From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Calgary was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 7, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
November 14, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
April 18, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada / Alberta / Communities (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.
WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Olympics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Calgary is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Calgary:
  1. There needs to be significantly more information for economy and industry. This section is sorely lacking, and once it's expanded, there should be a sub-article created. --Arch26 08:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Some of the new sub-articles such as Sports in Calgary, Festivals in Calgary, and Military in Calgary need work. --Arch26 08:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. References need to be added to the new "References" section. --Arch26 08:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. The "Politics" section is missing information on local politics. --Arch26 08:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  Quality: B-Class
 ???  Importance: not yet rated

Skyline image[edit]


Well, I strongly and strongly oppose the current edit war of the image in the section of recent history. I make the picture big (and it looks nice like that) and as it is the best image of the city on Commons, but it gets reverted. Please see here and scroll down - which one is better the smaller one or the bigger one? --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think 10 skyline images is excessive, and I think that the one in question (File:Calgary-Dawn-Szmurlo.jpg), is redundant with the one in the "Calgary's neighbourhoods" section, (File:Calgary4-Szmurlo.jpg). I like the nighttime picture, with lit skyscrapers, better than the winter one, with leafless trees. I think that 'Calgary-Dawn-Szmurlo.jpg' should be deleted, and 'Calgary4-Szmurlo.jpg' be enlarged, an enlarged image is acceptable, as seen on Edmonton and St. Albert. 117Avenue (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As on outsider who doesn't edit this article or never visited the city all I can say is that the image taken at dawn illustrates this article better IMO. I can get a sense of what the city looks like, something the night time image doesn't do. Just my two cents. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Calgary-Dawn-Szmurlo.jpg also gives us a pleasant feeling as it is a perfect blend of high rises along with the beauty of nature while File:Calgary4-Szmurlo.jpg cannot. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 06:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
'Calgary-Dawn-Szmurlo.jpg' seems to me to be a falsley coloured image because it so red, 'Calgary4-Szmurlo.jpg' looks more real. 117Avenue (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a falsely coloured image, that is my main issue with the image as well. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Beauty matters. And I don't feel like that. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't, the first use is to compare the city scape to the 1885 and 1969 pictures. The second use is to show the downtown, however since the section name is neighbourhoods, you could put a beautiful image in there. 117Avenue (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the connection between the above and the images. You may also see File:Calgary-Dawn-Szmurlo.jpg 's summary. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If it's a vote, I also like the Calgary-Dawn-Szmurlo one more than the Calgary4 one. TastyCakes (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The connection is reality, using a falsely coloured image in a comparison is not comparing reality. If you are going to compare multiple images you would need to have a realistic image being used. -DJSasso (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Calgary-Dawn-Szmurlo.jpg 's summary shows it is a real photograph. Please read.. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The summary does not say it wasn't edited in Photoshop to make the colours pop more which is what the issue is. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
But it also not says that its edited. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look edited to me... Just a morning with a pinkish sky. TastyCakes (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with you. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 04:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
And better, conduct a vote. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 05:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As the photographer of both images I can say authoritatively that while the images were cropped and exposure adjusted in Photoshop Elements the colors are what actually existed and have not been enhanced.Cszmurlo (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been too busy to do anything about this discussion. But I still think that there are too many skyline pictures, and the two are too identical. 117Avenue (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only person who notices that both pictures are flawed as the Calgary skyline just recently got two new additions? Perhaps a newer picture would be better. --Klopsikon (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

First Settlement section[edit]

This section contains three major factual errors, which I have removed immediately because they are just glaring. I will get back on this in more detail later, but for now here is a quick roundup: Claim: Buffalo were extirpated, then Natives shifted to hunting beaver. Fact: It is a basic fact of Canadian history that the canoe-based fur trade between fur companies (Hudson's Bay Company, North West Company) penetrated all the way across Canada by 1793. The extirpation of the buffalo was almost a century later. Claim: Calgary is at the entrance to the Kicking Horse Pass. Fact: the Kicking Horse Pass is 185 kilometres west of Calgary via the Trans-Canada Highway. And, since Calgary sits on an open plain, it can't be claimed that it is somehow at the head of a long valley that extends all the way to the Kicking Horse Pass. There is an element of truth in this claim, but the way it was expressed is completely incorrect.Country Wife (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on the former, but I agree with the latter. "Lake Louise is at the entrance to the Kicking Horse Pass" on the Lake Louise article would be a claim that is far more significantly truthful than claiming "Calgary is at the entrance to the Kicking Horse Pass" on this article. --Hwy43 (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I should have looked at what was deleted before making the above comment. Upon further review, simply changing...
"The Calgary town site had the good fortune to be built at the entrance to the Kicking Horse Pass...", to...
"The Calgary town site had the good fortune to be built downstream of the entrance to the Kicking Horse Pass,...",
would have sufficiently resolved the inaccuracy of the original claim. --Hwy43 (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Calgary?[edit]

Anyone think a WP:WikiProject Calgary would be a good idea? It's the only Canadian city in the top 5 population wise without a WPP (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa all have their own WikiProjects -- Kawartha Lakes even has its own WikiProject) (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Alberta should already have it covered, I don't think there really is a need for one. 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Effectively, WP:Alberta is already little more than a task force of WP:Canada. Drilling down further does not seem especially necessary to me at this point. I'm not certain there are enough willing editors to keep such a project or task force from being stillborn. Resolute 05:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Alberta almost is. 117Avenue (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The city wikiprojects for the other four cities, are as active or more active than the provincial wikiprojects of the provinces in which they are situated, so it may be that Calgary could be more active than Alberta, simply because Calgarians may actually want to get involved. (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mayor image[edit]

