of the same name... let's say, London, then they use parentheses (eg/ "London (Ontario)"). Or in the case of a term which refers to a city but is also an ordinary noun (like Regina), they usually do the following: "Regina (city)". This is how it's done everywhere! --Arch26 22:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I just noticed that Encarta titles their Vancouver article, "Vancouver {British Columbia)". This is totally how it should be done here. Vancouver, Washington is a major city. Some Americans (lots?) have never even heard of Canadian Vancouver (it's funny, but it's true). Editors of that article should not be so arrogant as to assume that 90% of the Wikipedia searches for Vancouver refer to Vancouver, BC. Nevertheless, Encarta uses the parantheses convention, NOT the "city, province" format. --Arch26 22:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would very surprised if anyone (American or not) has heard of the Portland suburb but not the Canadian city. --Usgnus 05:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why do the editors of encyclopedias other than this one feel the need to clarify Vancouver, BC with parentheses? What makes Wikipedia different? Is Vancouver, WA less significant in Wikipedia than it is in say... the World Book? I'm really not buying it. There are almost 200,000 people in Vancouver, WA for crying out loud. I blame arrogance. It's the only explanation. This isn't like Edmonton, Kentucky, which is tiny... --Arch26 04:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with attaching a dab tag to Vancouver, BC but I don't agree that Americans have never heard of Vancouver, BC. That's silly - no other word for it. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The only people who are oppoing this are the religious policy followers. Nobody is arguing the nobility of Calgary, jut the policy. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 22:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, I opposed this move, and it's not because of policy, but I think the status quo works. Moving articles, having different rules for different communities opens some ugly can of worms (debates about unicity, importance of one place over another, debates about rules and how to apply the conventions). I don't oppose the naming of the article, but the changing of the status quo. --Qyd 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you, BUT, I think the status quo is changing. Many Canadian cities including cities like Lloyminster have already made this change. Of course, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Quebec City have as well. Winnipeg and Flin Flon, Man. both have active requests. Many American cities such as Chicago have chaged and many others (San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle to name a few) have active requests for move or have recently moved. I think this will become the new system for naming city/town articles. In addition, it is what's done already in other encyclopedias and when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. --Arch26 00:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The City, Province form is not the status quo for Canadian cities, as major Canadian cities do not follow it. We now have a Canadian naming convention, separate from the American one, and it does not require disambiguation. Therefore, this proposal is in keeping both with policy and the Canadian status quo. For consistency's sake, you should support this proposal. Skeezix1000 13:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For consistency, I would strongly oppose the move. If it's just a matter of consensus, please feel free to disregard my vote (it was a weak oppose to start with).--Qyd 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we maintain inconsistency by being different than every other Canadian major city article without disambiguation issues...... --Arch26 06:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistency by having the same name structure as 99.9% of Canadian communities. --Qyd 14:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then we should clearly start rivising the format of those 99.9%. I much prefer a system where only the city (the SUBJECT) is named in the title. If there are issues with disambiguation, then put the clarification (for example, the province) in parantheses to indicate that the clarification is secondary to the primary subject (this is, the municipality in this case). This is a pardigm shift in the way geography articles are organized, and I think that the method used by major published (real?) encyclopedias is far more appropriate than the system we've been using. Here's my 2 cents:

• No disambiguation issues: Calgary, Alberta --> Calgary
• Confusion with another city of the same name: London, Ontario --> London (Ontario)
• Confusion with a noun: Red Deer, Alberta --> Red Deer (city)
• Confusion with another city and a noun (no example): "Municipality", "Province" --> "Municipality" (city, "Province")

This is how it's done in the real world. It emphasizes the primary subject of the article, and I think there is an argument for making such an alteration to Canadian article standards. Anyone else buy this? --Arch26 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that everyone who opposes either because A) There's a policy that says this or that or B) For consistancy/ status quo. On the policy, there's no guideline that says we have to follow every policy to the letter. We in Canada have decided that there doesn't need to be the whole CITY, PROVINCE for every city. If it doesn't make sense for the province to be there (like in this case the other article redirects here), we've collectively decided that the comma convention doesn't apply. Saskatoon, Vancouver, Flin Flon, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg. None of them have much in common, thats why the policy for Canadian cities isn't as restrictive as the US one. There is no point in maintaining the status quo if we've decided that the status quo no longer works (and by we, I mean all the people who have voted support on any of the above cities/towns). This is as bad as the userbox wars where people want them kept because they don't want to let them go, and others want them deleted because they don't like them. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. --Arch26 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a casual observation, but who else has noticed that the English version of the Calgary article is one of the ONLY versions to use the "City, Province" naming convention?... --Arch26 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's actually true for most of the other language articles on all the major US cities too. They also usually disambiguate with parentheses when needed. --Polaron | Talk 05:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That is probably because the English Wikipedia is one of the only versions comprehensive enough to have a Calgary, Mull article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

True. But honestly, I am arguing for major changes in formatting reminiscent of the style used in the other language articles... I don't think anyone here is arguing that Calgary needs to be disambiguated in the title because of some little bay in Scotland. --Arch26 04:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course they aren't now (although they did a few years ago). I was simply explaining the historical reason why the English Wikipedia uses the "City, Province" naming convention for the article on the city when other Wikipedias don't. Until 2005 the Calgary page redirected to a disambiguation page but it was then agreed that it should be pointed to the most significant aticle, that on the city. I felt that that was sensible. I'm not quite so happy about the current proposal as it swings the pendulum even further towards the city (and further than need be in my opinion) but in the spirit of consensus, I'm willing to go along with it even though I don't agree with it.

I personally think that all Canadian places should be "Placename, Province", that all UK places should be "Placename, County", and that all Australian places should be "Placename, State" as proposed in 2002. However I realise that one of the big reasons for requiring that level of consistency -- the prevention of accidental creation of duplicate articles which used to be a big problem -- is no longer relevant at this stage in the Wikipedia lifecycle, so I'm not going to get hung up about it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History: proposed merge and split

Please, go look at History of Alberta. It is currently pathetic. It needs help. This article's history is quite long. I propose narrowing the scope of the history section here and transferring some of the material (for example, about early exploration, oil boom, etc.) to History of Alberta. I also suggest we take as much as possible from the History sections of Edmonton, Lethbridge et all as well. If you are interested in helping please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Alberta! Thanks. Kevlar67 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)