Talk:Mississauga/Archive 2

message: http://www.radisson.com/mississauga-hotel-on-l5t2z7/onmisair/locations
I think the 3 pictures shown here would be perfect to post near the attractions paragraph, however I do not know how to properly cite it
thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliepond1 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: While working on Ian Campbell, a disambiguation page, I saw that this page linked there.  I've commented out his entry from the notable people section because I was unable to verify the information.  I took a look at the Square One Shopping Centre external website and conducted a couple of Google searches which, though not exhaustive I know, only turned up one related reference, which contains a mirror of this article (see ).  By "commented out" I mean bracketed with  in the place it was sitting in the article, so the information remains but is not visible, pending verification.  User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ian Campbell" among notable people 

message: "While being in the top ten Canadian cities by population, Mississauga is bereft of cultural institutions for a community its size due to the proximity to Toronto. It is the largest city in Canada by far with no daily newspaper, television stations, or commercial radio stations. A bedroom city to Toronto in the truest sense, Mississauga is virtually unknown outside of Ontario."
Saying that Mississauga has no daily newspaper makes it sound as if it has no newspapers at all.  Quite the contrary...we have the 'Mississauga News'...also, we have our local Rogers community cable station...something which was not mentioned as well.
It's true they weren't, but then again, The Mississauga News and Rogers 10 are not genuine big-city media outlets in the truest sense. Not by a long shot.
Not to mention how many Toronto Radio Station Transmitters (CFRB, CHUM, at Present, CFTR-680 News in the past) have been located in Mssa. Isn't "The Weather Channel" located in Mississauga?
CJMR (1320 AM) was started as "Mississauga Radio", although it's now located in Oakville.
Bacl-presby 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mississauga newspaper/local tv station 

message: I started an article on the Mississauga_train_derailment_of_1979, an important historical event. I simply copied and pasted all the tidbits about the event from various other articles that mention it. But now the article obviously needs to be reorganized in a coherent manner. I thought maybe somebody interested in Mississauga or history might take a hack at it?--Sonjaaa 14:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did some minor editing to it - basically structural/wiki stuff. It still needs copyediting, though. Mindmatrix 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mississauga_train_derailment_of_1979

message: A CURIOUS THING: The article for Ensenada, B.C., Mexico (in it's español version) lists Mississauga as one of its sister cities? Why is this not reflected here? Is there a way to fact check that? Are sister city designations possibly ONE-WAY and not reciprocal? If anyone has any guesses, (or wants to add Ensenada to the sister city list in the article) that's be great. Thanks to all the editors for the good work on this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.137.58 (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your last question, have you tried searching for it? It's at Mississauga Transit, where one would expect it to be. Regarding sister cities, this is just a political friendship thing, usually determined by city councils, and used to promote trade with foreign companies. In this case, it's also because of Paul Kariya. Finally, regarding the suburbs, yes, Mississauga is a suburb of Toronto. It has been for a long time. It is also a major economic centre itself, especially to Brampton and other nearby areas, but there's a reason that Statistics Canada puts Mississauga in the Toronto CMA. Mindmatrix 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, oops. I even knew that, but for some reason blanked on it when typing my reply above. Anyway, here's some information about the sister city relationship:  . Hope this clarifies things. Mindmatrix 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Re:Mississauga Transit, perhaps the link needs to be bolded in the article (and Monthly passes were added but the box also needs revising!) Bacl-presby 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if I've misunderstood you, but Kariya is mentioned at the end of the first paragraph of this article. It's been there for quite some time. Regarding the bolding, I don't think it's necessary - we should respect the Manual of Style for such things. If the link is easily missed, we should instead clean up the article to make sure it can be readily found. In this case, we should write some text for the Transportation section, instead of having several lists. Mindmatrix 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: oops, can't see the forest for the trees!Bacl-presby 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister City 

message: What the insistance on IPA for writing pronunciation? Most people don't have a clue how to decipher it. A.L.--70.24.71.154 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because every other pronunciation method itself has varied pronunciation depending on person, region, and what they think you are trying get across. The "Miss-iss-sah-gah" that was inserted is completely wrong to me.  If I were to use non-IPA, it would be "miss-i-saw-guh".  But even that is very confusing—vowels are pronounced different all over the English world, so any representation like this will be pronounced differently based on what dialect the person reading it speaks. The only way pronunciation can be represented correctly is through the use of IPA.  That many people won't understand it is unfortunate, but unavoidable (although there is the link to the International Phonetic Alphabet so that people can educate themselves).  You can always add a sound file to really get the pronunciation across. OzLawyer 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that a phonetic such as "Miss-eh-saw-ga (underline=accent)", with a reference to Mississipi would be of some use, because I've tried to read the IPA "language" rules and just don't have time to make heads or tails of it. I'd rather learn Cantonese. :-) And my (computer) system has no clue what to do with the pronunciation by sound card/speakers (and I don't have time to see the more-info link, because it shouldn't take much, like whatever Mississipi uses is what Mississauga should be using) to explain pronunciation.  Just one opinion, hopefully of some use, someday. --S-Ranger 21:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA Pronuctiation 