I found it odd that someone added a picture of a mayor that hasn't even taken office yet. I reverted it. It was re added with the explanation "the recent election elevated a VISIBLE minority. As such, it is of some relevance to external perceptions of Calgary. There are some RS on this point ". I find this extremely inappropriate. Race should play no part in inclusion. By this definition if a white male had been elected he wouldn't "deserve" having a picture in the article. This is plain racist, and I am truly disgusted with this type of ideology. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This image is more appropriate on the future mayor's actual article, and maybe the List of mayors of Calgary, and Calgary municipal election, 2010 articles, all of which I see already have this image. This article had no picture of Bronconnier before the 2010 election outcome, so why should a new mayor's image suddenly be introduced after this election? I've come across few, if any, municipality articles in my WP travels that have photos of the current mayor. Bronconnier's image was located appropriately on his and only his article. Hwy43 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather on the fence. There is a lot of Nenshi-mania in the city right now, naturally, so I can see the addition as being a bit much. That said, one could easily argue that a picture of the current mayor would be appropriate in the politics section. Resolute 22:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a resident of the city or the area, but I'm aware of the current mania due to the media coverage. Yes, people are excited, but this mania is temporary and will subside. Including the image as a reflection of the current mania is not in line with the spirit and intent of WP:NOTNEWS. Essentially, the mania won't be an enduring event to maintain the need for the image in this article over the long-term, so why include it in the first place? Hwy43 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Festival Express in Calgary[edit]

I left this on other talk pages, but still haven't found an answer. Still trying. I watched Festival Express a while back, and the Calgary segment featured a news reporter kneeling down on the field before the concert began and giving a typical news report. I figured this reporter was Ed Whalen, but I've yet to find any confirmation of that. Any hints/help?RadioKAOS (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Montage Image[edit]

Can anyone create or forward a discussion on the creation of a montage image for Calgary? Other major cities in Canada; Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, now have one. It would be great exposure for the city to showcase different images of its culture, business, and landscape. Any pointers on how to create this? Davidtel 04:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can easily create one if anyone can supply the desired images to me. 08OceanBeachS.D. 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Another user recently prepared this montage. It was deleted as it was prepared and added without discussion. I suggest that this montage be the starting point for discussing what should and should not be included. See how the recent discussion about Edmonton's montage unfolded.
In my opinion, the montage prepared by the other user had too many images relating to the Calgary Stampede (the Saddledome, the Stampede exhibition grounds, and the Stampede racetrack). Surely there is more aspects of the city to better represent Calgary in its montage. Hwy43 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The Saddledome was meant to represent other activities rather than just the Stampede. Sorry, I didn't know we were supposed to discuss it. If another one does get made, I still think it'd be pretty cool to have a skyline image with the Calgary Tower and the Rockies in the background to give it more character. I don't think the Calgary Tower needs to have its own image on the montage. Toronto's doesn't have just a picture of the CN Tower and it still stands out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaiowe (talkcontribs) 02:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any requirement to discuss the creation of montages before uploading them to an article, but considered UrbanNerd's deletion as good faith. If there are guidelines/policies on this matter, it would be helpful for him to provide for the benefit of all.
The Saddledome and one stampede-related photo would be sufficient, but once there are two stampede related photos plus the Saddledome, the montage provides too much weight on one aspect of the community. I agree that both the exhibition and racetrack photos are too generic. I would find a photo of an actual stampede event, such as bull-riding, more in tume with Calgary's unique identity within Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No offense, I'm not trying to insult Calgary, but I'm not sure the city has enough notable landmarks to make a montage. The one that was deleted showed a carnival and a race track which are pretty much found in most cities across N.America. Toronto, Vancouver, and Ottawa seem to have more renown attractions, there would have to be some good images of notable places to warrant one. Again, no insult intended here. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Calgary has plenty of landmarks I'm sure. It's population approaches one million and it hosted the Olypmics. It's not just a wide spot in the road. It is also possible to create more than one montage. So this one doesn't have to be exactly perfect. 08OceanBeachS.D. 04:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a montage I created recently of Calgary. 08OceanBeachS.D. 04:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Downtown Calgary, Calgary Plus 15 skywalk, Pengrowth Saddledome, Suncor Energy Centre
Valiant attempt, and it is eye-catching, but too downtown-focused. Calgary is more than a downtown. Hwy43 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Now I am not as familiar with Calgary as I am with its rival to the north, but I offer the following as photo ideas of a Calgary montage to start. Downtown skyline (preferably with the Calgary Tower), city hall, the Saddledome, an action shot of a stampede event, the Bow River valley, Centre Street bridge, the Glenmore Reservoir/park system, Lougheed House (from the first montage), Heritage Park, Calgary Zoo, etc. Hwy43 (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Nor am I very familiar with the city. I try to choose things I thought where symbolic of the city. It would be very easy to swap some images or even make the montage larger with photos of places you suggested. 08OceanBeachS.D. 05:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe we should first begin a discussion on what landmarks and images should be included, and build from there. In my opinion there should be an image of looking onward from the Crescent Heights area, encapsulating the skyline, Prince's Island Park, and the Bow River. An image pertaining to the Olympic history of the city, maybe Canada Olympic Park. Perhaps an image of the mountains, (this may be shown best in contrast from the skyline.) An image representing the Calgary Stampede. An image representing the arts and culture; perhaps the Glenbow Museum, Southern Alberta Jubilee Auditorium, 17th Avenue, or Stephen Avenue. Calgary has an abundance of green areas and parks that could be showcased. There are many different aspects to a city greater than one million residents and should be showcased accordingly. These are only a few ideas, I hope this may help or get the ball rolling further. davidtel (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
This helps and I think the ball is rolling. The discussion has begun and ideas of images have been offered. More are encouraged. Someone should be bold as 117Avenue did for the Edmonton montage per this discussion. I don't have the software requirements to do so myself at this time. Hwy43 (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, this is just my opinion, but I find it more visually appealing when we have the black borders around the pictures. Not saying the montage is bad, though. But the black seems to make the pictures stand out a little better in my eyes. And of course, have the montage have an overall black border around it. I'm not particularly the biggest fan of Halifax's or St. John's. Again, that's just my opinion and I'm not insulting anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Equal-width black borders between all images within and surrounding the montage looks sharp. Refer to the first montage shown above and the Edmonton montage. Hwy43 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion, but haven't chimed in yet because real life keeps getting in the way. Here are a selection of pictures I have found:

How do they look? 117Avenue (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Glenbow Museum image sticks out, and not in a good way. It looks like just another building in that one. IMO, a skyline picture prominently featuring the Calgary Tower is a must. I like the skyline currently in the article, as it covers both the Saddledome and the Calgary Tower in one shot. Lougheed House is also very good, and might be a good foil for an image of The Bow, perhaps. I also like the Stephen Avenue image. Speaking of, if there is anything we need pictures of, I can very easily take my camera out and around town. Resolute 02:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "a good foil". Are you saying a picture of the The Bow should be included? Are there any good pictures? It looks like it is still under construction. 117Avenue (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Calgary's downtown would be sufficiently covered in the montage with the Saddledome/skyline image and the Stephen Avenue image. I'd prefer an image of the Bow River instead of the latest and tallest skyscraper. Once construction of The Bow is complete, a new Saddledome/skyline image with The Bow could always be swapped in.
I agree with omitting the Glenbow Museum image. Are there any better Olympic-related photos? If the Canada Olympic Park image is used, I recommend cropping out the top and bottom of the photo to focus on the facilities. Alternately, perhaps Resolute can take a better photo of COP. Hwy43 (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have uploaded one with the selected pictures. The hospital took up more space than I had anticipated, alternatively it could be swapped with File:Montgomery Calgary Alberta children hospital.JPG. 117Avenue (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks good, but there is a complete lack of a winter image, which seems a tad odd. A better COP pic would work there, but I've got a couple months until I can get a winter scene. Resolute 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a winter picture for COP would be best, but I couldn't find any good ones. There's File:Canada Olympic Park 2006 Dec 10 - 8.jpg, but there wasn't much snow, and File:Cop.jpg doesn't show the ramps. 117Avenue (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So post as is, or are there any changes? It can always be changed in the future as pictures become available. 117Avenue (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would the childrens hospital be in the montage ? Most large urban centres have one, and Calgary's isn't really notable whatsoever. Seems odd to me. This is what I meant when I said "I'm not sure the city has enough notable landmarks to make a montage". It seems like were trying to use "filler" here. I mean a hospital in a montage ? UrbanNerd (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm always hearing about it in the news, that it is offering new and major services and operations that families from great distances must travel to. It also has an interesting look for a hospital, with the coloured blocks. 117Avenue (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yet surely a more suitable image can be found. It's not as if the hospital is the Texas Medical Center. 08OceanBeachS.D. 00:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Like, I said, it could be replaced with File:Montgomery Calgary Alberta children hospital.JPG. 117Avenue (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it being in the montage because it is a hospital (regardless of type and notability). I see its inclusion as it is a significant landmark in Calgary. It is an attractive and colourful sight to see from up close and afar, being located atop the river valley escarpment and greeting travellers from the west. IMO it is a great photo and I prefer the one currently within the montage (not the other photo from afar). I support uploading the current montage, which could be revisited as further Calgary photos become available as previously discussed. Hwy43 (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I think it is very odd to include this image. Using "filler images" until better one's become available isn't the right path. UrbanNerd (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, where nothing is finished and everything can be edited. I quite like the image myself. It is a rather unique design, and its location means it pretty much dominates NW Calgary, where you can see it from just about everywhere. By all means, however, propose something better. Resolute 14:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha. Nice one. Why can't the image just use the other 6 pictures ? Why does it need the 7th "filler" image ? UrbanNerd (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
In all honesty, it's not a terrible image, and it works for now. We might as well use it until we can find a better image to use in its stead. 08OceanBeachS.D. 23:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the hospital image should be replaced with an image of something in regards to the winters, or an image in regards to nature; something green to balance out the montage and showcase Calgary's outdoor offerings. davidtel (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I agree that there needs to be a winter picture, but none of the listed landmarks have a good winter picture. 117Avenue (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
We can always make a montage for Calgary at the moment, and when the winter comes, someone will update it. That's what happened with Vancouver's montage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Again I'm not sure why the 7th image of the hospital is needed. I think the montage would look nice without it. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that 2 is the best of the three I have made. 3 seems too short, I'd like a tall image. 117Avenue (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently on holiday and haven't reviewed everything that has transpired in my usual level of detail. Some of my original suggestions for consideration included the Bow River, the Calgary Zoo, etc. I have not actively searched for photos, but did come across File:Bow with Zoo.JPG at Calgary Zoo before I left, which includes both and the mouth of the Elbow River. Perhaps this could be considered. It is similar in feel to the Edmonton montage with the Muttart Conservatory in the North Saskatchewan River valley. Although it is not a winter image, other major Canadian cities with montages do not have winter images either, and I think we have an implied offer by Resolute take a better winter image of the COP when the opportunity arises. Like 117Avenue, my preference would be a taller image. Hwy43 (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Definitely. COP doesn't look all that great in the summer, as the current image shows. That one is just begging for a winter scene. Especially since the new Canadian Sport Hall of Fame is out there now. I should be able to get a good picture or two the next time it snows... any day now. Resolute 14:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, and UrbanNerd's objections notwithstanding, I also prefer the taller image. I'm not opposed to changing out the hospital, but another panorama in its place would be ideal. Resolute 14:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to see the river. But I think that the picture of the rolling hills better captures the landscape of Calgary, than a river valley crowded with trees. 117Avenue (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to obtain a picture of the city with the snowcapped - if they are - Rockies in the background? 08OceanBeachS.D. 03:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The COP photo captures Calgary's rolling topography. As beautiful as the Rockies backdrop is, the article is about the city. I don't see it being necessary unless the city were actually in the Rockies. I am satisfied with the latest montage. Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Well done and thank you 117Avenue. Hwy43 (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you 117Avenue, you created a nice montage. In my opinion, the Calgary Zoo image does not work aesthetically, along with the image of SAIT. I'm trying to comb through other images throughout Calgary's wikipedia pages. What is the policy of using images not from wikipedia? (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Just take a look at Wikipedia:Image#Obtaining_images. The key thing is that "images with any license restricting commercial use or the creation of derivative works may not be used on Wikipedia." 08OceanBeachS.D. 23:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that it is winter, I'd like to remind watchers of this page of this discussion, where we hoped to add a winter image to the montage. 117Avenue (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's winter again, and I would still like to replace the COP image with a winter one. 117Avenue (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)



Not sure if anyone is up to talk about this still, but I'll start a new section in case. I've added a winter image to the montage. Any thoughts? 117Avenue (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Calgary Montage 2015.jpg

I think a new montage should be added for Calgary now that the Bow Tower and the Peace Bridge have been completed and these are now iconic landmarks for the city. What do you think of this montage? Jpmpham (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that the skyline could be updated, I have a few problems with your image. There are two skylines, with only a few images to represent the city there shouldn't be any repeats. The top skyline isn't a complete representation of the downtown, it is missing the tallest building in the prairies, as you have mentioned. The Olympic Park and zoo images are too small to make out. And the image of the Bow is without context, losing its landmark value. 117Avenue (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate this being discussed given the efforts last time around. Further to 117, the iconic Saddledome is lost. Overall, too much emphasis on downtown with the current two photos being doubled to four. An updated skyline photo that is a complete representation of downtown featuring the tallest building, as well as the Saddledome in the foreground would be best. Hwy43 (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

How does this look? I added a updated photo of the skyline with the Saddledome and I found an image of the Peace Bridge that focuses more on the bridge and the river, rather than the downtown skyline. Jpmpham (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Calgary Montage 2015 2.jpg
Still too downtown centric. Again, no need for four downtown photos. The Bow Tower photo is redundant as it is also featured in the skyline. If it must stay, the Stephen Avenue and Peace Bridge should go with the SAIT and Lougheed photos returning in their place. Hwy43 (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I am unsure how you are categorizing which photos are "downtown photos" and which photos are not. If you meant there are too many skyline and skyscraper images, then there are only three "downtown images" because the Peace Bridge image does not focus on the skyline. If you meant there are too many images of attractions in and around downtown, the Peace Bridge is located around downtown, but so is the Lougheed House and the Calgary Stampede. SmartCanadian99 (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Review the 2010 to 2012 discussion above. There is too much weight on Calgary's downtown. Calgary is more than its downtown. There are four photos in the proposed montage that feature skyscrapers. Regardless of Lougheed House's location, it is a sharp contrast to Calgary's modern downtown skyscrapers. It adds both Calgary's heritage and historical architecture to the montage. Hwy43 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Calgary Montage 2015 3.jpg

How does this look now? Only two downtown photos and two historic sites (Lougheed House and Fort Calgary) have been added.SmartCanadian99 (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What is that in the bottom left corner? That doesn't look like a recognizable landmark. Also, why a white border, not black? 117Avenue (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I echo the same two questions. Further to the second question, the consensus from the 2010 to 2012 discussion was to use black borders. Hwy43 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It is Fort Calgary, the site where Calgary was founded. It is a National Historic Site of Canada. I feel it is a good landmark that represents the history and heritage of Calgary. For the second question, with the software I use, the default setting was a white border, but I can change it to black if that is what is preferred.SmartCanadian99 (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Calgary Montage 2015 4.jpg
The Fort Calgary picture looks too obscure, can it be replaced by something more identifiable? Or are we trying for too much, and the montage should have less than eight pictures? 117Avenue (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Economy (and Industry) and Economy of Calgary sub article[edit]

Some items removed from Economy section (some of this stuff is now summarized though, so please check current article before re-adding anything here): It is common to see signing bonuses for workers in the service industry as well as starting wages for grade school students up to $15 per hour at local fast food eateries.[1][2] Downtown hotels have had to shut down floors due to a lack of staff to clean all the rooms. The area's housing boom, combined with large road construction projects and competition from oil fields with high wages to the north, has created a strain on the labour force. In 1996, Canadian Pacific Railway moved its head office from Montreal to Calgary, and, with 3,100 employees, is among the city's top employers.[citation needed] Imperial Oil moved its headquarters from Toronto in 2005 in order to take advantage of Alberta's favourable corporate taxes and to be closer to its oil operations.[3] This involved the relocation of approximately 400 families. SunKing2 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "High school dropouts the dirty downside of the Alberta Advantage". 2006. Retrieved January 6, 2008.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (|date= suggested) (help)[dead link]
  2. ^ "Edmonton Sun". 2007. Retrieved January 6, 2008.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (|date= suggested) (help)[dead link]
  3. ^ CBC news (2004). "Imperial Oil moving HQ to Calgary from Toronto". CBC News. Retrieved February 23, 2007.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (|date= suggested) (help)

lack of attribution for article[edit]

the article is vastly undersourced. several sections are entirely without attribution. some sections have little attribution with entire paragraphs within those sections having no attribution.

i have tagged article as "refimprove" twice and been reverted. the article fails WP:VERIFY. is it WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH? -- (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. This article has a decent amount of sources, 114 to be exact. In fact, most of the prose is verified. If you see anything that needs to be validated simply apply the {{cn}} tag or apply the {{unreferenced section}} tag to sections that lack sources. 08OceanBeachS.D. 20:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
114 citations or 11,400 citations. when entire paragraphs (and some entire sections) are without attribution, there is a deficiency in citations. -- (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't require every paragraph to have citations, only facts that are likely to be challenged. -DJSasso (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Calgary is the main staging point for people destined for the park."[edit]

Can someone explain why a citation is needed for this, and what kind of citation would be helpful. Isn't it sufficient to state that Calgary has the nearest commercial airport to Banff? Country Wife (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See "lack of attribution for article" above. 117Avenue (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that explains why there are many "needs citation" notes (and I do agree that more citations are needed throughout this article), but this particular point seems (dare I say it?) self-evident. Sorry if I'm being thick, but are statistics called for? Geographical information? Or will a slogan from Tourism Calgary ("Gateway to the Rockies") be sufficient?Country Wife (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Reference added, although I question the sentence's relevance to the "First settlement" section overall. It, and maybe the whole paragraph, might be more appropriate under the "Attractions" section. Hwy43 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Its funny cause its true. I was at Denver International and flying home. I saw the sign said Calgary/Banff for my flight. Trfs (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Meaning & origin of "Calgary" (from First Settlement section)[edit]

The Mull Museum website ( has nothing on it now about the origin and meaning of "Calgary". There are widely varying explanations: Wikipedia's article on Calgary, Mull says "Cala ghearraidh, meaning Beach of the meadow (pasture)" but without attribution. provides a vague book citation which says it is from "'caladh' and 'garaidh' ('the haven by the dyke') or alternatively from the Old Scandinavian personal name 'Kali' and 'geiri', suggesting 'Kali's triangular plot of land". NWMP officer Col. James McLeod suggested the fort be named "Calgary" (after the place on the Isle of Mull where he had relatives), and a letter sent back to Ottawa and signed by Maj. A. G. Irvine stated that Calgary meant "clear running water" (Calgary: A Not Too Solemn Look at Calgary's First 100 Years, by Bob Shiels, published by the Calgary Herald, 1974, p. 22). However, Irvine apparently didn't understand Scottish Gaelic very well. Shiels goes on to note that "the word seems to break down into 'cala' (a harbour) and 'araigh' (arable pasture land). Go back even further and there's a Norse version describing 'an enclosure for calves'"(ibid, p.23). Finally, we have this webpage ( which claims Calgary's Glenbow Museum as its source for the statement "The original name in Gaelic was *Cala-ghearridh* [sic], with the first part *Cala*, meaning 'harbour' or 'bay', and the second part, *ghearridh* [sic], meaning 'preserved piece of pasture', 'enclosed pasture', or 'farm'. Therefore, a translation of 'Calgary' would be 'preserved pasture at the harbour', or 'bay farm'." This would be great except that I cannot find anything on the Glenbow Museum's own website ( about this. I think that at the moment, the actual meaning is so muddied that the article should just stick to stating that Calgary, Canada is named after the Calgary on the Isle of Mull in Scotland. Feedback, please? Country Wife (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No that sounds correct, I know that there is a mural at city hall depicting this fact so we can take it without salt and accept it for what it is. A fact. --Klopsikon (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This article originally had the "clear running water" meaning for the name. But this was so obviously incorrect, that I had a look for the true meaning and found the Gaelic-based one. There is a slight chance that the Norse one is correct. However anyone who has visited Calgary in Mull will agree that the Gaelic is perfectly descriptive of the location: It is a beach by a meadow. But "Cala(dh)" does not mean just any beach, it means a beach of hard-packed gently sloping sand of the type perfectly suited to landing small boats (hence the "harbour" or "haven" translations). Likewise the "gar(r)adh" is a pasture surrounded by a low wall (or dyke). The minor spelling variations are due to Gaelic case endings and lenition and don't actually have any bearing on the identity of the underlying words. In short the English translations may be muddied but the Gaelic isn't. Other English translations are possible. Calgary could be translated as "Garden Cove" for instance but all these alternative translations depend upon which aspects of the original Gaelic you want to emphasise and which you don't and they all circle round the central meaning. The best translation is probably that provided by a bilingual Gaelic/English speaker. So I'd agree that the mural at Calgary city hall has it right. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Extraneous / Incorrect info in the "First Settlement" section[edit]

There are two items in the First Settlement section that are problematic:

"Calgary International Airport is a staging point for people destined for the park.[11]" right out of nowhere which has no relevance on the 'first settlement' of Calgary.

"When the Canadian Pacific Railway reached the area in 1883, and a rail station was constructed, Calgary began to grow into an important commercial and agricultural centre. The Canadian Pacific Railway headquarters are still located in Calgary to this day." The part "The Canadian Pacific Railway headquarters are still located in Calgary to this day." makes no sense, as the CPR only moved to Calgary 15 years ago.

I'd recommend deleting both. I also should have logged in, oops. (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first item, I've made the same observation before. I've moved that content to the more appropriate Transportation section and deleted the balance of the paragraph as the history of Banff National Park has no relevence to the first settlement of Calgary. As mentioned previously, it would be much more appropriate in the Attractions section. I'll look at reintroducing it there when I have a little more time.

Regarding the second item, relocation of the HQ about 15 years ago sounds right, but do you have a reference to confirm this? If so, I suggest the second sentence be revised accordingly with a proper citation. Hwy43 (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


I found this sentence in the Climate secion; "The Town of High River (south of Calgary) receives on average 14–15 cm less snow a year than at the Calgary Airport in North-East Calgary (based on 1971–2000 Environment Canada averages), and less than the Toronto area." It was unreferenced but an easy one to reference. However, when I checked the references for the airport and High River it turns out that High River gets 42 cm more snow a year than Calgary Airport. Now does anybody know what the sentence was originally trying to say about the snow difference between the two and which was being referred to as having less than the Toronto area? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the first question is "why is that important?" It is an arbitrary comparison that doesn't tell the reader anything of value. Why High River, and not Banff or Lethbridge or Red Deer? Why Toronto and not Winnipeg or St. Johns or Vancouver? Resolute 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Hwy43 (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Based on the previous sentence "However, snowfall (and temperatures) can vary considerably throughout the Calgary region – mostly due to the elevation changes, and proximity to the mountains." I think they were trying to show how different parts of the region get different amounts of snow. But that's over a 37 km difference and the comparison to Toronto is odd as that is 4-5 cm difference. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on the 1981-2010 numbers, is Calgary's climate now officially Dwb? Considering the driest winter month (Jan/Feb) has at most 10% of the wettest summer month (June). Any Koppen experts feel free to chime in. (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I would consider it a borderline case (Dfb/Dwb) and I would lean more to a Dfb scenario because the old 1971-2000 and 1961-1990 data has shown that Calgary's climate is dfb since the precipitation in the driest winter month Jan/Feb has more than 10% of the wettest summer month. Most of the increase in June precipitation has occurred in the last 10 years. You are correct and I forgot to realize that when I changed it to the most recent data. But using sources to indicate its climate classification is better than just looking at the climate data and determining its climate classification scheme and I would prefer to discuss it before making any changes. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi Editors/Everyone:

I keep adding to the webpage but I'm rejected for lack of scholarly sources. I'd like to post my suggestions for change to this page here. Feel free to add them to the webpage (and hopefully they are not deleted on this page as well).

Particularly, I thought I could add:

There has also been increased camera surveillance throughout the city, making some worry that police is going to far in keeping the city safe. It's worth noting that increased camera surveillance has not decreased crime in any way and makes people feel they are being treated with suspicion.

Surveillance of neighbourhoods by neighbourhood watch groups and vehicles has also intensified throughout the city. Yet as with camera surveillance, crime is pervasive, largely because crime does not occur in ways typically imagined by most people (blatantly in street-corners and alley-ways). Not only is increased surveillance by patrols unnecessary, then, this creates an atmosphere of distrust and paranoia and is bothersome for those not involved in patrolling. Also problematic is the potential for abuse to ordinary people by granting policing powers to patrolling citizens, since surveillance groups are not accountable to any procedure or protocol as are paid officers.

Some also feel that though there are procedures in place for cases involving abuse by Calgary Police, de facto it is almost impossible to see through a complaint against an officer. Police, some feel, are additionally unresponsive to some serious crimes, despite incessant complaints and requests to investigate by citizens. This makes Calgary feel less welcoming than typically imagined. (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary Issues[edit]


I originally posted something similar but it was deleted. I hoped it could be used after consideration on this page.

After the section on the lack of affordability in the city. I wanted to add:

As part of the Federal conservative "action plan," provincial government has done very little to address issues of poverty, unemployment, housing, and education in Calgary.

As examples, disability payments have been raised to a maximum of 1500 dollars per month, which means very little in a city with such a high cost of living. Public housing, similarly, remains poor-quality and often exorbitant in price. Calgary Housing Company, for instance, refuses to make substantial repairs to houses built poorly decades ago but insists on demanding sometimes 900 dollars in rent per month. Social programs for re-training and employment, moreover, stream people into minimum-wage (or low-wage) jobs, while funding consists of less than one thousand dollars for re-education, or in cases of bursaries and scholarships, nothing substantial to pay for high tuition rates, books, supplies and a high standard of living. Other social programs such as legal aid are also inefficient as serious torts or actions against authority are not accepted by most contributing lawyers. Lastly, student debt for post-secondary education is in the tens of thousands, leaving graduates struggling to re-pay their loans feeling exploited and though the quality of education received was not worth it.

Yet with so many struggling, Calgary spends hundreds of thousands of dollars holding what some believe are spectacles, such as The Calgary Stampede, which promote heavy drinking, gambling, and cruelty to animals as sport. This leaves many wondering about Calgarian social culture and the competence of city and provincial governments (although admittedly The stampede makes millions in only days, none of which are re-distributed to solve any contemporary issues).

Unfortunately, the NDP and Liberals offer very little as alternatives. They are often unresponsive and advocate only a very minimal welfare state as a solution to contemporary problems. (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In both sections above, your additions appear to be your personal point of view, and basically essays. There is also an issue of undue weight. For instance, is a paragraph on the prevalence (or lack of) surveillance cameras really something that a reader looking to learn about this topic would need to know? Likewise your Contemporary Issues section. I appreciate your efforts, but while these would make the basis of a decent essay, they don't fit the scope of an encyclopedic entry. Regards, Resolute 03:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Transit and Social Climate[edit]

Hi Editors/Everyone:

I'd like to add the following to the article. My problem is that it's difficult to find sources for what I take to be empirical facts (many issues, sadly, are not yet discussed in sources when it comes to Calgary), so if anyone would like to substantiate these claims with sources for editorial consideration, please feel more than welcome. Like my other descriptions for the entry, I leave it to the people in charge to take what they like, and I leave my comments to this section if I am denied the ability to contribute to the actual article itself. I think these descriptions are important for people trying to get a good grasp of what the city is like, although I certainly can understand that some may be shy about adding them to an entry due to their non-utopian nature. In any case, they're well-intentioned, and I do hope they find a place in the overall picture of Calgary through Wikipedia.


Transportation, unfortunately, leaves much to be desired in comparison to other cities such as Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal. It is crowded, costly and inefficient, and soaring gas-prices coupled with high insurance rates make owning a vehicle in Calgary more of a burden than a luxury. Streets not originally designed for the increase of vehicles that accompanied Calgary's population boom have become far too congested and noisy as well. And it is unclear what steps local and provincial governments are taking to improve this problem and public transportation across the city.

Some complain that though Calgary has become much more tolerant of different cultures, it continues to harbour racist/ethnocentrist practices and attitudes in many of its institutions. Many, as a result, often move elsewhere in the country like Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver because they feel multiculturalism and tolerance are better represented in those places. (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC) April 19, 2012

These are personal opinions, not facts, and the writing in no way represents a WP:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the opinions of editors (this applies to both articles and talk pages). Hwy43 (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

File:69 Calgary.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:69 Calgary.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:69 Calgary.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

West Jet image[edit]

Should this be removed? It seams to be a "Advertising" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicbobman10 (talkcontribs) 15:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The section discusses Calgary as an economic hub, WestJet is one of the largest corporations in Calgary. I think it is appropriate. The section could actually use one or two more images. 117Avenue (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


The "Recent History" section is not very neutral. It sounds mostly as thought it was written by a Board of Tourism employee, but it is Canada so why would anyone care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

notable "residents"[edit]

An editor say that past and present residents of a city are "eligible" to be listed, and I would love to see the guideline to which you are surely referring. Aside from the fact that calling a dead person a "resident" is logically impossible - unless they are buried there - there are a host of other problems with this silly list. One, it is not a "standard" part of city articles, and smacks of an attempt to raise the esteem of a city by naming famous people associated with the city. Two, it is unsourced. Three, what qualifies as "notable" to make this list? (maybe the guideline says.) if it is simply people who have their own wiki articles - since one must be notable to have one - then I would expect this let to be hundreds of names long. That means anyone who has ever played for the Flames and Stampeders should be listed. Every mayor ever should be listed. Four, what makes one qualified to be listed? Again, being alive I would think is important, but since apparently it is anyone who has ever lived there, under what terms? Is it birth? Is a year long enough to qualify? Two years? Maybe a month. An overnight trip? I may be pushing it with the sarcasm here, but my point is it's a list with no defined terms or rules, that adds little to no value to the article. Listing a handful of celebrities without context or explanation isn't useful, and frankly this list ought to be deleted outright. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no guideline per se. I'm referring to convention observed among articles within the Canadian community WikiProject. Current and former residents are typically listed, whether dead or alive for the latter. If we were to delete a person from this notable residents list simply because they are deceased, then why not start a tidal wave of notable resident deletions among the countless other Canadian communities articles with deceased entries. e.g., Let's remove John A. Macdonald from Kingston, Ontario#Notable residents.

Regarding the other concerns:

  1. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities/Structure guideline, an article about a Canadian community may include the topic of "notable residents". Deleting Calgary's list outright would be inappropriate given inclusion is acceptable under this guideline.
  2. The articles for all eight entries on the list indicate their link to Calgary. I haven't checked if each article confirms the link with a reference based on a reliable source.
  3. A person is notable if they qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (people). This list could rightfully be hundreds long as you suggested. When a notable residents list becomes excessive, I've witnessed separation into a stand alone article or list (such as List of people from Edmonton). Your question about sports players is a good one. I do notice however that the most notable Edmonton Oiler is not listed at List of people from Edmonton. Regarding mayors, note not all local politicians are notable per WP:POLITICIAN.
  4. Refer back to the opening comments above regarding convention observed among the Canadian community WikiProject. As of yet, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities/Structure guideline is silent on who qualifies. The US equivalent WikiProject guideline, which uses "notable people" rather than "notable residents", explicitly states "any famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city." However it is silent on the dead or alive aspect.
I do agree that the lack of "defined terms or rules" is a problem, but don't think deleting entries contrary to convention is the answer.
Coincidentally, I've been considering starting a discussion that proposes to change "notable residents" to "notable people" in the Canadian community structure guideline as numerous editors have recently interpreted the term "residents" to mean only current residents. Perhaps this is why the US equivalent guideline uses "people" instead. I will open this discussion shortly somewhere within the Canadian WikiProject. From there, we could expand that discussion about establishing defined terms or rules as well. I will notify once the discussion is opened. Hwy43 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Following a poorly considered guideline for the sake of its existence is ridiculous, especially since there is no possible way for it to exist without violating other guidelines. The "notable residents" list as currently constructed is an example of WP:RECENTISM (the argument that only living and current residents should qualify even more so) and by definition, WP:POV. The POV issue becomes further clouded when you start debating whether it should list people who live in the city now. People who have lived in the city in the past but who do not at present, and deceased people. Moreover, the list is incomplete and unmaintainable. Why, for instance is Stephen Harper not there? You can't become more notable than the current Prime Minister of Canada. Joe Clark and R. B. Bennett being previous PMs who called Calgary home. What about Theoren Fleury, Jarome Iginla, Lanny McDonald, Bob Murdoch? What about current and former MPs, MLAs and councilmembers? All are notable, all are residents. Again, more POV when deciding who belongs and who doesn't. And finally, a random list of people who have lived in a city simply is not all that important to the city itself in all but a very small number of cases - those who are should be in the prose itself, explaining their notable ties. And not one of the entries in the current list qualifies, imnsho. Just dump the list. It has no value. Resolute 18:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The lack of teeth in the guideline is ridiculous. Following the guideline, regardless of how one interprets its state, is not. Deleting an entry from any community's list because the notable person is dead is ridiculous (good luck deleting John A. from Kingston, even without the teeth at the guideline). Improving the guideline through discussion as suggested is not.

