Talk:List of the largest municipalities in Canada by population

message: The populations need to be updated. I know that Whitby, Ontario is at a population estimated at around 110 000, which is much more than the 87,413 stated on the list.
:The data is from 2001. Please wait until the next census to make changes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see why this list cannot be updated when cities or provinces conduct their own censuses.  This article is five years out of date, which makes it completely worthless in terms of encyclopedic value. Resolute 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers from the municipalities are estimates using various methods. Maybe a second column with more current estimates and the date and source of those estimates would be useful, but we wouldn't want to replace the census numbers with a hodgepodge of numbers from different times, using different estimating processes, and different definitions of what consitutes a resident. There's only one census. It comes every five years and there's nothing we can do about that. New data will be available soon, so this is as out of date as it gets. --Gary Will 04:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cities and provinces don't conduct their own censuses; they calculate their own unofficial estimates. The only body that conducts an actual census in Canada is the federal government. We can note unofficial estimates on the cities' own articles, as long as they're denoted as unofficial estimates; we cannot take these estimates as definitive replacements for official census figures. Bearcat 04:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am not sure why you felt the need to bring it up six weeks after the last activity on this topic, I will say that you are  completely incorrect when you state that cities do not conduct their own censuses.  The City of Calgary does, and it is not an estimate.  It is a physical enumeration, exactly as the Federal census is done.  I am reasonably certain that Airdrie does the same.   Also, frankly, this list as stands is worthless, as I can guarantee you that 100% of the figures are currently incorrect.   I am at a loss to understand why we are passing off worthless five year old data as current fact.  As of right now, civic censuses and estimates are far more reliable than the 2001 federal census data is.  This is why I suggested having one column for "current" population, and one for the population as of the last federal census. Resolute 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Populations need to be updated 

message: I just changed it because it was incorrect. The city is much larger thant only 1 million people. Nobody living in Canada could believe this lie.
:We've been through all this before. That was the population in 2001, so that's what's listed here. New census numbers with the 2006 municipal boundaries are released in March. Lots of cities have had changes to their borders over the last five years so we'll be seeing a lot of shifts. --Gary Will 23:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montréal population 

message: These figures contradict the things that are said in other articles about Canadian Cities. The figures here seems to be two times smaller than those in the articles. The hub 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some examples? --Kmsiever 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: These are numbers that change every year. Encyclopedic knowledge is for concepts that have some degree of stability. People who want real updated information need to go to GOVERNMENT SITES. That's what they're there for... There is no way that this list has any hope of being updated on a regular basis. In addition, ambiguities such as municipal and metropolitain are no small subject. Montreal's public transportation system is not a municipal one but a metropolitain one. So one should never discuss cities and knowingly exclude either of the municipal or metropolitain concepts of these cities. They are inseparable. Montreal viewed as a "municipality" for these purposes makes no sense at all, and I'm pretty darned certain it also makes little sense for other metropolitain cities of the world. IF we must have a list of largest cities, it certainly shouldn't be 100, but more like over 1 million or something of that nature. Let's choose a notion who's concept and results won't change on a yearly basis. This list belongs on a fluff website, not on an encyclopedic one.--Tallard 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of this article 