message: The demographics page regarding the ethnic make-up of the city is much too long. Maybe a chart of the largest ethnic origins over 40,000 people should be listed. The list we have currently is much to long. Galati 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: It's irrelevant to me, if it happens to come up and someone happens to be from Mississauga, they say that they're from Mississauga, not Mississaugan (I assume).  But many articles include a sentence such as, "Residents of <wherever> are known as <whatever>."
It only comes up when trying to refer to the residents of, usually a municipality in the U.S. and Canada, surely others, but it's worthy information for an encyclopedia, IMO.  I assume that the proper term is Mississaugans, but someone who knows for certain might want to add it to the intro, first couple of paragraphs or so. --S-Ranger 00:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's almost always "Mississaugan", but I don't think "Mississaugian" is totally unheard of.  If I were going to add it to the article, I wouldn't bother mentioning "Mississaugian", though. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input.  Now we just need someone to add "Residents of Mississauga are [called | known as] Mississaugans." Flip a coin? :-) --S-Ranger 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small point for the introduction 

message: From the Mississauga mainspace article:
:"Despite its size, Mississauga is thought of by some as a suburb of Toronto as the two cities' urban sprawls are indistinguishably linked. As Toronto has continued to grow economically, Mississauga has followed suit, building predominantly low-density tract housing and high rise condominiums to attract individuals tired of city life." ... (bold for emphasis only)
It continues on, along with what is mentioned previously (impressive transportation infrastructure, etc.) to state that Mississauga is a city, not whatever a bedroom suburb of Toronto is, which makes what I'd call "to attract the skilled human resources [or human capital and investment capital] the city needs", as opposed to making it sound like it is some, whatever a "bedroom suburb" is, with people tired of "real city life" (presumably in Toronto, which may or may not be the case, there is no verification; how many newcomers are from other countries in much larger cities?) as though Mississauga IS a bedroom community where people from "the real cities" move to, because Mississauga is not a real city, which is then contradicted again and rightly so.
I could see that being said of the (moving further and further north) cottage country, but of Mississauga?  The suburbs of Toronto are "indistinguishably linked" to Mississauga, but people are moving to Mississauga, which is quite a big city compared to most of the Canadas, to escape city life?
It makes my head spin.  Any thoughts? --S-Ranger 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a pamphlet, without further information regarding how such numbers were come to, is not reliable, as cities often over-estimate their populations.  The approximately 673,000 number I have re-added to the page has been confirmed to have been come to by statistical analysis of a reputed consulting firm hired by the Region of Peel (see Talk:Brampton, Ontario#Population_Estimates for an email from the RoP confirming this). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: Ethnic Origin	Population	Percent
Canadian     	105,215   	17.22%
English      	89,980    	14.73%
East Indian  	68,890    	11.27%
Scottish     	59,305    	9.70%
Irish        	56,345    	9.22%
Italian      	48,035    	7.86%
Polish       	42,005    	6.87%
Black        	37,850    	6.19%
Chinese      	35,955    	5.88%
Portuguese   	31,795    	5.20%
The table above (removed from the mainspace Demographics section), the source it is based on, does not state population it states Total responses and if you add them up from the source the total responses are 865,435, which is quite a bit over the 2001 Census population of the Mississauga CSD at 612,925 as per the source used for most demographics in the article, the 2001 Census "Community Highlights" tables and specifically the Mississauga CSD/Municipality/City Community Highlights tables.
But the source for the Ethnic Origin table is Selected Ethnic Origins, for Census Subdivisions (Municipalities) With 5,000-plus Population - 20% Sample Data - Mississauga, City.  Please hold down a [Shift] key and click on that link to get the source of this mess open, drag the right scrollbar to the bottom as soon as it loads and read footnote 2:
 (emphasis added by me)
This explains why there were 865,435 total responses (create a spreadsheet and check it yourself, or add it all up with an abacus) when the population of Mississauga was only 612,925, which also explains why "Population" is nowhere close to the correct heading for the table above.  The correct heading, if the Total response column from the source is going to be used, is Total responses and then explaining it.  You could always post footnote 2 under the table, though people from wherever browsing Wikipedia might not have a clue what it's supposed to mean.
Total Single responses are 426,050, total Multiple responses are 439,415.
What the Total population column at the top of the source table is supposed to mean, well your guess is as good as StatsCan't's (oops; that could be illegal; the double single possessive quote and contraction quote I mean) is, which isn't much. Feel free to ask them at infostats@statcan.ca