It is agreed that the current list is WP:RECENTISM and is incomplete. It may never be 100% complete given Calgary's sheer size. Remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Instead of deleting an incomplete list, we ought to improve it by adding to it through the normal editing process. Being incomplete is not a valid deletion rationale. If a separate discussion sets out the term and rules for notable residents/people inclusion and consensus is achieved, I don't see POV being an issue. Not sure how it is unmaintainable unless it relates to how this list is incomplete and may never be complete.

As it turns out, List of people from Calgary already exists. I will delete the redundant eight-entry list and link to this article instead, adding any missing people to the latter from the deleted former. Hwy43 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, please do not patronize me. I am well aware that Wikipedia is a "work in progress". My argument isn't that such lists should be removed because they are incomplete, but that they should be removed because they add little to no value to the article. Before you removed it, the list was nothing more than seven links of dubious value on this article. The only thing expanding the list would accomplish is to flood the article with more links of dubious value. The separate list article in see also is all that is necessary. Resolute 23:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
With the same due respect, to patronize was not the intent. I now undertand that incompleteness was not your primary concern. I also wasn't aware of the separate list article's existence in the See also section when deleting the list in favour of a main article link. I will delete the section outright given the article was already linked. Hwy43 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Metro area rank[edit]

The beginning of the article says Calgary is the fifth largest metropolitan area in Canada, but the metropolitan area list puts it at #4. Which is correct? Gronteam (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Fifth by population (2011 census). I'm not seeing a list that puts it at fourth. Hwy43 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Article on the Clagary Flood 2013 ?[edit]

we need one 16:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Article cleanup[edit]

Will be working on cleaning up this article next week adding sources fixing image problems etc..Will tag article with template that article is under revision when I start. Any help would be great plane is to make it look like the Ottawa article.Moxy (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Should the flood really be counted as a subsection of history?[edit]

The event, while significant I believe is not in depth enough to warrant its own subsection and rather should be incorporated into the recent history subsection. (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Cole

I'm inclined to agree, and have removed the subheading. If there was enough written to justify a subsection, it would be different. But that lends the risk of placing undue weight. Resolute 21:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Also agreed. Hwy43 (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Largest city and economic leader[edit]

Largest city[edit]

Over the last 30 months, numerous editors (one registered and five IPs) have felt it necessary the lead must twice mention Calgary is Alberta's largest city. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

The most recent edit summary provides an insufficient reason why this fact should be redundantly mentioned twice in the article's opening paragraph.

Three unique users (myself, 117Avenue and Brian Crawford) have reverted the attempts to redundantly mention this within the lead over the past 30 months.

All three population rankings are conveniently mentioned together in the third sentence – largest city in Alberta, third-largest municipality in Canada and fifth-largest metro.

The consensus here has been that there is no need to redundantly mention the fact twice in the same paragraph. Hwy43 (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mpr001, thank you for recognizing the redundancy. Hwy43 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Economic leader[edit]

There have been repeated attempts to add "The city is recognized as an economic leader within Canada" with Calgary Economic Development (CED) as the supporting reference.

The CED is funded by the City of Calgary, the private business sector and others with the mandate to work "with businesses, government and community partners to position Calgary as the location of choice for the purpose of attracting business investment, fostering trade and growing Calgary's workforce."

As mentioned in edit summaries, the CED is obviously a biased source for this assertion and is therefore not a reliable source.

It has since been asserted that the claim is based on Statistics Canada, which is incorrect and WP:SYNTH.

Rather, CED has taken select economic indicators from StatCan to support their opinion of Calgary being an economic powerhouse.[11]

A second source was added in an attempt to supplement the CED source, but it is also SYNTH as all its says is Calgary is forecasted (speculated) to lead all Canadian cities in economic growth this year (2014).[12]

Without question, Calgary is an economic leader within Canada, but the above two sources do not properly support the claim and letting the claim and two sources stand smells of WP:PROMOTION.

I have no problem with the claim being re-added if it is based on an unbiased reliable source that explicitly confirms the assertion. Hwy43 (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to be promotional, just trying to reflect reality. I have changed the wording to reflect the Conference Board of Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpr001 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Mpr001, thank you for recognizing the concern and revising the wording. The new content was a tad too granular for the lead section though, so I boldly moved it to the Economy section (last sentence of the first paragraph). In its place within the lead however, I have added a new sentence about Calgary having the second-most corporate head offices in Canada. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem with it being moved under Economy section. Is it the understanding that no info cited from an Economic Development Corporation for a specific city, is allowed? Mpr001 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Mpr001, that is not necessarily true. The bone of contention here was the content added was derived from CED's opinion of Calgary. You added other content from the CED website – Calgary's various economic activity sectors – that is factual rather than opinion and this content has not been deleted. Hwy43 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hwy43, but what determines what is opinion? In the Economy section for Edmonton it says "Edmonton is the major economic centre for northern and central Alberta". There is no citation for this and even if there were, how is this any less opinion then asserting that Calgary is an economic leader when there are citations that support this, not merely a derived opinion from the CED but supported by the Conference Board of Canada?

Is the best city ever?[edit]

Is the best city ever, ? what is that. User:Mdupont (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Garden variety vandalism and/or a test edit. I have reverted it back to the original. Thanks for catching that! Resolute 20:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"World city rankings" section[edit]

A discussion has been initiated to determine if city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. are appropriate/encyclopedic. The outcome may affect the current World city rankings section of this article, and numerous other city articles across Canada. Please join the discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)