Talk:Ottawa

Picture

Can we please get a better looking picture of Ottawa? This one looks old and it's our Capital city. We really need a new one, maybe even a montage like Washington DC. I think something with the Parliament Buildings would be nice. Nations United (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I say BE BOLD! ..lots of choices ... not sure how good they are and i am sure there are many more outside this proper category --> commons:Category:Ottawa.......Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Nations United you are bordering on Edit warring and are in danger of infringing on the three-revert rule. Discussion doesn't mean suggesting a main image change and instantly changing it 12 hours later after one comment (which you did). May I suggest leaving major edits to more senior editors or discussing major edits in length on the discussion page. I see you've had similar incidents with Montreal and Vancouver articles. NationalCapital (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the main infobox image change, I am all for it. I would like to hear from a few more editors on this subject first however. Maybe a few image suggestions can be posted on this discussion page. I also think the current image should remain somewhere in the article as it is picturesque. NationalCapital (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I just read Wikipedia's rules and I didn't know that you had to discuss really major edits for a long time before changing them. I thought it's okay to change it after one person has approved. I'm new here so I didn't really know. Once again I'm sorry and I would really like to discuss this because it looks like it's not just me that wasnts the image changed, as you can see with the other posts. Nations United (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would like to propose a montage. Considering Ottawa is the capital I think it deserves a montage. I think it would look really great. If you look at Washington DC's montage you can see hiow nice it would look. Nations United (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you guys are being unnecessarily harsh on Nations United, there are no rules anywhere that say he can't be bold with the infobox image, and you guys reverted him without giving a good (or any) reason. This is not the process laid out in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. He makes a change and if you disagree with it you revert it and take it to the talk page. You don't just say "take it to the talk page" for any change you deem to be "too bold".

I like the new image he put up, at least I like it more than the old image, does anyone disagree? TastyCakes (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally like the night image because it shows a number of Ottawa landmarks (specifically the Peace Tower, Rideau Canal and Chateau Laurier) even though its quality is pretty poor. I don't think that the picture should be solely of the Parliament Buildings; while it may be one of (if not the) most distinguishing features/landmarks, it doesn't really illustrate anything about the city as a whole. I would be cool with a montage if someone was up to it, though there would have to be a bit of discussion as to what images/subjects should be used. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Population 2

A new population report by StatsCan (news article) puts Ottawa-Gatineau's population as 1,220,674, with Calgary's CMA having surpassed Ottawa's. It seems as though the debate over this is that StatsCan's number is an estimate (it didn't say this in the ref, but it may elsewhere). However, the current population for Ottawa is also an estimate: the other population ref (City of Ottawa, 2008) has a footer saying "City of Ottawa year-end estimates based on ...", and the number is determined by "City of Ottawa, Research and Forecasting Unit, Planning and Growth Management". If we are to stick with non-estimates, then we need to go back to the 2006 census. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Question are this stats a guesstamation or from a new poll?? ,,Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm how official is this new estimate? Is there a link to the actual Statscan report? Does Statscan release a new population estimate every year? If so, I don't see why we shouldn't update it, but if it's not very official maybe we should wait until a proper report comes out. It seems that most Canadian cities use the last census numbers (2006), so maybe there is a precedent for this and we shouldn't go changing it (at least in the infobox) until the next census number is available. TastyCakes (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the StatsCan report; it sounds pretty legit to me (other than the whole "estimate" issue). I think that it would make sense to keep the census numbers in the infobox, but have this new estimate clearly labeled as such in the intro. I'm a bit worried that it will be confusing to have the whole "fifth-largest" thing in there too, because the page linked (List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada) goes by census numbers only. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Statistics Canada is the government agency who's function is to track exactly this. Probably the best way to deal with it is to state "In the 2006 census, Ottawa's population was x, fourth in the country. The 2009 census estimate placed Ottawa fifth at y." Gives the reader both the last StatsCan population count and the current estimate. Ditto other cities. Resolute 05:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good way to do it: leave the infobox (where the link is to a list by 2006 numbers) and mention the recent estimate and rank change in the article text. TastyCakes (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

2006 official Canadian census stats have always been used for all Canadian City and metropolitan population figures. Any other stat besides official census stats have always been instantly reverted. So I guess we only use unofficial stats and estimates if they’re in Calgary’s favour ? Let’s have every Canadian city use official 2006 census stats and Calgary use a 2009 estimate so they can stroke their ego’s. Oh and we’ll still link to all the 2006 census info. Awesome ! Lol, seems kind of ridiculous to me. Is Calgary that eager to say their number 4 ? PhilthyBear (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this quite personally. And yes, the infobox has always retained the last national census figure. However, on many articles, the lead is updated to include the most recent civic census or census estimate. The reason for this is simple: The 2006 census is now four years out of date. StatsCan's latest estimate is accurate to last July. People looking up these cities want to know today's data, not that which existed nearly half a decade ago. Resolute 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya, don’t you guys realize having 2 sometimes 3 different population figures in the same article is both accurate and encouraged ? You have to understand nothing this big has happened in Calgary since the 88’ Olympics, just give it to them. The rest of the Country will continue to use 2006 census info. NationalCapital (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, New York City, Montreal and others. But let's put aside the ad hominem attacks, shall we? What, honestly, is wrong with having two separate figures? What harm is there in stating both the last national census figure and the most recent census estimate or civic census? It seems to me that the latter presents the more accurate picture, while your argument centres around WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Resolute 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, to use a parallel example, if someone changed the roster section on Ottawa Senators to that of who was on the team back in 2005-06, would you leave it that way, or would you update it to reflect the team's status of today? Resolute 14:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That is by far the worst comparison I have ever seen. PhilthyBear (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Only because you don't like it. But please, answer the question: Do you believe readers want four year old information or current information? Resolute 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If choosing between 4 year old accurate information, and current (potentially inaccurate) estimates, I believe readers want accurate census data. PhilthyBear (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

But why not both? As long as you stated 2006 is the census, and 2009 is the estimate, readers are given both pictures, are told how each was derived, and given the choice to accept or reject either figure as per their own faith in the census and the estimate. Resolute 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help resolve this issue. Calgary continues using the estimates, and Ottawa and others can continue using the census data. When the real census comes out, both can be changed to reflect the latest census data. PhilthyBear (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia's system is that it does not work on precedents. If the discussion on each talk page results in different local consensuses, then that is fair. That said, I do believe that readers would find it beneficial to know the current population estimate. If you wish to simply strike the comments stating that the Ottawa CMA has fallen to 5th nationally, feel free. Resolute 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Having two articles saying two different things does not seem like a good idea to me. We should reach consensus on this issue and make both article agree with each other. As to your assertion that all Canadian cities use the census data, that appears to be true, however that is obviously not true for many other cities, like most US ones (New York City, for example), or British ones (London, for example). The reason, apparently, is that Canada's latest census is much more recent than most countries. However, as time goes on it too becomes more and more out of date (Calgary's metropolitan population, for example, has grown by about 14% since the census). Because the latest Statscan estimate indicates a significant change, namely a rank change, in my opinion it deserves mention here. I believe we'll find that other articles in a similar situation have updated their numbers, but if not please feel free to point them out. TastyCakes (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Using estimates will open the doors for inaccurate information across the board. Read the first paragraph of the Canada 2006 Census article. It speaks of the inaccuracy of Stats Canada estimates. The population was off by over 2 million ! That’s an error of almost 6% of the Canadian population. Estimates are just that, estimates. Official census data has always been used for every other instance. I believe Calgarians have become a little over zealous on this issue. I understand the excitement of becoming a higher rank in population, but wait until it’s official before declaring it. The next census is next year, and it’s inevitable that Ottawa will be surpassed at sometime in the near future if not already based on Calgary’s growth rate. Patience. PhilthyBear (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct, plus Ottawa’s population figures are already inundated with stats. Being a unique metro area lying in 2 provinces it would need a series of stats (Ottawa – Census,Estimate. Ottawa-Gatineau - Census,Estimate. National Capital Region - Census,Estimate.) that would confuse readers and flood the page. Ottawa-Gatineau is Stats Canada’s CMA, but the regions population is actually quite bigger than just these two cities. The National Capital Region includes neighboring towns into the population. Calgary has little to no neighboring towns of significant populations. We would need to update so many figures if every annual estimate is used. I think only accurate census data should be used. 2011 isn’t that far away. NationalCapital (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remember that the figure used currently for Ottawa is an estimate, and there has been no arguing of this before. It seems as though consensus is fine with using this estimate, but Philthy and others have a problem with the new figure. I think everyone should assume good faith here-- the issue is not whether Calgary is bigger than Ottawa, it is whether estimates are valid to be used (in context). I don't think anyone should bring up possible POV-pushing one way or another; it's totally irrelevant.

I have no problem with using actual (non-estimated) figures in the infobox (2006 census in Ottawa's infobox, and either 2006 census or 2009 civic census in Calgary's) but also mentionning the estimated update in the text. The new estimate is from a reliable source, and is much more likely to be accurate than the outdated 2006 census numbers. If the estimate is used in the text, then maybe it shouldn't be mentionned that Calgary surpassed Ottawa, as this seems to be the most contentious bit; leaving fourth-largest in 2006 is indisputable and also fits with List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada (it would be weird to say fifth-largest and link to a page that says fourth). -M.Nelson (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that the two articles (Calgary and Ottawa) should not say conflicting things; hopefully we can set some sort of standard for all city articles with respect to using estimated population numbers versus actual. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly let me thank M.nelson for singling me out, I appreciate that. Although I may come across harshly I assure you that is not my intention. Perhaps I should "lighten up" my text a little bit. Secondly Ottawa has always used 2006 Census data for its population figures. Every attempt to change it to estimates has always been reverted promptly. It wasn’t until this conflict arose that mainly Calgary area editors began repeatedly changing it to estimates. It must stay at census figures or we must be change every single CMA in the country and every list must be changed as well as to not conflict. Then at the 2011 census when real data comes out it must all be changed again. Seems kind of ridiculous considering Stats comes out with these “estimates” annually. Are we going to go through this every year ? PhilthyBear (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No offense was intended; you just appeared to be the most vocal proponent of your position. You're right that in the interest of consistency, if Calgary and Ottawa are to use the updated estimates, all CMAs should. I don't think that this would be a bad thing (updating once a year with the StatsCan report wouldn't be too much work, and we would be presenting the most recent numbers), but before arbitrarily adding the estimates, consensus really should be developed. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we go through such updates every year? Wikipedia is not meant to be static. Resolute 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with updating the figures annually either, however my only concerns are:

1) Calgary does annual civic census'. Ottawa and most other CMA's do not. Some estimates will be more accurate than others

2) Does Stats Canada even use these civic census' ?

3) Only CMA's get annual estimates. Are we to use estimates for CMA's and 2006 Census data for smaller cities and towns ?

4) I believe you will come across many opponents trying to change all CMA's to estimates. Many editors are very vocal on using only Census data.

5) As stated in Canada Census 2006 how accurate are these estimates ?

6) Will estimates be used in the article and census data in the infobox ?

All these issues should be worked out before any changes (either way) are made. PhilthyBear (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that all CMA articles would need to be changed because this is mentioned here (and presumably in the Calgary article). As I think we've all agreed at some point, the infobox wouldn't change. The article (at some point) would simply mention that in the latest estimate, Ottawa is now thought to be the fifth largest CMA, not the fourth. That seems to me relevant, verifiable and notable information and I see no reason not to include it. If the latest estimate revealed a significant change in any other city (ie a change in rank), I would absolutely support including a mention of it there too.

I don't think it has to be in the intro, but I don't think there are good reasons to exclude mention of the new estimate from somewhere in the article, the demographics section being the obvious choice. TastyCakes (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this is only a Calgary/Ottawa issue. I think that if we can declare that these estimates are the best population indicators (evaluating accuracy and currentness) on these two articles, then they should be the best indicators on all city articles; either the estimates are considered 'better' than census (thus will be used to supplement, not replace, census numbers in articles), or the estimates are worse than census and should not be used at all. The issue of Calgary surpassing Ottawa is merely secondary to this. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well unfortunately I don't think we can objectively judge one to be better than the other. As was pointed out above, the census is more accurate for when it was done but the estimate is more up to date - there is a trade off there, and which is better seems to me a personal preference. I think reporting both is a good idea when there is a significant difference between the two, and I think this is such a situation. But again, is there no Wikipedia style suggestions somewhere as to what type of population data to use in situations like this? TastyCakes (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I moved my proposal to Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Population proposal as it is relevant Canada-wide. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New Picture Options

I have found some pictures that I think could be a good replacement for the old looking existing picture. Please tell me if you like any of them and if many people really like any one of them, with everyone's permission, I will change the existing picture to the better one. Nations United (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Picture 1
• 
  Picture 2
• 
  Picture 3
• 
  Picture 4

I think Picture 1 shows more of Gatineau than Ottawa, Picture 2 looks like a 1970's postcard, Picture 3 shows a construction site, and Picture 4 isn't too shabby. I am all for changing the main picture, but I'm not sure if any of these would be a good substitute. I do commend you on your initiative. I say we keep looking and I'm sure we'll find something. I have compiled a "collage" but I took one pic off the internet and I'm not sure about copyright requirements. I wrote the author and asked permission but they haven't wrote back. I am also unsure of the whole upload process, I've never done it before. Po' buster (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I like picture 1, but if it is showing mostly Gatineau I guess it isn't appropriate. I agree picture 4 is nice too. Are you still thinking of making a collage, Nations United? Out of the ones so far, I think the existing infobox picture, the picture of capital hill you switched it to before and picture 4 above would all be good in a collage. TastyCakes (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to make a montage or collage. If I did then I would be making it but I have no idea how to. That's why I wanted to ask someomne else to try to make one. Nations United (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The City's website has a few nice images as well which are free to use. They can be found here [1] I think some of them could even replace other images in the article not necessarily the main infobox image. Here [2] is the image which I added to my collage that I can't seem to get a response from the author. He wrote back saying he wasn't very familiar with wikipedia and that was the last I heard from him. It's honestly one of the nicest images of Ottawa I've ever seen. There isn't too many out there that capture the skyline. Po' buster (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are some good pictures there, but I think it's preferable to have fully free use images in the collage rather than fair use ones. I'm not ideologically opposed to using non-free pictures, but I'd hate to see someone spend time making a nice collage and then have it deleted for license reasons later on, and it would be nice if it could be put on Wikimedia Commons so it could be shared between Wikipedia's more easily (I don't think a montage including the City of Ottawa pictures would be allowed on Commons). TastyCakes (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, here is the Commons category for Ottawa, there are a bunch of pictures there, mostly in the sub categories. I found a couple pictures of the Rideau Canal I thought were quite nice:

• 
• 

TastyCakes (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like the one on the left because it just shows the Rideau Canal but I like the one on the right. Although, I still think a montage would look the best. Nations United (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone making a montage right now? If not I would gladly do it if I had some instructions. Nations United (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's doing it at the moment, I'm sure any effort you made would be appreciated. What kind of instructions are you looking for? Picture suggestions or what program to use? TastyCakes (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like some instuctions on what program to use. I don't have a singal idea on how to make a montage. Nations United (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Ottawa montage - rough.jpg

Rough Ottawa montage

Though I don't have any graphic skills, here's a rough one I made in MSPaint. I like the how Parliament Hill on the top and the Canadian War Museum on the bottom frame the montage; I can't think of any other distinctive Ottawa landmarks that would fit as well in a horizontal position. Additionally, the Rideau Canal pic effectively covers both the canal and the Chateau Laurier. Hopefully someone can take the overall idea (or pictures themselves) and make something nice out of it. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

With the directions and help of TastyCakes, I have also made a montage, actually two because the first one had a colour issue for some reason. If montage 1 didn't have the colour issue I would prefer that one because I think it looks really good. I think all three of these montages would be great and could be used for the infobox. If anyone can make these montages better, please do so, otherwise I think we should have a dicussion on which one to use. Nations United (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here they are:

Montage 1 Montage 2

O-Train

The "O-Train" is NOT "light-rail." The Bombardier engines and cars used on the current O-Train line are classified as "heavy-rail" of the same type used on inter-city rail lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjottawa (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, what makes the system "light rail" versus "heavy rail" is not the vehicles themselves, but their use. From the light rail article, it "generally has a lower capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems, but higher capacity and higher speed than traditional street-running tram systems", which fits with the O-Train's use. In any case, the O-Train is commonly known—and more importantly, referenced—as a light rail system rather than a heavy rail system. If this is to be changed, we need reliable sources specifically identifying the O-Train as a heavy rail system. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical population

What was Ottawa's population when it was incorporated in 1855? When it was chosen as a colonial capital in 1857? When the colonial government moved in in 1866? When it became a federal capital in 1867? etc. These are things we need in the article. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal

Hi everybody! There's a new Portal:Ottawa, check it out. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture in Infobox

Change it please. Why use an ugly picture of the downtown that does not depict the city very accurately? in that the city is more 'European' and is more renowned as a political, rather than economic, centre. ---华钢琴49 (TALK)

I reverted the image to one that includes the Parliament Buildings, the Rideau Canal, and the Chateau Laurier. However, we have looked for other options in the past—see further up in talk. Would you prefer one of the montages above? -M.Nelson (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ok. from a visual standpoint, the image with the caption 'rough Ottawa montage' is the best. However, since I do not know anything about the city apart from its status as a political centre, so... between 'montage1' and 'montage2', I prefer the former. have more editors weigh in? ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 00:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the montages with the parliament picture at the top, but I think the asymmetry in the middle row of pictures (size-wise) makes it look kinda weird. TastyCakes (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about the new photo just added File:Ottawa montage.png ..is it just me or is there some-sort of rainbow effect in the first picture???Moxy (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right; I missed that too. I switched it with File:Ottawa montage-2.png which doesn't seem to have any issues. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image as of 04:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC) by User:UrbanNerd

I noticed someone has created a montage. I have tweaked it and was wondering if I could post it on here and see what you guys think ... If someone could instruct me how to do that, or direct me on where to find instructions to post it on here I would appreciate it. I have made sure to use all free images already on wikipedia. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have figured it out. I changed the parliament buildings image, the current one is of poor quality and stretched. I changed the supreme court image because the coloring was dull. Tell me what you guys think. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your new montage looks good to me; I agree that the Supreme Court image does look dull. However, your montage has incorrect copyright tags—even though you created it, you can't release a derivative work of copyrighted images into public domain. Try re-uploading it with this tool, which should provide a summary similar to that found at File:Ottawa_montage_-_rough.jpg. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded it using the tool you suggested. But I think I may have named it the same as the old one ... I need to delete the old one ... here is the new one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OttawaCollage.png UrbanNerd (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good; posted to article. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I added this below you guys ok with this???..Moxy (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The pic looks great, but the caption is a bit of a mess. I edited reworked it so that it's a bit more simple and nicely formatted; feel free to improve it further if you can. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa in summertime - (left to right) - above the Ottawa River ) Alexandra Bridge ) Samuel de Champlain Statue ) glass section of the National Gallery of Canada ) pale building with turrets – Fairmont Château Laurier Hotel ) Rideau Canal Locks ) Parliament Hill – Parliament of Canada Building ) round shaped – Library of Parliament ) Peace Tower ) downtown buildings, offices ) circular roof structure – Ottawa Marriott Hotel ) above trees, grey with black roof – The Supreme Court of Canada Building

Credit: {{{author}}}

The infobox image was reverting back to the one without the licensing info. This could be because i named both files the same and it wasn't recognizing the second image. I re-added the imgae with a different name. (OttawaCollage.png vs. OttawaCollageImage.png) If i have forgetton anything in the licensing or anything else, please feel free to add it. Thanks. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

cleanest cities in the world

Currently the article states that Ottawa is the 4th cleanest city in the world by Forbes. According to Mercer's 2010 Eco-city ranking Ottawa is tied for 3rd. Not that it matters all that much, just saying. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say lets change it to the most recent stats,,, unless Mercer's report[3] is not as reliable as Forbes[4] Moxy (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated it. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions

This bellow was recently added ...Not to good, but is there anything we can use here..not sure listing non-notable bands we can get away with....However good idea to mention music and perhaps some art stuff to. Moxy (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Music in the Capital: Ottawa has had a plethora of local bands and musicians that have contributed to the culture. On the iheart music website (http://www.iheartmusic.net/serendipity/index.php?/archives/420-The-18-hottest-bands-in-Ottawa.html) in 2006 they rated the top twenty local bands as voted by citizens, the listed was as follows: 20. Million Dollar Marxists 19. The Love Machine 18. The Empiricals 17. Weapons of Mass Seduction 16. Department of Foreign Affairs 15. Acres 14. The Fortunate Sons 13. Black Boot Trio 12. Andrew Vincent and the Pirates 11. Golden Famile 10. The Flaps 9. Poorfolk 8. Sarah Hallman 7. As The Poets Affirm 6. Crush Buildings 5. Relief Maps 4. The Soft Disaster 3. The Acorn 2. My Dad Vs. Yours 1. Hilotrons

Here are some more local bands in no particular order: Germattack, Furnaceface, Amanda Rheaume, James and Blackburn, Massari, Karl Wolf, Disco Inferno, Landin Williams, Belly AKA Rebellious, Cris Quammie- CrisEntertainment, Jon Lajoie, Lukey, Black Cherry, Eric Eggleston Band, Deuce deuce, Joe Louis, Tonya Renee, Fonetiks, Diamond, Chameleonic, H20, Bobby Lavigne

The website is interesting, it seems to have consulted "local experts" rather than "citizens", so maybe a single sentence about the thriving local music scene? I see no purpose in reproducing the list itself, especially if it's four years old most of those bands won't even exist anymore. Franamax (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I Heart Music is just a local music promoter/blog; for sure not a published RS and not particularly notable enough to say "in 2006, local blog I Heart Music said ...". If we were to put a local music bit in (actually, this article is missing an entire culture section), I'm sure we could find much better sources. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

About the previous picture of the Ottawa map with all the municipalities and communities that were annexed

I want to talk about the previous picture of the Ottawa map with all the municipalities and communities that were annexed, which no longer exists in this article. Any references about it? Let me know. jlog3000 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

When should "city" be "City"

Too many years ago, I learned that when referring to a specific city, city is capitalized, i.e. the "City of Ottawa" not the "city of Ottawa". Likewise when shortened to "the City", it should also be capitaized. Similarly for "province of X" vesus "Province of X". What is the correct current spelling protocol?Newwhist (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The typical capitalization format for official legal names of communities with a recognized municipal status, such as cities, towns, and villages, is City/Town/Village of X. Note that the official format could vary from province to province.

What I have observed is that municipalities often refer to themselves in published documents in the capitalized short form of the municipal status they have, such as The City/Town/Village/County passed its 2011 municipal budget yesterday. However, I have observed numerous WP editors not recognize the capitalized short form in their contributions and decapitalize the contributions of others who use the capitalized short form, presumably with good reason. Hwy43 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is similar to Hwy43's view. Use a capital when referring to the corporate entity (the City of Ottawa has raised dog license fees, the Province of Ontario enacted pit bull legislation, etc.), but don't use capitals when refering to the place (all my family members live in the city of Ottawa, the province of Ontario has some of the nicest inns in Canada, etc.). I have no idea if that is correct, but that's how I do it.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. However, instead of relying on past editing activities, an explicit stlye guide would be preferred. I will hunt around for something and report back. Newwhist (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I personally would capitalize city and province in Skeezix1000's second set of examples, but have always felt this is a grey area. In these situations, I endeavour to drop the city/province of in favour of just the common name (all my family members live in Ottawa... Ontario has some of the nicest inns in Canada...). Looking forward to you reporting back on what you find. Hwy43 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Result 1: The Wikipedia Manual of Style provides advice on the subject here and here I am seeking additional external style guides.Newwhist (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha - for once I was correct, although the MOS words it much more clearly than I did. I actually have some style guides here at my desk, and it didn't occur to me until now to look at them:

• The Globe and Mail Style Book (2003 ed) - "Upper-case for London's financial district. Otherwise, City is upper-case only in the formal names of municipalities, e.g. City of Calgary" (p.70)
• The Canadian Press Stylebook(2004 ed) - "Lowercase province and state used in a geographic sense (Quebec province, New York state), but capitalize as part of a corporate name (Province of Quebec bonds, New York State vs. Smith)...Capitalize specific political and administrative divisions (...Greater Vancouver Regional District, Montreal Urban Community, Muskoka District, Niagara Region...), but Niagara region, Muskoka district when referring to the geographic area...Lowercase such words as city, county, province and state except when they are part of the incorporated name (in the city of Halifax, the City of Halifax's credit rating...)" (p. 211, 219, 220)
• The Canadian Style (1997 ed) "Do not capitalize a generic term such as city, county, state or province when it precedes the proper noun or stands alone, unless it is used in a corporate sense: ... She lives in the city of Regina...The City of Regina took him to court" (p.78) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how the MOS would deem "She lives in the city of Regina" as correct. The MOS is not explicit on this scenario. Please clarify your interpretation.

Based on your summary of The Canadian Style (1997 ed), it appears this guide is explicit about a corporate sense. I don't see anything in the MOS that indicates an external style guide would supercede it on WP though.

Further, I interpret the "... city of Regina" in your example as referring to the corporate entity. If that were the case, then would "She lives in Strathcona county" be correct? Hwy43 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I just want to say this is a friendly discussion. The issue is relatively trivial, and I would have thought is mainly just of personal interest. This sort of low-key discussion makes us all better editors. No need for any adversarial cross-examination.

You're right - I read the links too quickly, and they are fairly vague. As for the examples, they are not my examples - those are straight out of the guides. And my point in quoting the guides was not to make any statement about trumping MOS - I just thought it was interesting. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, this discussion on a relatively trivial issue is of personal interest to me as well, and adversarial cross-examination was not intended. I composed my reply in haste and did not filter it for perceived tone. Simply, I was curious to see if you were seeing something that I was not seeing for my reference in future edits.

Your inclusion of the information from the guides is very much appreciated. So much so that I have placed a hold on The Canadian Style (1997 ed) at my local library to review out of personal interest. Thanks for going above and beyond! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I clearly read into it a tone that was not intended. I should have been more thick-skinned. There are a lot more examples in the Canadian Style, I only typed out one of them, so it will be interesting to see what you think. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Population and other demographic information

There has been much discussed previously on this page about the content of the population information presented and so I do not propose any changes related to content on the subject. What concerns me is that there is repetition of precisely the same information in at least two places in the article and again in the referenced article Demographics of Ottawa. This makes maintenance and updating a nightmare. IMHO the material in the Lead section and in the Demographic section should be consolidated and abbreviated and the link for additional details given for those inclined to want more. "A man with one watch knows what time it is, a man with two is never quite sure." Newwhist (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Soviet espionage discovered

This section appears to be a non-sequitor having more to do with the governance of Canada and not the City per se. Is there a better place for this information?Newwhist (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Climate

The listed record of 42C is not correct. The max temp according to Environment Canada is 37.8C, on Aug 11 1944 and other dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnEFrancis (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Old city limits

Does anyone know how many square kilometers the city was before it's merger, and does anyone have a map of the city limits before this time? --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Statistics Canada, its size was 110.15 km². StatCan has a map here. Hwy43 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this would be something interesting to add to the article, maybe in the geography section, to give people an idea of the size of the original city before the agglomeration. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But just be careful how your word it. Keep in mind that all of the old municipalities, everything from West Carleton to Cumberland, are the "original cities", not just the former city of Ottawa. Technically, the new city is the exact same size as what it replaced. The "old" City of Ottawa didn't grow in size in 2001 - it ceased to exist. The "new" City of Ottawa is the successor of 13 municipalities, not a continuation of one. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Help?

Hello eh! I have taken the time to address many of the issued raised at Talk:Ottawa/GA1. Like refs for history, Government and politics etc. However am having problems with the "Climate section" references and expanding the "Economy section". If anyone can help this would be great. Looking for refs for weather and local economy. Moxy (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Replaced images

I have gone ahead and replaced back some of the pics. Not sure how pics from 1950/40 1920 and 2007 belong in the section that dates to the 1800s. We have images for this time so lets use them. We had this File:Murphy Gamble 1940.jpg beside us talking about logging - then this File:OttawaAerial9.JPG(1920) beside when we talk about building the canal and this File:Canadian parliament MAM.JPG pic from 2007 when we are talking about the building of parliament hill.Moxy (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The image from 1950 was in the history section because the painting image you've inserted is dull and worthless. The original is a good quality image and has been in the article for quite a while. It isn't in the "1950's area because it wouldn't fit and the history section wasn't broken into certain era's before your major overhaul. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think your talking about a different article there was sections see here. I also dont see any 50s ers talk at all before. As for the value of the painting I disagree - It's by JohnBy done in 1826 showing were he founded the city, while showing that the land was covered in trees used for the early economy and development of the city. We talk about all this in this section. Are you sure an image showing a department from 1954 should go here? Then I added a picture of the canal and Bytown in 1860 showing how there is building going on all over. Just after we say that after the completion of the canal the "Region's population grew significantly". I think this is much better then a picture from 1920 showing the parliament building in a section dealing with a time before they were built - its not even a picture of the original center block. We need to expand the 1900s and then we can add this. As per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content " Images should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." Not one of the images that were there did any of this as do the new ones.Moxy (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all images will fit in these "sections" that have been made. Maybe the sparks street image isn't the best but the painting is honestly terrible. It's boring, it's tacky, and IMO worthless to the article. Being one of the first images readers see in the article, I think we can find a better image than that.UrbanNerd (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Any ideas? Category:History of Ottawa.Moxy (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ottawa as the capital not the NCR

SunKing2 made a recent edit with the notation "(An introductory text should have a mention that it's part of Canada's capital. Details of entities such as NCC and NCR should probably be deleted as material promoting interests. Also favor brevity and clarity over precision.)". I agree with the edit but wish to clarify something. It is my understanding that the NCR is not the capital of Canada per se, only the city of Ottawa is. More specifically, no part of the NCR outside of the city of Ottawa is "part of Canada's capital". In the legislation for the NCR, it states in Section 2 that ""National Capital Region" means the seat of the Government of Canada and its surrounding area, more particularly described in the schedule". I think that "the seat of the Governmnet of Canada" refers to the city of Ottawa and "its surrounding area" refers to the rest of the NCR as described in the Schedule (by the way, good luck following that!). Can someone verify this? I too like brevity and clarity but not at the sacrifice of the facts. Newwhist (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes that was hard to follow - Ottawa the City is Canada's capital (its the "capital city"). Then we have the "capital region" as defined by the NCC Act see here. So what we have is a federally "designated" region not an official "district" (so not a census division). The NCC was created to overseen the design of buildings and land use (including roads) "only" on federal lands in the 2 cites and the many counties and municipalities in both Ontario and Quebec. I agree this is also a bit confusing as there are 3 ways to look at this areas.

• As per statscan we have separate "cities" and "counties" like with Ottawa (city) and [Gatineau (ville)
• Then statscan has the "Census metropolitan area" of Ottawa - Gatineau - that actually cover a wider area then the just the cities i.e Ottawa - Gatineau (Ontario part)
• Then we have the National Capital region as defined by this act that covers the "federal" land holdings in Ottawa, Gatineau and the municipalities of Prescott-Russell, Stormont-Dundas and Glengarry, Leeds-Grenville, Lanark, and Renfrew and the whole the Outaouais region. See map here

Hope this helped - PS we need to expand the lead its a bit short perhaps so history info like ..Founded in 1826 as Bytown and incorporated in 1855 as Ottawa, the city has developed into......' Moxy (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

removal of map

Not sure why the map is being deleted from this page - is there something wrong with it?Moxy (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's offensive. Who cares where french people live within the city. If it were "where jews live" or "where blacks live" I'm sure it would be removed instantly. It's not encyclopedic, it singles out an individual race/language, and it's absurd to have it in the article. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How is it offensive? Its a map showing were the french (minority) population lives in an "Offical" biligual city. This is data from statscan that every city has - Best to read over WP:NOTCENSORED before deleting things you "Dont like". I dont see how population data like at Maps of American ancestries would be grossly offensive.Moxy (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to stop preaching and go ahead and read WP:OWNERSHIP. You do not own this article. You completely rewrote a popular article, removed many relevant facts and added many questionable ones without much opposition. Now one of your additions has been reverted. a map showing a "minority" population has no place in this article. It belongs in the demographics article which it is already located. Singling out a specific race/language is not relevant in this article, and as i stated before if it were ""where jews live" or "where blacks live" it would be removed instantly. Your example of Maps of American ancestries is perfectly fine because it is in it's respective article. If there was a map in the New York Article with "Where Puerto Ricans" live it would offend people and it would be removed. The same goes for the Ottawa article. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

All nonsense - please explain what is offensive to YOU. As for redoing the article - you think it was better before with no refs? Please point out was was removed and what is now questionable in my reworking of the article.Moxy (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Demographic maps aren't offensive. What utter nonsense. I'll revert. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll construct a "where jews live" and "where blacks live" maps and add them to the article. Shouldn't meet any opposition. Isn't that right ladies ? UrbanNerd (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy of "where Puerto Ricans" live in New York City is not in the least correlative to the display of a map showing the French-speaking populace in a bilingual city. The image placement does not at all violate MOS:IMAGES as it relates to the section it is placed in. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 17:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually NY is a multi-lingual city in which Puerto Ricans have a huge minority population. A map showing where Puerto Ricans or spanish speaking people live in NY is completely comparable. It would be acceptable in a demographics article, but would be promptly removed from the city article. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Demographic maps are of encyclopedic interest. If there was a map that showed where Jews lived in New York, that would be of interest. I don't get how that's racist at all. -- Earl Andrew - talk

If the article was about demographics of New York then a map of "where jews live" would be fine. To single out one race or language in an article about a city is ridiculous. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we remove all mention of race and language in this articles? Or is it just the picture you dont like in this one? Can you explain how mentioning race or language is raciest? You are aware that the city is bilingual and this is simply data being regurgitated? Population by Mother Tongue, Knowledge of Official Languages and Home Language, City of Ottawa, 1996-2006 and Population by Knowledge of Official Languages by Sub-Area, City of Ottawa, 2006 Moxy (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's knowledge of Ottawa should be questioned it should be yours. Also, I never said anything about it being racist. I said it was insulting. Do you not see how ridiculous it is to show a map of where a certain race lives on a City's article ? Would Vancouver add "where Chinese people live" on their article. It's just ridiculous is all.

I'm at a loss to understand the above argument as to how the map is insulting. It is relevant and belongs in the article.Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

When I add the "where jews live" and "where blacks live" maps I'm constructing to the article we'll see if people still have the same tune. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is quite ridiculous. New York City is not officially bilingual and thus a map showing its Spanish-speaking populace is not warranted. Ottawa is indeed, and officially, a bilingual city. The map is completely warranted. I believe in every case Wikipedia policy, MOS:IMAGES, will trump your point of view. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 05:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh so because it's officially bilingual it makes it ok. Vancouver has more Asian people than Ottawa has French people, but becuase it's not official it wouldn't be appropriate ? Odd how you can pick and choose which races can and can't be singled out. Also I think you should learn the difference between an image, and a map. UrbanNerd (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear at this point that no one agrees with your comparables, UrbanNerd (and I'm not sure how you being sarcastic about it helps). I think at this point it is fair to acknowledge that your concern is yours alone. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, depending on the context of the article where they would appear, I don't see a problem with "where jews live" and "where blacks live" maps (to use your terms). Ottawa has a major linguistic minority, and its existence has done much to shape the history of the city. Again, I'm completely at a loss to understand why a demographic map of that minority is insulting. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why the insults - still wating for an example!! - That said I think its just a misunderstanding of how Canada works (we are not Americans) - In Canada we belive in Multiculturalism over Cultural assimilation as canadians are proud of there heritage and laguages. Diversity is a good thing to Canadians and is part of our culture. Its actualy law in Canada Canadian Multiculturalism Act and Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Moxy (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the city is officially bilingual it is completely relevant to have an image showing its French-speaking, not French, populace. Where jews live and where blacks live images are again not related to the issue since the image in question depicts not the ethnic origins of Ottawa's people, but the language they speak. Making such infantile comments does not advance your argument in the least. Obviously I know the difference between and image and a map. Would you not call it a map - i.e. visual representation of an area—a symbolic depiction highlighting relationships between elements of that space such as objects, regions, and themes - even though it is an image? Seeing as consensus leans toward keeping the image in the article, and image placement is supported by Wikipedia Policy MOS:IMAGES, the image has no reason to be omitted from the article. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added the map back as noone sees the rational for deletion as stated above.Moxy (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for re-adding an idiotic out of date map. It adds so much to the article, like many of your other edits. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

UrbanNerd, perhaps you could review Wikipedia:Civility. It becomes hard to take you and your views seriously when you seem incapable of dealing with other editors without resorting to sarcastic insults. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am also puzzled about the personal attacks. Never had a problem with UrbanNerd before now. Not sure what he thinks i have done wrong. Here is the article before my edits. - If you can point out any problems with my additions or references pls do so. I believe my experience with many many GA and FA reviews has got me going in the right direction in gerneral.Moxy (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Section heading

So should we call the first section? - Well according to the norm that I see in our more developed articles in Canada and other international cities we use a description over just a meaningless date range - as per Canada, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, History of Canada, Banff National Park, London, Ontario, Bath, Somerset, Seattle, , Melbourne. I agree with the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure that says "we should avoid using headings that arrange the history of a settlement according to century or decade". I am some what ok with the current header of "Before settlement" but its not very precise header for the section. Any ideas because the Aboriginals were somewhat settled in the area ?Moxy (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand the fascination some editors have with the need to label people. Why do people feel the need to divide people and label them into races, languages and cultures ? I see the factual side of it, but c'mon. Taking a look at the other big cities in Canada (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Halifax) none of them have heading describing races. I don't even see the need for all the history subsections at all. In fact much of the history section should be trimmed back, as there are already links to the History of Ottawa and Timeline of Ottawa history articles which cover the entire history in depth. If the subheadings are kept, I like Hwy43's solution of "Before Settlement". UrbanNerd (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on reviewing the above, I have two alternative suggestions for name of the first subsection under the History section – "Early history" or "Before European settlement". I also feel the current title of the second subsection, "First European settlers of the region", is needlessly lengthy. I would suggest simply "European settlement". Hwy43 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the real solution is getting rid of the subsection headings all together and deleting a large portion of the history section which is just a regurgitation of info available at both History of Ottawa and Timeline of Ottawa history articles. The history section is WAY too long and goes on about Turkish embassy attacks, Soviet spy networks, sewer explosions, several railway ventures, Irish and french conflicts, riots, and on and on. If a reader wants to know info that in depth they can go to one of the two links provided. A massive scale back of the section is needed. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward - we could scale back the section a bit since the NEW article History of Ottawa was made just last month. But most good and FA article like those listed above have sub section because they have proper coverage. (I am working towards a GA level Wikipedia:The perfect articleAcknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.) I am not sure what we can remove as things like the Irish and french conflicts have shaped the city as has its infrastructure change because of the rails. PS x2 - Think all that was wrong over at Talk:Ottawa/GA1 has been covered now. I like "Before European settlement" as a section header.Moxy (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've shortened the new second subsection to "Bytown to present". I toyed with "Bytown to amalgamation", but deemed it short-sighted as undoubtedly content will be added to this section as time goes on. Hwy43 (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

All looks good to me thus far - I have moved the "Further information:" links to under the headers as this as been a "placement/readability/break in text" problem raised for a few GA articles I have been involved with in the past. (That said about the links - do we even need them anymore anyway?). And I added a bit back about the Shiners' War and the Stony Monday Riot as I believe they should be linked - and they put into context (links that explain/expand on) the statement in the next paragraph that says "sometimes unruly logging town in the hinterland" and the lead that says "Initially an Irish and French Christian settlement". I have asked User:SunKing2 if there is more we can trim or anything that we should mention - as hes the Ottawa master. Moxy (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at this section a month ago noticing it was well written, though very long. Having been asked, I think some trimming is due in the History section here. Short answer? About half of it. The picking of the Capital is important and although it seems long, most of the information in it is probably necessary. It might be an idea of reducing all mentions of rail and streetcars to maybe 2 or so sentences, and remove mentions of electricity. Maybe we can put the two fires in the same paragraph. Maybe also we can trim a few words out of the Greber plan although it's important. And remove the sentence of the baby boom and modernization of transportation system because it's not atypical. And of the stuff that's removed, please add it to the article on the History of Ottawa, as that article is missing some good stuff that's in here. When removing material, I'd err on the side of removing too much (i.e. less is probably better than too much), because this material can be made available in the linked History of Ottawa article. I don't really have a comment or opinion on section headings though. Regarding adding anything to the History section? Nope. nothing. (Although the other article History of Ottawa is missing lots of stuff). Oh as long as I'm here, I can't remember if I got it from this article or elsewhere, but I'd avoid giving the audience the impression that the city or its early town incarnation was involved in the fur trade. What was involved in the fur trade was the Ottawa River, not the town. There wasn't much at all going on in Ottawa before 1807; it was almost avoided. Other than its portages, Rideau river and portages, there is very little evidence of its use at all. By and his surveyor wrote about how much it was just trees (and swamp). There has been some archaeological evidence near Rockcliffe or New Edinburgh, and clearly documented use of the Chaudiere Falls area, and documented use of the Rideau River, but very little indication of any other use associated with the fur trade. Also the aboriginal presence here seems a little overemphasized. Nobody was living in Ottawa when land began to be sold starting in 1792. What history tells us is that Champlain documented contact with Algomeniquins(sp?) while travelling the river, while at Rideau Falls, and utilizing local guides (who probably were from places closer to Montreal) So the Ottawa Valley was occupied by people. But not Ottawa, at least not during contact. So the first two paragraphs can be made into 2 sentences stating that the early explorers and fur traders encountered local people while using the Ottawa River.User:SunKing2

Very glad you liked the version from a month ago :-). As per the norm I would say I have to agree with your assessment. Pls feel free to make the needed changes as you see fit (pls anyone jump in here). User:SunKing2 your attention focused back on this "main" article would be greatly appreciated. I think we (all of us here now) can get this to GA level easily. We are at the point of trimming thats great.02:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok done. I removed a lot. It seemed a shame (though seemingly consistent with the quantity of material required for a section of a city's article) because it was so well written, but I plan to move the removed parts and references to the History of Ottawa article. I didn't intend to remove references and all the nifty pictures, but it was a big job (hopefully someone else can restore the pix, and we can work on restoring the citations). I did however intend to remove sections because I read something in Wikipedia's writing about creating community pages favoring not making sections. I'm not opposed to someone changing this, because really I don't know what's best, and didn't really see what would be best for a GA article. My objective was mostly to make the length similar to that of other Canadian larger cities. I read somewhere where the population was finally large enough (after years) to put Ottawa into the top 5 largest cities, I'll try to find it, since the recommendations talk about mentions of times of population growths.SunKing2 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the newly expanded history section and, zzzzzzzzzz. This needs to be scaled back again. It's great that two history nerds enjoy rambling on about barely relevant regurgitations from the history article, but this is too much. It's extremely boring and needs to be shortened. it was fine the way it was. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you insulting the editors here? Do you think it makes you sound intelligent or superior because its doing the opposite thus far. Moxy (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there is no need to insult one another here. Comments such as "history nerds" and "makes you sound intelligent..." are uncalled for. UrbanNerd has done some fairly deft editing, and from the discussion above, several editors have agreed that this was needed. I do agree that the material removed should be in the "History of Ottawa" article and have begun to move it there. Let's keep the fundamental goal of collaborative editing in mind. And to that end, would each of you be willing to remove your last comments? Sunray (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am getting tired of hes behaviour here SO no I will not remove my comment. As seen above we have an editor that simply goes around insulting people and lying about them. I am fedup with hes behaviour and will no longer hold my tongue. Bullies of this sort have no place here on Wikipedia.Moxy (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow moxy do you need a tissue for those tears ? I was only poking fun at two fellow editors who I run into regularly. I didn't think the word "nerd" was so insulting. I am a self proclaimed geography nerd, and the word nerd is in my username !! Sorry if I insulted you fellas, I didn't think I was at all. sheeeesh ! UrbanNerd (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding UrbanNerd's comment, these kind of comments are not welcome in Wikipedia. Please refrain from posting such comments in the future. There are ways of being helpful; Wikipedia has plenty of topics on ways you can be helpful, please consult those.SunKing2 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

GA level ?

Moving on - shall we talk about what is needed for a GA level. I think we may have to find better refs for the weather section. Any-other problems that can be seen off the bat guys?Moxy (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the article meets GA criteria now. I was going through the 2011 GA nomination and most of the issues seem to have been fixed. Element₂. _TALK 02:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Climate update

There has been good progress overall in the article at large in editing down excessive wording and removing irrelevent and less relevent material but I still cringe at the Climate section. IMHO it is not only much too long but it is mostly irrelevent to general readership. While I do not dispute its accuracy, following the pattern of other cities is insufficient excuse for overstating the topic. Also, can anyone explain why temperatures are also referred to in the Fahrenheit scale when this is an article about a place that uses the Celsius scale? All the conversions in brackets makes it difficult to read (even if you wanted to) and is an eyesore. We finally got rid of all the equivalent junk about demographics (mostly) and the same should be done with the climate material. Any comments? Newwhist (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I think like the demographics, we should strive to convey some useful information; there are too many extremes in here (useful??-nope) and just too many numbers. I think that keeping the Fahrenheit may be useful considering so many non-canadians seem to have some (weird) use for this system. I was hoping that by reducing the sheer amount of numbers, the unsightliness might be lessened. Here's the stuff I cut out of the climate section:

"There are often periods of high humidity during hot weather, especially close to the rivers.

with annual averages of 51, 14 and 1 days with wind chills below −20 °C (−4 °F), −30 °C (−22 °F) and −40 °C (−40 °F) respectively.

with a range of temperatures from a record high of 37.8 °C (100 °F), recorded August 11, 1944, to a record low of −38.9 °C (−38 °F), recorded on December 29, 1933.

The biggest one-day rainfall occurred on September 9, 2004, when the remnants of Hurricane Frances dumped nearly 136 millimetres (5.4 in) of rain in the city. The all-time monthly record is 243.4 mm (13.75 inches) set in July 2009.

Winter: Its biggest snowfall was recorded on March 3–4, 1947, with 73 centimetres (28.7 in) of snow. The 2007–08 winter season snowfall (432.7 centimetres (170.4 in)) came within 12 cm (5 inches) of the record snowfall set in 1970–1971 (444.1 cm / 174.8 inches).

The lowest recorded wind chill was −47.8 °C (−54 °F) on January 8, 1968. Freezing rain is also relatively common, even relative to other parts of the country. One such large storm caused power outages and affected the local economy, and became known as the 1998 Ice Storm.

Destructive summer weather events such as tornadoes, major flash floods, extreme heat waves, severe hail and remnant effects from hurricanes are rare, but all have occurred in the Ottawa area. Some of the most notable tornadoes in the region occurred in 1978 (F2), 1994 (F3), 1999 (F1), 2002 (F1), 2004 (F1) and west end Ottawa 2009 (F0)." SunKing2 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. Is it possible to have this whole section toggle so that initially readers are presented with the section in Celsius but can hit a toggle switch and the same material is presented in Fahrenheit, either instead of or in addition to the Celsius version? Newwhist (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Demonym

The demonyms used to be in the infobox (Ottawan and Ottavien/Ottaviennes) but they aren't there anymore. They should be put back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.197.208 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ottawan is a group not a people - "Ottavien" is a french family name - "Ottaviennes" is not a word.Moxy (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Ottawan" could be a demonym as well, not just a musical duo, if confirmed by a reliable source, and "Ottavien/Ottavienne" could be the masculin/feminin French equivalent (given Ottawa's bilingual status) if confirmed by a reliable source. I'm not local, so I don't know for sure. "Edmontonian" originally was not a word, but is a word by virtue of being a demonym. I'd say if reliable sources can be found to confirm the demonyms, they can be re-added. Hwy43 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just found that the city's English website refers to "Ottawan" (although it pluralizes it through the incorrect use of an apostrophe),[5] while its French website uses "Ottavien" and "Ottavienne".[6] Hwy43 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well i look the fool :-) nice find - good job. I found nothing in my search as indicated by my reply. so what should be done?Moxy (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You know what to do. Hwy43 (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I cant seem to do it I add the code

| population_blank1_title = Demonym | population_blank1 = Ottawan/Ottavien(ne)
and get
Ottawan/Ottavien(ne)?UNIQ58,805f478c7f90f-ref-00,000,026-QINU??UNIQ58,805f478c7f90f-ref-00,000,029-QINU?

Ville d'Ottawa in Infobox

The French word 'Ville' can refer to both a city or a town. Would Cité d'Ottawa be a better choice? --RaviC (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We use the official French-language version of the name there, i.e. what the province calls the city. As far as I know, "ville" is universally used in Canada. Franamax (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

etymology

The article needs an initial etymology section.

Ottawa is a corrupted version of the Algonquian adaawe but scholars (and there are more than just French an English) differ about this.

I have been astonished to notice the high level of ignorance of Canadians, as many have no idea that the name of their country comes from the Iroquois kanata or the name of its capital from Algonquian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.12.217 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The article already has a sourced statement in the lead section: The name "Ottawa" is derived from the Algonquin word adawe, meaning "to trade". In the future, if you would like to introduce some information to an article, accompany the fact with a citation from a reliable source. Thanks, "Pepper" @ 21:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Poor quality images

I have replaced two somewhat recently added images due to very poor quality and frankly depressing depictions of a great city. A user named Freshacconci insists on reverting this edit, with no reason given. I'm not sure if it's an attempt to pick on/bully an IP user, or they have some odd attachment to these photos, but they are of very poor quality and shouldn't be in a wikipedia article. The one of the parliament buildings for sure is extremely poor quality, and there are 100 better images of this building on wikipedia. The one of Tunney's Pasture quality is ok, but it is a very bland and boring image and adds nothing to the already picture saturated article. Thank you for your time. 174.93.10.174 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And regardless of image quality, what we do not need is yet another picture of the Parliament Buildings. Newwhist (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A few recommendations:

• First, please assume good faith. Freshacconci is, as much as you, interested in improving the article. Unsubstantiated accusations, such as the suggestion that he is picking on or bullying others, are not helpful. Freshacconci did, in fact, leave edit summaries, and frankly provided as much rationale as you did.
• Second, you need consensus to change the images. You appropriately made a bold move to update the images, but where someone objects, the key is to take the issue to the take page as you have done here (please see WP:BRD). Stop reverting until there is consensus here.
• What would be really helpful is if you posted thumbnail versions of the images here in this discussion that you believe to be "depressing", along with thumbnails of the ones you would propose as replacements from among the "100 better images". You are correct that there are many great images on Wikimedia Commons, and I am sure you will be able to find consensus on replacements.
• Finally, thank you for raising this issue. Articles can often use an update when it comes to the images. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User 174.93.10.174 should be blocked indefinitely as per User talk:UrbanNerd -- Moxy (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That would explain the accusations and the edit warring. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As a procedural note, I have blocked the IP for a week since obvious block evasion is obvious. UrbanNerd will no doubt be back with a new IP, but he's certainly building a case for a community ban. Resolute 05:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please leave your baseless accusations to yourself Moxy. Completely off topic and typical. This conversation is about article images. 174.93.10.174 (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If we could get back on topic. If anyone has any suggestions/comments about the low quality image(s) your comments are appreciated. 174.93.10.174 (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It would appear no one has any issues replacing these poor quality images as there has been no opposition voiced. 64.231.224.65 (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There absolutely has been opposition voiced. Freshacconci has objected to these changes, and I don't agree with them being implemented unilaterally. You've been asked to propose some images here on the talk page. And frankly, UrbanNerd, this discussion is probably not going to move too far forward with your involvement as long as you are evading your block. That doesn't mean that the rest of us can't pursue this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

One stop calling me "urban nerd". Two, there has been no opposition voiced on this discussion. The user Freshacconci did not have a valid opposition, he just had a knee jerk reaction to an IP editing wikipedia. Unless anyone has opposition to changing these images and would like to voice it here, I think the edit is justified. In the interim the image of the parliament buildings nees to be removed. It has absolutely no place on wikipedia and is an embarrassment to this article. 64.231.224.65 (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

UrbanNerd, there is opposition. I oppose the change. Freshacconci's rationale was as valid as yours. You need consensus. It's this type of behaviour that got you blocked in the first place. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree that Freshacconci's rationale is as valid as the IP's. None of the IP's arguments have been valid since the beginning of this. Bottom line is the IP just doesn't like it. So in fact, Freshacconci's rationale - the IP having insufficient rationale - is way more valid by a country mile. I oppose removal of the one picture. I also oppose swapping of the other picture until there are alternatives proposed and consensus is reached for the suitable alternative. Hwy43 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There's Hwy43 with his usual absolutely worthless/unintelligent comments. That didn't take long. The rationale is that the image is poor quality, grainy resolution, and is up for deletion. Now please go back to being utterly useless. 70.53.104.202 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What's with this usual assertion, IP? This is the first time you and I have interacted. Are you someone else that I should know? Hwy43 (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And which got him blocked again. Resolute 14:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• There was no really compelling reason to change the image (and remove the other one altogether) other than UrbanNerd, or whoever he is, doesn't like the images. I have no attachment to the images and I certainly didn't take the photos; it's been years since I've been to Ottawa. What I don't like is disruptive editing and block evasions. Not that those are reasons to retain the images, but I am having a difficult time understanding the reason for the change. Sure, change is good, but if there is no compelling rationale given, this is a huge waste of everyone's time. And for the record, I didn't revert the edits because it was made by an IP. It just appeared to be disruptive, which it turns out, it was. freshacconci talk to me 18:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree to the fact that we have no need to show the parliament buildings again...this can be removed or changed - perhaps a picture of the Kanata Research Park (image) would be better. As for the Tunney's Pasture image...it demonstrates the size of the federal government presents in the city very well. -- Moxy (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no problem with replacing either image and think it is a good idea to revisit images on articles such as these from time to time. Having grown up mostly in Kanata, though, I can't fathom why anyone would recommend a photo of Kanata (I'm joking) :). Mostly, I wanted to retain the images to the extent there was a conflict, which there does not appear to be, and then solely to the extent the change was being implemented by UrbanNerd while evading a block. If there is a better image(s), I am not fussed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's just stop feeding the IP troll (UrbanNerd), let his IP addresses each be blocked in turn, ignore his comments and decide on the appropriate images without his input. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could temporarily semi-protect this article, so that we don't all spend each evening reverting UrbanNerd's disruptive edits - this has been going on for a week and UrbanNerd is still not clueing in. It is affecting the stability of the article. I am okay with whatever is decided in terms of semi-protection. Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly no one has any interst in this matter except for blocking IP's from editing. 174.88.202.153 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)