There are probably not 89,980 people from ENGLAND in Mississauga.  It is simply what people responded with when asked for their ethnic origin on the long forms that only go to 33% of the population (2001 Census) so 20% data means 20% of however many of 33% of the responses they actually received back properly completed were.  My ethnic origin is U.K. and if StatsCan asked me about ORIGIN I might be stupid enough to respond with U.K. even though my family has lived in Toronto (and the before-maths of) for at least 8 generations, which means that when I am asked what my ethnic origin is, I say Torontonian.  But that's simple because they turn that into "Canadian."
And I could answer English, Irish, Scottish, Aboriginal and who knows what else.  Just look at the user pages of those who advertise their ethnic origins with country flags; there are usually quite a few and that's how the "multiple responses" get in there along with meaningless responses like South Asian, African (Black), Yugoslav (it doesn't exist and hasn't for quite some time), Latin/Central/South American, EUROPEAN (to clue in the whiteys out there; what is a European? Who has descended from all of Europe, every single cult and Kingdom and Empire in all of the iterations of "Europe"?) Scandinavian (Norwegian, Finnish, Danish, Icelandic, which one?)and I'm surprised not to see Carribean n.i.e. and Asian n.i.e.(not indicated elsewhere as footnote 1 explains) on the list or even North American n.i.e..  What about all of the people who have dual citizenship in the U.S. and Canada and probably the U.S. and Mexico and Canada and Mexico as well.
It's not "ethnic origin" but the whole point of this is that whatever someone responds with is what Statistics Canada gets; not what they want or anything that is verified or it would be a violation of many federal and provincial statutes and the Statistics Canada Act.
The total responses column is the one to use but it's not population by any stretch and no percentages can be derived from it that mean anything other than the percentages of the actual total responses: 865,435.  If either of the other two columns are used then it's absolutely worthless.
Not so much around these tables (the worthless "Languages spoken at work" tables that authors use as though it means languages spoken most often in the municipality, which is quite wrong for the City of Toronto and the City of Mississauga if the commuting claims on the mainspace article are anywhere near accurate, because there will be Cantonese, Mandarin and Chinese n.o.s. (none other specified), so all three have to be added up to get "Chinese") also have to look at the "n.i.e." categories, even though there are none with more than 10,000 responses and who picked that number and why, even though the table never showed up? [Whomever had written "(see the table below for ethnic groups with 10,000 or more PEOPLE)" in the Demographics section but there was no such table so I deleted it.]
Take a look at the percentages based on the actual number of total responses, which I arbitrarily dropped when it went below 1.00% (close enough to 10,000 in Total responses as you'll see), which is all any percentages can be based on:
Selected Ethnic Origins1, for Census Subdivisions (Municipalities) With 5,000-plus Population - 20% Sample Data
2001 Census, Mississauga, City
Ethnic origin       	Totalresponses2	% ofTotalresponses
Canadian            	               	12.16
"English" (politics)	               	10.40
East Indian         	               	7.96
Scottish            	               	6.85
Irish               	               	6.51
Italian             	               	5.55
Polish              	               	4.85
Chinese             	               	4.62
Portuguese          	               	3.67
"French" (politics) 	               	3.28
German              	               	3.10
Filipino            	               	2.99
Jamaican            	               	2.46
Ukrainian           	               	1.99
Pakistani           	               	1.32
Spanish             	               	1.07
Croatian            	               	1.06
Dutch (Netherlands) 	               	1.05
Vietnamese          	               	1.02
Greek               	               	0.78
1 Includes origins with total response counts of 15,000 or more for Canada.
2 Respondents who reported multiple ethnic origins are counted more than once in this table, as they are included in the multiple responses for each origin they reported. For example, a respondent who reported "English and Scottish" would be included in the multiple responses for English and for Scottish.
_____
There is only a 0.25% difference between Pakistani (10,000 or more responses, not population) and Spanish.  But below 1% of total responses, given how close it is to 10,000 or more responses, seems a bit more reasonable.
Whether the table above is of use as is, or should be turned into a pie chart/graphic that no one can see or make heads or tails of as is goin on around other pages, is up to everyone to decide.  Or just align the above right, stick the ref cite (commented out in the first table as it would make no sense on this page) to the first column of the table above as in the first table and run it along the right side of the text; but it's probably too long as is and I'm not cutting it arbitrarily at 10,000 responses or more because the percentages of the actual total responses are too close for that; but anyone else can feel free. :) --S-Ranger 11:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic origin table 

