Talk:List of the largest municipalities in Canada by population

Quebec demergers

As of January 1st, 2006 many Quebec municipalities were demerged and therefore should be re-included on this list. While the population of the city of Montreal ( after demergers ) is updated and correct everything else is not . I don't know if anyone has the right numbers ( or in other words is willing to spend some time recalculating the numbers ) as of the new demerged cities. Major cities such as Quebec City and especially Longueil have their population changed, in case of Longueuil it's a major change and the city wil be out of the top 20. Now, some of the demerged suburbs should be included; such as Dollard-des Ormeaux ( pop. 48,206 ) so cities such as Brossard ( pop. over 60 000 ) as of 2001.

If anyone has the correct numbers, please update the list.

It should be pointed out that this doesn't show the Greater populations of the cities (ie the suburbs) and thus isn't a proportionate representation of the biggest cities in Canada. If it were to include the surrounding areas, then it would go: 1)Toronto 2)Montreal 3)Vancouver 4)Calgary 5)Ottawa/Gatineau

I suppose we could have two lists. What does everyone think? Earl Andrew 22:30, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, these populations are incorrect. Speaking from memory, my hometown, Port Coquitlam, does not have a population of 51k - it is around 89k as of the latest census, which is 2001. This cites using 2001 data - mistaken? I am fairly confident that there are some serious errors in the top of the list. Ottawa is not nearly that large, neither are Calgary or Edmonton. Even if suburbs were taken into account I don't believe Ottawa and it's surroundings would surpass the City of Vancouver (no suburbs included). User:Cat6 22:50, 4 Jan 2004 (PST)

The stats are taken straight from the Stats Canada website. There is no disputing that. The only dispute might be from the Quebec Cities, as I may have made some mistakes adding the populations due to 2002 amalgamations (that happened after the census). The reason why Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa are so high and Vancouver not is because the City of Vancouver has less people than do the City of Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa. Ottawa's suburbs are all within the City government, and Vancouver's are not. I have resolved this issue by providing another page for CMA's and CA's. --Earl Andrew 07:29, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Source: [1] Earl Andrew 07:32, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It should be also pointed out that these populations are getting very old very fast. According to the mayor of Brampton, there are 412,000 people living in that city. Calgary is near a million. Mississauga population is near 636,00 people. Someone should update this soon. However a real known number will come out in 2011 with the new census.

The next census is in 2006. Silly yanks, not every country has a census every ten years! ;) -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

kelowna is 147,000 and kamloops is 86,000 I just checked the stats can website for 2001 check it out! *Kamloops

Those are Census Metropolitan Area/Census Agglomeration figures (the city plus nearby communities that are outside of the city limits), not city populations. Bearcat 04:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Populations need to be updated

The populations need to be updated. I know that Whitby, Ontario is at a population estimated at around 110 000, which is much more than the 87,413 stated on the list.

The data is from 2001. Please wait until the next census to make changes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why this list cannot be updated when cities or provinces conduct their own censuses. This article is five years out of date, which makes it completely worthless in terms of encyclopedic value. Resolute 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The numbers from the municipalities are estimates using various methods. Maybe a second column with more current estimates and the date and source of those estimates would be useful, but we wouldn't want to replace the census numbers with a hodgepodge of numbers from different times, using different estimating processes, and different definitions of what consitutes a resident. There's only one census. It comes every five years and there's nothing we can do about that. New data will be available soon, so this is as out of date as it gets. --Gary Will 04:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cities and provinces don't conduct their own censuses; they calculate their own unofficial estimates. The only body that conducts an actual census in Canada is the federal government. We can note unofficial estimates on the cities' own articles, as long as they're denoted as unofficial estimates; we cannot take these estimates as definitive replacements for official census figures. Bearcat 04:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

While I am not sure why you felt the need to bring it up six weeks after the last activity on this topic, I will say that you are completely incorrect when you state that cities do not conduct their own censuses. The City of Calgary does, and it is not an estimate. It is a physical enumeration, exactly as the Federal census is done. I am reasonably certain that Airdrie does the same. Also, frankly, this list as stands is worthless, as I can guarantee you that 100% of the figures are currently incorrect. I am at a loss to understand why we are passing off worthless five year old data as current fact. As of right now, civic censuses and estimates are far more reliable than the 2001 federal census data is. This is why I suggested having one column for "current" population, and one for the population as of the last federal census. Resolute 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this conversation is now six years stale, WP:CANSTYLE#Official population updates was updated by Bearcat in 2010 to acknowledge that formal censuses are in fact conducted by municipalities in Alberta.
To be clear, this note is not intended to justify inclusion of subsequent municipal censuses in this article. It is only intended to confirm true what was previously believed to be untrue for the benefit of those reviewing the historical conversations on this talk page. Hwy43 (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What this article is and what it isn't

This article is a list of municipal populations. Here are a couple of synonyms:

• "City Limits" population.
• Census Subdivision population.

That is to say, the borders of an actual municipal unit (City, Town, County (excluding the county's towns & cities), Village, Indian Reserve, District Municipality, Ville, Municipal District, Regional District Electoral Area...). These are the numbers from 2001. They are based on the borders as of 2001. There is no other coherent, single location for providing apples-to-apples comparisons of this type of information. Yes, the numbers are now 5 years out of date. We can expect new numbers within the next couple of months.

Here are some things this article is not. Some of these things have articles of their own elsewhere, so don't criticize this article for lacking these items' information.

• "Metro Area" population - By Statistics Canada's structures, metro areas are either Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) or Census Agglomerations (CAs), depending on sizes (CMAs are bigger). The person who claimed that Kamloops's numbers were wrong (directly above) gave a link to Kamloops's CA numbers, not it's "City of Kamloops" numbers. The correct link for this article is this: [2]. There is an article covering Metro areas, it is List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada, and the information about it is in the first paragraph of this very article!!!
• "Urban Core" population - I know no one's really been on about this, but I like these numbers - they're based on continuous population density, not simply commuter municipalities. See List of the 100 largest urban areas in Canada by population. So, for instance, White Rock is a separate "Urban Area" from Vancouver.
• 2006 data. We all know this data is out of date. However, almost all the information available otherwise is unreliable. Almost every "city census" undertaken by a city, independently, is shown to exaggerate the numbers when a "real" national census comes around. Clearly, it is in a city's interest to appear bigger, because then they appear "growing" and "dynamic". However, even if we ignore conflict-of-interest concerns, a city will often need to count people who are transient through their city, because those people need services, too. This could easily lead to someone being counted in both Edmonton and Calgary, for example (or Newfoundland and Fort McMurray). However, Statistics Canada will only count that person once. So there's a variety of data available, from a variety of methodologies, and as long as we're ranking these cities, we can't use anything but consistent data. It's a good idea to include these newer numbers in the city's own article, but not when they're being ranked against other cities. AshleyMorton 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would be most interested to see you justify your claim that every city that runs its own census is lying. Regardless, there is no reason why we cant add two more columns to the chart showing most recent figure in one column, and the source in the second like exists in List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada. Leave the list sorted by the 2001 data, but offer some information of value. As I said above, figures that are five years out of date are completely worthless. Resolute 23:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I believe that the second column (or more!) which gives additional information is a good idea. I believe that the ranking needs to remain based on the apples-to-apples (2001 Census) numbers, but clearly, the information is out of date, and people who come here for numbers about specific cities (rather than a comparative ranking) would get value out of your suggestion.

Second, please don't misrepresent me. I did not say that "every" city that runs it's own census "is lying". I said that the numbers in almost every city census end up coming out exaggerated. I then gave some reasons why this can happen without any malice, corruption or even inaccuracy (for what the city actually needs the numbers for, like municipal services). They (most of them) are not lying, and I even went to lengths to show that I was not accusing them of doing so.AshleyMorton 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Again: there is no such thing as a city conducting its own census. Cities calculate their own unofficial estimates; no city conducts its own legal, official census. Bearcat 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this conversation is now six years stale, WP:CANSTYLE#Official population updates was updated by Bearcat in 2010 to acknowledge that formal censuses are in fact conducted by municipalities in Alberta.
To be clear, this note is not intended to justify inclusion of subsequent municipal censuses in this article. It is only intended to confirm true what was previously believed to be untrue for the benefit of those reviewing the historical conversations on this talk page. Hwy43 (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Montréal population

I just changed it because it was incorrect. The city is much larger thant only 1 million people. Nobody living in Canada could believe this lie.