message: It is worth noting here and referencing elsewhere that the figures described for Ottawa are misleading because of the unique placement of Ottawa on the Ontario/Quebec border.  Any understanding of the population base of 'Ottawa' in a geographic sense ought to include the Quebec area described as 'Gatineau' -- the two regions represent a common population as concerns workplace, media outlets and shopping, to name but a few.  Though a broad-stroke description of Gatineau may describe it as French-speaking, in reality many Gatineau residents work in Ottawa, attend schools in Ottawa, describe themselves in loose terms as 'from Ottawa'.  Similarly, many Ottawa residents work in Gatineau located Federal Government offices ... though they are unlikely to describe themselves as being from 'Gatineau' (or 'Hull', as the urban centre of Gatineau was named until recent times).
The more accurate description of greater Ottawa as Ottawa-Gatineau is not frequently used in an 'official' way, presumably because of the interprovincial nature of such a description, but it would explain to those who have visited both why it is that 'Ottawa' seems larger than 'Calgary' -- the former achieves a population of over a million in the 2006 census when bundled with Gatineau -- the latter falls somewhat short of the same.  All three of the cities described use geographic boundaries that include suburban and 'bedroom' communities.
Though sometimes -- and even within Wiki -- the region is desribed as a 'municipal area' even this more reflective description is frequently missed.  An itemization of the recognized municipal areas by Stats Can does not include this interprovincial abberation, and readers unaware of the specific geography may dismiss the 'municipal area' term expecting it to include 'outlying' areas -- in the case of Ottawa-Gatineau the provincial border divides them at the heart of their respective urban centres; Gatineau and the bulk of Gatineau's population lay closer to downtown Ottawa than most of Ottawa's recognized (and included) suburbs.  In practice, there is no reason to exclude Gatineau from any discussion of Ottawa unless describing those handful of things that are by law excluded -- each has a separate mayor and municipal council, independent (though cooperating) public transit systems, distinct (and not cooperating) school boards, et cetera. 
Currently, I'm of the opinion that Ottawa should be understood to have a larger population than Calgary in any meaningful sense -- Calgary's growth rate being as it is, I reserve the right to change my opinion some time soon!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.225.43 (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is for the populations of individual municipalities. There's a separate list for the populations of metropolitan areas. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottawa population 

message: As one of fastest growing cities in Canada the population of Brampton Ontario is now about 500,000 not 432,000  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailgrove (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely so but that is an estimate and all figures in this article are from the 2006 census.  Updated populations for Brampton and all other municipalities will occur on this page in early 2012 when the forthcoming 2011 census results are released. Hwy43 (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brampton's Population 

message: Do we really need to keep the data from 2001 on this table? Just seems like this table will keep getting wider and wider with each new census. If we do this we might also have to add old census data as well. May as well just use the most recent two census data and the rest can be added on individual city's demographics category. Krazytea(talk) 19:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What about an "archive" list article at List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population in 2006 where the 2006 populations are compared with the 2001 census, and then this would just show 2011 compared back to 2006? Hwy43 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 Census 

message: Might be cool if someone added a column for population density.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.114.233 (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking the same thing. Though I don't know if I'd want to go and do all that by hand... (And yeah, I'm a n00b, so if there's a way to automate that column creation, teach me!) Zelbinian (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population density 

message: I reverted the recent trimming of the table from the four most recent censuses (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011) to two of the three most recent censuses (2001 and 2011). Listing only these two, and calculating a % change between the two, is original research. I'm not aware of a reliable source that publishes ten-year population change. The problem with doing so here is that a municipality's boundary in 2001 may have been smaller than it was in 2011. As a result, increases in population due to intervening boundaries adjustments (amalgamations and annexations) result in inflating % change. In reverting back to the four sets of census results, the same concern can be expressed about the "Change 1996-2011" column. A municipality could have experienced boundary adjustments between each intervening census period. This column should be removed from the table as it is original research and results in incorrect information. Hwy43 (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed removal of census content 

message: North Vancouver is listed twice (#61 and #100).  Might one of them be for West Vancouver?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.115.64 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Look two columns over in each entry. There are two municipalities in BC with the given name of "North Vancouver". One is a district municipality and one is a city. Hwy43 (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two North Vancouvers 

message: It is no coincidence that the municipalities that have the greatest increases and decreases in population are among those with the very smallest population. The reason this is often no mere coincidence is the very nature of the calculation of growth. That is, growth calculations depend on not only the change in the number of persons but also on the size of the population centre in the first place. Both of those numbers enter into the ratio that is growth: Change-in-population / Total-population. Clearly, a smaller "Total-population" results in a higher growth.
I propose therefore that the section be removed. 
If the section must be kept, then it would make (more) sense to break it down into several sections, perhaps by percentile of total population. That is, there could be the following sections: growth among cities in the 90th percentile, growth among cities in the 80th percentile, growth among cities in the 70th percentile. That seems a bit ridiculous, but to use larger percentiles, eg, "growth in cities in the 50th percentile" would suffer from the same problem as the existing lists: The charts would be dominated by the smallest cities in many cases (but, admittedly not ALL cases) simply because of the nature of the growth calculation -- it naturally emphasizes cities with smaller populations as noted above.
By the way, this problem with the growth calculation is a problem for ALL growth calculations -- not only for Population growth. For example, (almost) every time you hear somebody claim, "This is the fastest growth in the entire group"... you should ask yourself ... "Is this also the smallest in the whole group?" ... often "fastest growth" is practically synonymous with "smallest" ... again often because of the arithmetic behind the growth calculation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.204.219 (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See PDF pages 22-23 of 26 in the source for both tables. These come directly from Statistics Canada and is widely reported by others as a result. Why do you think StatCan cuts off the minimum threshold at 5,000 people? For exactly the reason you expressed above. It would be WP:OR in my opinion to do what you suggest for percentiles or any other arbitrary minimum thresholds. We are constrained to thresholds that are published by reliable sources. Hwy43 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth / Decline of small population centres 

message: I would suggest a further clarification in the introduction. This list as compiled is of single-tier and lower-tier municipalities. It excludes upper-tier municipalities such as regional municipalities and counties in Ontario. I don't think that's a bad thing, but the article is factually incorrect as it stadns as many of the regional municipalities in Ontario would place in the top 10 or 20 on the list. For instance, the Regional Municipality of Peel as of last census has a population of 1,296,814, making it the third most populous municipality in Canada. 142.132.10.62 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro states that for inclusion, a municipality is a census subdivision (CSDs). Regarding your example, sure Peel, York and others would rank high on the list, but we would likewise have to remove from the list all their constituent municipalities (eg - Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon for Peel). Of course, the regional municipalites are not CSDs, so this change isn't suitable for this article. I've shifted the link for census subdivision to its first mention in the intro, which should hopefully clarify. Mindmatrix 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Mindmatrix for the clarification. I gather the regions are categorized as census divisions, not subdivisions. Also, sorry for posting at the top. 142.161.63.8 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you're looking for is List of census divisions of Canada by population, and yes, regional municipalities are classified as census divisions. Mindmatrix 15:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional Municipalities and Counties

message: Should Victoria British Columbia be on this list? --75.155.220.51 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not missing. Look again. Hwy43 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Victoria BC' is missing

message: Since the removal of the long form Census by the forma conservative government, population statistics are outdated and no longer accurate. At Greenscore we track city populations as accurately as possible using Municipal, Provincial, Federal statistics sources in that respective order. I will update Rank, population. We calculate density with a different formula so it is not here.
Due to the restriction on data sources I am only changing the Rank and all population sources are listed on the individual city pages links. A reference to it will be included in the list. 
The Government of Canada will do a long form census in 2017 and after its release we can use them as a source again. --MKevlar 16:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , please review WP:CANPOP before making any population edits for any Canadian municipalities.Also a few corrections to your comments. The replacement of the mandatory long-form census with the National Household Survey (NHS) in 2011 is not the reason population counts are out of date. The population counts were not derived from the NHS; they were derived from the mandatory short-form census. While five years have passed, the 2011 census remains the most current source of population counts with a common base year for comparison among all municipalities in Canada.Also, the next census (with both short and long forms) is 2016, not 2017. Enumeration begins in 10 or so days. The resulting population counts will be published less than 10 months from now on February 8, 2017. Per WP:CANPOP, I suggest you wait to update replace federal census population counts and change ranks accordingly until mid-February. Hwy43 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Mkevlar reached out in response here. Also note I've made these slight adjustments to my original message above. Hwy43 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Please note as well that per our conflict of interest rules, you are not allowed to simply insert your own company's proprietary data into Wikipedia as a replacement for standard sourcing. And Hwy43 is correct as well that basic population statistics were derived from the short-form census that all Canadians were still obligated to fill out — the long-form census issue certainly means that some of the supplementary data (income distribution, etc.) for 2011 was problematic, but the basic population statistics were not impacted at all. So no, the 2011 census is not fundamentally invalid data in this context, and you do not get to arbitrarily impose your own company's data onto Wikipedia as a replacement for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , have you reviewed the WP:COI link that  provided above? It appears you have since added green rankings/ratings for 14 cities in Canada citing your or your company's GreenScore website. I assume you received from static from others in response to adding these, hence your reply to the nearly year-stale discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic Hwy43 (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing city population sources 

message: As of Feb 8, 2017, the populations for Canadian cites, and towns have been released. I have not finished making the different columns, so could somebody help me? Thanks, Happydawgs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happydawgs (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 Census 

message: , curious query for you. I have accessed the 1991 census population counts by census subdivisions. As you know, "census subdivisions" are usually "municipalities", but there are exceptions – unincorporated areas (too numerous to list) and subdivisions of county municipalities (in Nova Scotia). In 1991, the amalgamations of Halifax and Cape Breton had not occurred yet (happened in April 1996 and August 1995 respectively). Coming in at #99 in 1991 was Halifax, Subd. D – one of seven subdivisions of the county municipality named the "Municipality of the County of Halifax". The county municipality therefore had population of 136,882, making it #25 on the list of largest municipalities in Canada in 1991. This results in the census subdivisions ranked #25 through #98 becoming ranked #26 to #99.
Now summing all the other county municipality (CM) subdivisions into the full CM population counts, we have one more CM that crosses into the top 100 – the "Municipality of the County of Cape Breton" sums to 45,555, which by coincidence is good for #99 on the list. It pushes Newmarket from #99 to #100, while Medicine Hat (#100) falls out of the top 100.
Now I'm reluctant to say that adding the seven Halifax County subdivisions together to determine a population for the county municipality is WP:OR. Given the scope of a 1991 list would be the 100 largest municipalities, not census subdivisions, this addition of subdivisions is necessary to generate an accurate list. We have WP:CANPOP that states "… unless a) you know how to retrieve individual census tract data from the Statistics Canada site, … do not give an unsourced population estimate for a neighbourhood or community within an incorporated municipality. It is preferable for an article to have no population information at all than it is to give an unsourced or poorly sourced figure."
I assert that the subdivision of county municipality scenario I have described is no different that the census tract scenario described at CANPOP. As we know the seven county subdivisions equal the entire county municipality, then the sum of the parts must equal the whole. Therefore, listing Halifax County as #25 with the code  to produce a 1991 population of  in the table is not OR in my opinion, especially if supported with a referenced note indicating "The total population of the Municipality of the County of Halifax in 1991 was derived of summing the populations of its seven subdivisions – 10,814 (subdivision A), 14,611 (subdivision B), 45,667 (subdivision C), 37,289 (subdivision D), 18,211 (subdivision E), 6,130 (subdivision F) and 4,160 (subdivision G)."
So, is that acceptable when balancing WP:OR and WP:CANPOP? Note we won't (or shouldn't) have this problem in 1996 moving forward since the amalgamations took place before 1996 census enumeration (though StatCan does suffer from lags at times). Hwy43 (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I meant to start creating the 1991 list in my sandbox, but I mindlessly put it in article space. Can you move the work-in-progress List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population in 1991 to User:Hwy43/List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population in 1991 on my behalf please? I don't think it is quite ready, and was going to ask for feedback from you and the others here first before pushing it to article space. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I'd say you're correct about this. Because the boundaries of the municipality don't necessarily correspond exactly to the boundaries of the census subdivision in all places, it wouldn't be original research in that case to combine them. I know of at least one similar situation in Sudbury, where the Statistics Canada CMA of Sudbury did not correspond exactly to the actual regional municipality of Sudbury, but for some reason excluded the town of Capreol for many years — so in that instance a CMA list should reflect their number, but in the article about the RM we would need to do a two-step addition of the CMA population to the population of the town of Capreol. You're correct that the guideline statement above wouldn't apply to a matter like this. It would apply if you were trying to go the other way, taking a StatsCan population for Halifax as a whole and trying to isolate a population for a smaller portion of it that wasn't properly sourced to any breakdown data — but if you're combining data upward because the data is on smaller units than the actual municipal boundaries then no, that wouldn't be OR as long as the reference note clarifies where the data came from. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . And I spoke too soon as the problem persists in 1996, but with a new wrinkle. The amalgamation that created the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) came into effect on April 1, 1996. Census day for the 1996 census was May 14, 1996. Despite the amalgamation occurring before census day, StatCan had not yet caught up with the amalgamation, and the census results were issued as if all former municipalities still existed. In this case, I also think we are okay in summing all the parts into a population of the amalgamated HRM for a future List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada in 1996, so long as there are referenced notes that confirm how the final figures were determined and why they were determined (because StatCan had not yet acknowledged the amalgamation). Thoughts on this scenario? Hwy43 (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1991 census 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I actually liked the gallery at the bottom of this page, now the whole page has no images and is quite bland. Mattximus (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: Why is only the 100 largest included?  None of the other articles except for its sister take the largest 100 of something.  If it were discussed in secondary literature it would be notable so am I missing something?Catchpoke (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is notable but the title seems off.  List of the 100 largest cities and towns in Canada by area is another problematic article.Catchpoke (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just 100? 