message: From the Attractions section of the mainspace article, this, as it was:
...makes no sense.  Sporting equipment or facilities?  Do you have to rent the nets for the hoops and string them or something?  A hockey area is not sporting equipment. Sticks, pucks, nets if they aren't in place, helmets, skates and other gear would be equipment.  Skateboards, knee pads, helmets, etc., would be equipment for a skateboarding area, but not the area itself unless you have to rent that and "assemble it" then disassemble it and return it when you're done.
I was going to delete it all (in the parentheses) because I can't make heads of tails of it, but perhaps someone else can figure out what it's supposed to be claiming with no verification as usual. --S-Ranger 12:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just cleaned it up a bit, very minor, but I think it makes a bit more sense.
--JordanZed 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attractions 

message: The  tag (displays a 'box' stating "This article or section may need a complete rewrite.") was added for glaring reasons.
The introduction has been cleaned up somewhat, different subjects have been given their own paragraphs (one line or not even) as different subjects are supposed to have, so that everyone can see what is actually documented and, perhaps, how to put it all together so that it flows in some logical manner, even if bullets (bullet points) have to be used to state disjointed little facts that probably won't flow with anything: though I can't say that I've ever seen an intro for this type of article with lists of bullet points in the intro.
Everything from "The city is debt-free and has not borrowed money since 1978." (totally unverified and it's been tagged with , along with everything below it, is being deleted on 2007-03-23 (whenever I have a chance) as it has all been pointed out for months and months that it's all unverified so it's totally meaningless in an encyclopedia and I'm not supposed to be giving any "warning" about removing alleged, unverified anything: just deleting it on sight but I've seen it all about 100 times now and time is up.
If y'all want to copy the messes to some work_in_progress sub/stub, your talk page, text editor, whatever, feel free.  But don't post it in the Mississauga article again until everything is verified.  Or why not put it right here with what needs verification now (it's been MONTHS) if it's going to stay in the article:
The city is debt-free and has not borrowed money since 1978.[verification needed]
:
With ZERO verification it's all gone (from the main article) and you'll never find adequate verification for Wikipedia to back up what is nothing more than whining and moaning about nothing. The "culture" in Mississauga is about the same as it is in every middle-class suburb -- suburban culture like mowing the lawn and waving to neighbors who are doing the same, shoveling/blowing the driveway and waving at neighbors (if they can be seen) while doing so, planting tomatoes, flowers, pruning hedges, having tea parties to discuss tulips and such ... waiting for buses that take a long time to come and so on.  And probably not engaging in even "suburban culture" while waiting with others or on buses.
Y'all are simply going through real life at the moment for a change, just like "Old Toronto" did, York, East York, North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke did. Welcome to the world; sort of.  There's a lot more to come and there's a lot more you'll all be bitching and moaning about in 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 years unless the "Ontario" and confederate feds keep stealing most of our money to hand away to the rest of the Ontarios and Canadas and then we'll all have moved to the U.S. or the like and the former "GTA thing" will rot much more quickly.
The intro alone to the Mississauga article made it sound as though suburbs (and the usual around all of them) is something new and unusual or something.  It's not.  It's just new for y'all, no one else and this isn't your personal web page for use by Mississaugans only; it's an encyclopedia that the world has free access to and if y'all think that they need to know anything about suburbs that they don't already know much better than Mississauga does so far; then document it in the suburb article (and watch it get deleted there), not in the Mississauga article.  There is nothing "special" about Mississauga; or Toronto either as the urban core of this city-region other than the billions of dollars a year the 'Ontario' and confederate feds steal from us, while dumping their own responsibilities/expenses on us as well.
And I am not dictating anything.  Wikipedia is and this post shouldn't even exist after the MONTHS the editors of this article have had to get proper verification in place.  I, anyone who runs across the main article should just immediately delete any/all unverified "facts" given that the #1 problem Wikipedia has are articles like the Mississauga article: It is not considered to be a reliable source of information entirely due to specific facts being thrown around with nothing at all to back them up. —S-Ranger 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article or section may need a complete rewrite 

message: :Image:Mississaugacoa.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mississaugacoa.gif

message: Why is he even included in the "people from Mississauga" section?
Perhaps he lived here for a few years, but he's been born and lived for a number of years in Poland as well as England and Belgium. This does not make him from Mississauga.
His anme should be removed.
Norum (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is "Notable people from or residing in Mississauga". So he meets the criteria. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomasz Radzinski 

message: I removed the partial list of people from Mississauga. The list included people born, live, and use to live in Mississauga. It has been tagged for over 2 years (October 2008). The list had to go. If anyone wants to re add an improved list, please feel free. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  People from Mississauga 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mississauga Montage 2012.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion