Talk:Calgary/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ahh don't think i had ever noticed that. --Djsasso 19:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Downtown Streets

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm running Firefox as well and it does extend. Phoenix2 02:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It also extends on IE. A little investigation indicates that it's something in the  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)
thread_title:  Why does this article extend past the normal horizontal length? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Calgary's neigbourhoods 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political scene 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  calgarytransit.com is misleading 

message: 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)
replies: text: What are you suggesting should be changed (or changed back) in the article?  --rob 08:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Why are national papers listed locally? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Royal Conservatory of Music and the"Jubes" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  pictures removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Attractions and landmarks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Street Numbering Starting at 100 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  history of annexation and where to put it 

message: 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)
thread_title: Newspapers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Fair enough. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Tall Tower 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disallowed Goal in Stanley Cup Playoffs 

message: 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)
thread_title: Invasion of Iraq

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Land area

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  cleanest city? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Article size

message: 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)
thread_title: To do

message: 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)
thread_title:  Calgary Wikipedia Meetup 

message: 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)
thread_title: Metropolitan area

message: "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)
thread_title:  Language 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: The location map (:Image:Altacal.png) used in the infobox has been flagged for deletion by next week if license details are not provided.  uploaded the image, but has not yet responded to the request to provide license details. —GrantNeufeld 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Arch26 05:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location map 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Annexing of Land 

message: :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)
thread_title: Buffalo

message: 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)
thread_title:  Urban footprint 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: 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)
thread_title: Municipal Government

message: 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)
replies: text: It also is the location of the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame.--Djsasso 19:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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... Perhaps this is the source of the confusion??? SKE 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nashville of the North? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Error on the page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: Support: same reason as above. Arch26 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Glenn (Alberta)|John Glenn]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hailstorm Trend 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fair Use 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  List of Calgary media outlets 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support Ozzykhan 20:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  History: proposed merge and split