message: This is a list article.  I've made a (since reverted) edit to remove the "Highest growth" and "Largest decreases" tables, as they should not be here.  See MOS:LIST.  Thoughts? 162 etc. (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: After every census, Statistics Canada publishes lists of the fastest growing and fastest declining census subdivisions, summarizes them in its data release highlights, and then such gets significant media coverage as a result. This is why these sub-lists are presented in this list. Hwy43 (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that make them relevant to an article named "List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population"? These sub-lists mostly include municipalities that are not in the Top 100.  Furthermore, the Top 100 table is sortable, so anybody can instantly see which places have the highest growth and largest decreases. 162 etc. (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorting won’t work because only two or those listed in the other tables are featured in the main table. Good point about scope in relation to the article title. We could simply split to resolve this. Hwy43 (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm not arguing the notability of these tables, but rather that they don't belong in this list article. 162 etc. (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the above, I have removed the two tables from the article. 162 etc. (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Maybe I will create a separate related article for the deleted content when I am as bored as heck during the next pandemic. Hwy43 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this article is and isn't 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lists of the 100 largest cities in Canada by population which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Hi, I did a few spot checks, North Bay and Chatham, and both had incorrect numbers from the 2021 census. Also there is no source to where these numbers come from. I undid the errors but now they are back, I don't want to start an edit war, but the numbers are wrong. Mattximus (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in table 

message: Someone has added a bunch of daggers and double-daggers to the city list. This is to indicate whether it is a provincial or federal capital, and whether it is the most populated city within its province. 
I reverted the edit because it clouds the info, it is distracting, it's not needed, and is not the standard on Wikipedia. 
My revert was reverted and told to follow BRD and take it to the talk page. That's not how BRD works. I reverted a bold edit. It's not (BRRBRD) Bold, Revert, Revert back, request others to discuss. 
If editors are just going to side with the non ip editors every time without even properly reviewing what the edits are, then what is the point of the review at all? I reverted a bold edit. The bold editor should justify the edition of a bunch of distracting daggers on the talk. The reverted should not be the one that has to justify the revert on the talk page. These are not Wikipedia's standards.  2605:B100:D3C:A57A:BCD6:7AE7:3ACE:BAAE (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear the daggers were added on January 20th, 2024. While you were correct in that the proper B.R.D. process was not followed, it is best to bring it to the talk page either way. I would agree they are distracting, not needed, and don't appear on other countries lists. I will remove the daggers and if any editors disagrees we can discuss here. Also, I noticed the United States article uses colours, which perhaps could be a resolution.  Itooksomepics (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of daggers & double-daggers