Talk:List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada

Untitled

Note that "Cape Breton" is not properly a community and should be removed.

Yes it is infact. At least according to statscan. Earl Andrew 17:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Erroneous Characterization of Toronto and Ottawa Metropolitan Areas

"A city's metropolitan area may be larger then its CMA as defined by Stats Canada, such as the case with the Greater Toronto Area, and the National Capital Region." is an inappropriate claim. Metropolitan areas are defined by Statistics Canada. There is no generally accepted international metropolitan area definition and this statement is thus inappropriate. Moreover, most nations do not formally designate metropolitan areas and all that do have significantly different definitions. This is not to say that it is inappropriate to refer to the GTA...or the NCR but neither are metropolitan areas.

Not interested in registering... but for any interested in the integrity of Wikipedia articles, this sentence should be deleted or it should be rephrased so that neither GTA nor NCR are implied to be metropolitan areas.

• Why is this an erroneous Characterization of Toronto and Ottawa Metropolitan Areas ?? The "metropolitan" area is larger than what Stats Canada counts in their CMA's .... While Cities like Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, etc. have almost every little rural town outside city limits counted in their CMA, Southern Ontario cities span further out and these small towns outside the city are not counted. They are larger than what their CMA's depict, plain and simple. --PhilthyBear (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• That is meaningless. The Toronto CMA includes the towns of Mono, Orangeville, and Bradford-West Gwilliumbury, which are not part of the GTA. Statscan has an established set of criteria which they apply to all Metropolitan areas in Canada in order to determine their figures (clearly they don't just randomly pick and choose whether or not an area is included in a CMA). The only clear and, more importantly, consistent definition of Metropolitan Area is that provided by Statscan, and any other arbitrary definitions have no place in a proper encycolpedic article. 38.99.128.243 (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2004 Estimate

Where did the 2004 estimates come from? I assume it is from a credible source, which should be noted in the article. -- JamesTeterenko 22:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unofficial names

As Statscan data is used to define cities and population, I thought it would be appropriate to have the official Statscan names for these areas, but keeping the cities and towns that have more than 10% of the total population (now in brackets). However, I find this wierd, as you might get a city of over 600,000 (such as Mississauga) in a CMA, and a rural district of 2,000-3,000 in the smaller CAs.

Maybe the format of the chart might have to change, with the list of the CA/CMAs in one column, and the large non-hub centres in another. --Spmarshall42 00:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It will all change in a year or two from now anyways. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

The list I found at Statistics Canada doesn't seem to agree with the information in this list¹. Any idea where the information in this article came from? -- timc | Talk 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 column in the link you provided. The article's history suggests that someone began to update the numbers, but then lost interest. Mindmatrix 19:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the link I provided doesn't give the same degree of precision as is in the article. -- timc | Talk 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. OK, the 2001 info is clearly from the 2001 Census tables. The 2005 estimates may be from one of the tables linked to from this document (look at the bottom of the "population estimates" demography section; table 051-0034 is probably the correct one). Unfortunately, access to those tables requires payment, so we may as well use the data at the link you prodived. Mindmatrix 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

CAs and Metropolitan

Should this article strictly be for CMAs and not CAs? After all, a CA can have a population of 10,000, and I would hardly call that metropolitan. --Kmsiever 02:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

metropolitan does not must mean that it is a city of a certain size. Metropolitan is a system of government that includes a higher level of government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.253.177 (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Toronto & Montreal

Any reasons why we cannot add mention of Longueuil in the Montreal CMA line (with Laval) and same thing with Brampton, Markham and Oakville for the Toronto CMA with Mississauga (they've all had well over 100 000) people unlike Magog or the towns near Peterborough). There's no mention of a separate met area for Longueuil nor for Brampton, Oakville and Markham. I don't think just the top suburb is enough, you should put those that have 100 000+ people too.--JForget 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The cutoff is for those supporting communities that make up 10% of the CMA's population. Mississauga is listed with Toronto. --Kmsiever 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Toronto's population : 5,555,912 Please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1121 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this list is to be a consistent comparison across all cities, meaning that every number on the list has to come from the same source in the same year. There is to be no updating of any individual city to a 2010 estimate unless you can provide an updated and reliably sourced 2010 estimate for every single city on this list with not a single solitary exception. The population of Toronto in 2010 compared to the population of Montreal in 2006 and Ottawa in 2007 and Sudbury in 2008 and Calgary in 2009 is not a useful one-to-one comparison. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears the population of 5,555,912 that Canadaman1121 has provided is the 2006 population of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). If one revisits the opening paragraph of this article, one would find that the populations in this list are of census metropolitan areas (CMAs) as defined by Statistics Canada and not different metro areas defined by other entities. The second paragraph recognizes that metro areas can be defined differently, citing the GTA as having a notably higher metro population compared to its CMA population. This article is not about listing the 100 largest metro areas in Canada as defined by non-Statistics Canada metro boundaries. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa

The article states: "Each metropolitan area is identified by the official name of the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) or Census Agglomeration (CA) as defined by Statistics Canada." Even though Ottawa is the core city, the CMA's official name according to Statscan is Ottawa-Gatineau ([1]) and should be listed as such here. Klparrot (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason Stats Can even mentions Gatineau is because it's in a separate Province. Clearly you've never been to the National Capital Region. If so you'd know that Gatineau is much smaller and leaches leeches off of Ottawa. I think it should be left Ottawa. --PhilthyBear (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been to Ottawa several times, and I know full well that it's much larger than Gatineau. That's not the point. The name is not a matter of your preference; the article is a list of CMA's and CA's and specifically states that the name shown is the official name according to Statscan. In this case, that name is Ottawa-Gatineau, not Ottawa. This issue is heading toward WP:3RR; can we get some more opinions in here please? Klparrot (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be left "Ottawa" as well. Gatineau gets too much credit. It isn't Toronto-Mississauga, or Vancouver-Richmond. Although I see your point on the official name by Stats Canada, I still think it should remain "Ottawa" as no one outside of Stats would ever refer to it as "Ottawa-Gatineau" --NationalCapital (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But, one is either consistent or they aren't. If you're going to use the formal Census name for every other metropolitan area BUT Ottawa's, that doesn't seem fair or accurate. We can't willy-nilly just decided, arbitrarily, what a metropolitan area should be called; that is, unless you all are going to do that for EACH metropolitan area. This either all about personal preference, or it isn't. I'm an American, and thus have no dog in this fight, but I do have a dog in the fight as far as consistency is concerned. --Criticalthinker (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Square Kilometers

Does anyone know where one can find the physical size measurement (square kilometers) of each of these census metropolitan areas? --Criticalthinker (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Physical size in km² is available from the same source, i.e. Statistics Canada's 2006 census data, as the population. Although it might be worth adding a column for that in our article, if anybody feels up to taking that on. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If there is anyone willing to add it, and make sure the formatting yields itself to looking good with this information added on, that'd be great. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Metro larger than CMA

There is a small note in the article explaining "city's metropolitan area in colloquial or administrative terms may be different than its CMA as defined by Statistics Canada, such as the case with the Greater Toronto Area, and the National Capital Region". Although probably 99% of metro area's are larger than their CMA's, the GTA and NCR metro areas are significantly larger that their CMA's. 442,000 and 320,000 larger. I can understand why the note included these two examples. The note has recently been changed to include: "as well as Alberta's Calgary Region and Edmonton Capital Region, which are defined differently by the Calgary Regional Partnership and the Capital Region Board respectively." I have reverted this edit. The ECR is only about 75,000 larger than it's CMA which is quite normal and not note worthy. Th CR population is really unknown as the "estimate" has estimates from everywhere from 2006-2010, most of which have been added by the user who made this current edit, and includes town over 80 miles away. If we are to add this note we might as well add every CMA in Canada. This is obviously more of a promotion of these area's than fact. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

CMAs are geographic areas defined by Statistics Canada. The populations of CMAs are attributes of these defined areas.

The geographic areas of the Edmonton Capital Region (ECR) and the Calgary Region (CR) are defined differently than their respective CMAs by their respective regional public bodies.

Based on the articles for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and the National Capital Region (NCR), these areas are also defined differently than their respective CMAs. According to the GTA article, numerous provincial ministries and other public bodies define the area differently for their own purposes. According to the NCR article, it appears its area is also defined differently by a public body.

Since these regions are areas, here are the facts about the geographic sizes of these CMAs:

• Toronto CMA, 5,903.63 km²
• Ottawa - Gatineau CMA, 5,716.00 km²
• Edmonton CMA, 9,417.88 km²
• Calgary CMA, 5,107.43 km²

According to their articles, the total areas of the GTA (refer to Infobox) and the NCR (refer to second paragraph) are 7,124.15 km² and 5,319 km² respectively.

This shows that the GTA is 1,220.52 km² larger than the Toronto CMA (21% difference), and that the MCR is 397 km² smaller than the Ottawa-Gatineau CMA (-7% difference).

In the case of the ECR, add in Lamont County's 2,400.78 km² to arrive at a total ECR area of 11,818.66 km² (25% difference).

In the case of the CR, add in the M.D. of Foothills No. 31's 3,643.60 km², the M.D. of Bighorn No. 8's 2,767.94 km², Strathmore's 15.59 km² and Banff's 4.85 km², to arrive at a total CR area of 11,539.41 km² (126% difference).

So to answer your question in the edit summary of your second revert, no, I'm not kidding.

Based on the above, your rationale to revert the edit on the basis that the ECR and CR areas are near identical to the areas of their respective CMAs is factually false. By reverting my edit, which stood unchallenged by numerous watchers on a historically controversial article for over three weeks, you have made a subjective and uninformed edit without doing the factual research or entering into a discussion to learn more before making a hasty revert.

Note that comparatively, it is a fact that the GTA and the NCR are much more near identical to their respective CMAs than the ECR and the CR in terms of geographic area. The population figures you mention in your above comments are moot since your rationale to revert is based on geographic area, not population, and the fact that CMAs and metro areas are defined geographic areas by Statistics Canada and applicable public bodies respectively.

Also, in response to reverting your revert, where I invited you to discuss first before repeating your revert, it appears you have taken the opportunity to challenge my credibility in my referenced municipal census edits. Note that I make population edits that are sourced and factual and to educate about municipal censuses in Alberta. In the case of the CR, there is more to the story than what you see on its recent edit history.

So to educate, municipal census population counts in Alberta, if accepted by Alberta Municipal Affairs (AMA), are not estimates. Acceptable municipal census results are based on household-to-household enumeration using methods acceptable AMA, similar to the methods used by Statistics Canada in its federal censuses. Those municipal census results that are not accepted by AMA, like this one, are considered estimates due to using unacceptable methods such as extrapolation, estimation or forecasting. If you would like to learn more about municipal censuses in Alberta, I would be happy to engage in a further discussion on my talk page.

As for adding every other CMA in Canada to the statement in question (city's metropolitan area in colloquial or administrative terms may be different than its CMA as defined by Statistics Canada, such as...), I don't doubt that other large CMAs, such as Vancouver and Montreal, and even perhaps all other CMAs have different metro areas defined by certain public bodies. If someone can confirm this, than I would suggest that the specific references to the GTA, NCR, ECR and CR as examples should all be considered for removal.

Until such time that this additional research is done, citing two examples from Ontario on an article about metro areas in a country with 144 metro areas (33 CMAs and 111 CAs) spread across ten provinces and two of the three territories (none in Nunavut), can be perceived to be Ontario-centric. Adding two examples from outside of Ontario helps to proactively refute this potential perception and geographically balance the examples.

As you can see from this reply, your accusation that my three-week old edit was about promotion was also subjective and false. My edit was factual, based on the methodology you referenced as reason for reversion, and was executed to educate that it is not just Ontario's largest CMAs that have metro areas that differ in geographic size from their respective CMAs. Hwy43 (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well first off you confirmed my suspicions on whether this was more of a promotion of these areas and perhaps a hint of the famed western Canadian inferiority complex.

It isn’t promotion. It is a different interpretation of the now-realized ambiguity of how the GTA and NCR were actual examples that applied to the original statement. See ten paragraphs down for further explanation.

Also, your suggestion of a hint of the famed complex doesn’t apply to this edit or me. I’m proud to say that I’ve been both a resident of Ontario and Alberta in my life. As a result, I’ve witnessed both geographical behaviours – the western Canadian inferiority complex and central Canadian centrism. These behaviours are ridiculous and embarrassing. In cases where I find a Wikipedia article has content that can be perceived as either of these, whether intentional or not, I attempt to eliminate the perception by striking a balance to prevent an opportunity for future controversy. Hwy43 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Secondly the Calgary region partnership is not a metropolitan area but from what I can gather a partnership between smaller regions to form a partnership region. As I stated on the Calgary region talk page the area includes towns over 80 miles (125km) away. If the GTA were to include such a massive area it would include cities like Niagara, Peterborough, Barrie, and could stretch into NY State.

You hit the nail on the head. The CRP is a voluntary alliance among Calgary-area municipalities to address regional growth and planning issues. And I personally agree that some of its members, Banff being the prime example, do not truly have a metropolitan relationship with Calgary. As such, they should not be considered part of Calgary’s metro area. Hwy43 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thirdly your edit went almost 3 weeks without being reverted probably because either no one saw it (like myself) or didn't care enough to revert it. The CMA's and metro areas of these cities are near identical in population, they are not good examples. As stated before the calgary region is not a metro area. If you want to add Vancouvers metro as a reference to ease your western views than go ahead, as I think it's CMA and metro are quite different there.

Yes, perhaps no one saw it or didn’t care enough, but also perhaps others interpreted the examples in the opening statement to be based on differing geographic size instead of differing population, like I did, and felt it was a worthwhile contribution.

If the opening sentence was originally intended to be based on differing population, which I’m now confident it was, instead of based on differing geographic size, then yes, the ECR and CR fall back off.

I’d be happy to add Montreal or Vancouver if they have metro areas with notable population differences compared to the populations associated with their StatCan-defined CMA boundaries. Since I am not as familiar with them, it would take some time to confirm, or research if this info isn’t already on their articles. Hopefully a watcher of this article that is more familiar with them will take the initiative and deliver more promptly than I can. Hwy43 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, it was you who added questionable material to the article, not me. If you are reverted you should bring it to the talk page before re adding it, not me. I am reverting your false additions again. Please do not re add them before this is resolved. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not questionable material if you interpreted the opening statement as I did. However I can see how it can be deemed questionable considering you interpreted the opening statement differently. See immediately below for further explanation. Hwy43 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the time to look back closely at the original statement (Note that a city's metropolitan area in colloquial or administrative terms may be different than its CMA as defined by Statistics Canada, such as the case with the Greater Toronto Area and the National Capital Region), my contribution, the first revert and this ensuing discussion. I have determined that this original statement is ambiguous as to how the GTA and NCR are examples of having metro areas that differ from their defined CMA boundaries. In hindsight, this ambiguity triggered my original edit. My interpretation of the original statement was that these examples were based on differing geographic sizes between their colloquial/administrative metro areas and StatCan-defined CMAs. Your interpretation is that these were based on differing populations. Now noticing this, I deem that it is much more likely that the original editor’s intent in contributing this statement was that the examples were based on differing populations, not differing geographic sizes. My less likely interpretation of differing geographic sizes is attributed to a recently emerging myth that the ECR and CR colloquial/administrative metro areas recently expanded due to municipal membership in the voluntarily-established Calgary Regional Partnership and the provincially-established Capital Region Board.

Likewise, the ambiguity of the edit summary you provided with your first revert (near identical to cma's) resulted in my original interpretation that you were referring to differing geographic sizes, not differing populations. Due to this interpretation, the theme of your first discussion comments had the appearance of flip-flopping rationale between your first and second revert. Upon further review, I now notice that your original edit summary was intended to refer to differing populations, not differing geographic sizes. My apologies for misinterpreting. I have included responses to some of your second discussion comments above to close off our mutual misunderstandings that have arisen out of our differing interpretations of the original statement.

To resolve, I suggest that we improve the original statement to include an explicit statement that establishes how the GTA and the NCR are notable examples. I’ll lead and you and other watchers can tweak accordingly if necessary. Hwy43 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Brampton

Per Any other municipality that comprises at least 10 per cent of the CMA or CA population is listed in parentheses as stated in the article, Brampton's 2006 population of 433,806 is less than 10% of the Toronto CMA's 2006 population of 5,113,149. No question that Brampton has continued to grow significantly since 2006, but so has the CMA as a whole. Brampton will be included in parantheses if its population is 10% or greater than that of the Toronto CMA when the forthcoming 2011 census results are released in early 2012. Until then, it does not qualify for inclusion in parentheses on this page. Hwy43 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

St. Catharines - Niagara

The article lists the Niagara region incorrectly. It is listed as : St. Catharines–Niagara (Niagara Falls, Welland) It should be listed as St. Catharines–Niagara (Welland). The official name of the CMA is St.Catherines-Niagara, but Niagara the City should be linked, not Niagara Region. St. Catharines is already a part of the Niagara Region. I am going to correct i, if anyone objects please let me know here. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cities in (brackets)

I've noticed some of the places in (brackets) shouldn't be there. The brackets to my knowledge are suppose to be reserved for cities in the CMA that constitute 10% of the CMA's population. In cases like Lethbridge (County of Lethbridge) or Grande Prairie (Grande Prairie County No. 1) the entire county is not in the CMA, and shouldn't be listed. I am going to remove them, if any ojects, please let me know here. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

According to StatCan's GeoSearch2006 utility, both counties in question are wholly within the respective Grande Prairie and Lethbridge CA boundaries. If I recall correctly, StatCan also never splits municipalities in delineating CMA/CA boundaries. As stated in the last sentence of the first paragraph, "Any other municipality that comprises at least 10 per cent of the CMA or CA population is listed in parentheses", so eligibility for inclusion in parentheses isn't limited to municipalities incorporated as cities. Perhaps what you would prefer to propose for discussion here instead is changing that last sentence from municipalities to incorporated cities exclusively? If consensus, this would have implications on numerous CAs in British Columbia and perhaps other provinces as well. Hwy43 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Including counties is foolish. Only other municipalities should be included. Counties are a completely different entity. The counties for Nova Scotian communities should be removed as well. Or counties of other CA's should be included as well. What about communities with both other municipalities and counties more than 10% ? Toronto (York Region, Peel Region, Durham Region, City of Mississauga) ?? Seems foolish. Espeacially considering the counties in question (County of Lethbridge & Grande Prairie County No. 1) both have miniscule populations are almost insignificant. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If other counties within other CAs meet the 10% requirement per the article's intent are not yet within parentheses, then they should be added as well. Hwy43 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Municipalities in parentheses

In this article, it is stated that "Any other municipality that comprises at least 10 per cent of the CMA or CA population is listed in parentheses." Was the original intent to be any other census subdivision instead of any other municipality?
If the former, then the current state of the article as it relates to this statement appears to be accurate. However, if the latter, it appears the article is accidentally erroneous for some CAs (maybe some CMAs as well).
For example, regional districts in British Columbia do not appear to be municipalities. Instead, they appear to be unorganized areas. Further, Indian reserves across the country are unorganized areas under the jurisdiction of INAC, not municipalities. They are however recognized as municipal equivalents by StatCan (refer to the first footnote in this publication). Perhaps regional districts are an example of a type of census subdivision in British Columbia created by StatCan as equivalents to municipalities (refer again to the first footnote in the externally-linked publication above).
If census subdivision was intended, then seven CAs in British Columbia that have regional districts or Indian reserves within parentheses should remain as is, but the 10%-requirement statement should be revised to "Any other census subdivision (municipality or municipal equivalent defined by Statistics Canada) that comprises..."
If purely municipality was intended, then the regional districts and Indian reserves within the parentheses of seven CAs in British Columbia should be removed.
I've yet to sweep across the balance of the country to determine if other municipal equivalents would be impacted by this as well.
I believe the intent was census subdivisions and not purely municipalities, but I can't confirm this since the 10%-requirement statement in the article is before my time. Hwy43 (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question I actually don't know the answer to. You're right that regional districts aren't municipalities, but they're also not purely StatsCan creations; they're provincial government creations that serve a function not entirely unlike that of a county. (They're not seen as being exactly equivalent, but in practice they're functionally quite similar.)

However, what I'm uncertain about here is whether the names listed here are a case of explicitly matching an official StatsCan source — it would seem that with the exception of Ottawa-Gatineau, the reference page that's actually being linked only lists the primary metropolitan centre of the CMA (i.e. "Toronto", not "Toronto (Mississauga)") — or if that constitutes an original research creation on our part. Generally, we need to stick to what the official reliable sources call them: whether they use "core cities only", "core cities + large municipal suburbs" or "core cities + census subdivisions", we should use the same and not impose our own alternative naming criteria. Bearcat (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right that they aren't purely StatCan creations. Per the footnote in the linked StatCan publication above, they were created as census subdivisions in cooperation with the province, as were similar census subdivisions in NL and NS.

A StatCan reference page can be added to support the census subdivisions in parentheses. It is a page that has links to the census subdivision breakdowns for each CMA/CA in Canada. The alternative would be to add the direct links to all 100 in the list, which are embedded in this reference page, but I feel 100 new references would be excessive. Would adding this reference page address the concern about original research (whether in whole or in part)?

Since the StatCan references are reliable sources and since StatCan refers to them as census subdivisions, I will change municipality in the 10%-requirement statement to census subdivision. Hwy43 (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Flags

Does anyone else think the recent addition of the Prov. flags is distracting ? UrbanNerd (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Very much so. I think they should be removed. Mindmatrix 15:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Although not explicit, seems inappropriate per the spirit and intent at WP:MOSFLAG. Hwy43 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Update

Hi, when the 2011 census is published, will someone please update the info? Cities like Toronto have grown significantly since 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldenbg (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Metropolitan Areas

I think this article needs to be trimmed down. Not every city in the country has a "metropolitan area". I mean the metropolitan Estevan Manitoba area" ? or "Metropolitan Elliot Lake Ontario" ? Even the articles title had to be changed to accommodate these additions. Even when the list only included 100 cities it was a bit of overkill, but 144 now ? I have reverted these additions so that this can be discussed, also it may be worth reverting the article naming change. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The Kitimat census agglomeration (CA) is a not a metropolitan area. Comparing it with the Toronto census metropolitan area (CMA) under the current name of the article is misleading.
I propose trimming this article down to StatCan-designated CMAs, and moving the article to List of census metropolitan areas in Canada since the primary source of the data from the article is StatCan's CMA program.
The trimmed content could be transferred to a new List of census agglomerations in Canada article based on StatCan-designated CAs. Hwy43 (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a discussion here. My apologies. Why trim down when we can add more information? Statistics Canada also include CAs with CMAs so why wouldn't we? And what about changing the name to List of metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada? I believe the readers also want to see the agglomerations when they see the metropolitan areas, which is why I don't think splitting is a good idea either. 144 entries is a reasonable number for a list, so why not include all? Just look at the US table; they include all their CBSAs. I also believe that having the word "census" is not consistent with every other metropolitan area list on Wikipedia. Having "top 100" in the name isn't conventional either. The reason why I prefer discussions of article on WikiProjects is because more people will be aware of the discussion, but having it here is alright also. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Perhaps you didn't add the article to your watchlist?
In response to your second question, StatCan publishes the populations of CMAs and CAs both together and separately. Therefore, the opposite question about separating CAs from CMAs could be asked as well.
In response to not including "census" in the title, the US table example you provided uses the exact geographic term as defined by the US Census Bureau in its article name. Therefore, I wouldn't support List of metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada or List of metropolitan areas in Canada and List of agglomerations in Canada without the "census" if splitting occurs. Hwy43 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)