We've been through all this before. That was the population in 2001, so that's what's listed here. New census numbers with the 2006 municipal boundaries are released in March. Lots of cities have had changes to their borders over the last five years so we'll be seeing a lot of shifts. --Gary Will 23:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions

These figures contradict the things that are said in other articles about Canadian Cities. The figures here seems to be two times smaller than those in the articles. The hub 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some examples? --Kmsiever 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of this article

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

If that is your stance, then you will have to delete a lot of articles. It's not a "fluff" article, it's a snapspot of 100 largest Canadian census division as of 2006 as told by Stats Canada. Yes, the population changes every year. Every day, in fact. But the Census numbers will not change until 2011. People look to Wikipedia for information - that's what this article is. Most people don't even know about Stats Canada's website.

Metropolitan populations are redundant to this article. Whether or not the Montreal Transit Corp. services suburbs or not is irrelevant. The City of Montreal does not collect taxes from people who do not live in Montreal. Plain and simple, no? DB99.249.224.218 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Calgary

I have updated the population of Calgary since I noticed it was incorrect for it's time compared to the actual city article. I would like to do updates for all of this article but the current format is still beyond my skill with Wikipedia as of yet. Calgary also needs it's percentage change, math is not my strong point so i'd be glad if someone would be willing to help. Bretonnia (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your change; the figures are from the 2006 census, and should match the official count provided by Statistics Canada. This is done to maintain consistency among the numbers, since municipal and provincial governments may employ different techniques, and conduct their research at different times, to provide any meaningful comparison. The population estimates (from reliable sources) are OK for the articles about the respective municipalities, though. Mindmatrix 19:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then. But is it mentioned which type of census this particular article uses? I being the average reader saw it as a Municipal census and not as a Provincial census. If this is the case a note about this should be included in the intro of this article, if not done so already. Bretonnia (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's from the federal census conducted in May 2006. There are no other census bodies in Canada; provincial, regional and municipal bodies provide population estimates, usually based on the latest census, growth rates etc. I hope this helps. Mindmatrix 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So then does that mean the Calgary article's population is wrong, since it contradicts this one and you say this one is the only government census that is reliable. For consistency reasons I believe that if this is the case then the Calgary article's population needs to be edited. Bretonnia (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Calgary article is not wrong. To rephrase what I said above: for the purposes of this article, a consistent measure is needed, and that's provided by Statistics Canada during the official census conducted every five years. For articles about municipalities, several population numbers may be indicated - the official census count from StatsCan, the population estimates from a provincial body, and the population estimate from the municipal government. (These aren't necessarily official census bodies.) Since they do not coordinate their activities (eg - who should be counted, when the "census" is conducted etc.), they cannot be effectively compared here - it's meaningless to compare the population estimate of Calgary on July 2007 to that of Montreal for September 2006, for example. On the municipality article pages, however, the information is more relevant, but one should ensure to use reliable sources (a mayor's speech including population numbers is not reliable; a municipal planning department document is reliable). Also ensure that the appropriate number is used; many people become confused at the difference between municipal, CMA and economic region figures, to say nothing of provincial designations that are similar to, but not the same as, the federal boundaries (for example Toronto CMA versus the GTA).

In short: this article only uses StatsCan census figures; municipal articles can use estimates with reliable citations. Mindmatrix 16:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification, I just like to know how things work before I just walk away =] Bretonnia (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa population

It is worth noting here and referencing elsewhere that the figures described for Ottawa are misleading because of the unique placement of Ottawa on the Ontario/Quebec border. Any understanding of the population base of 'Ottawa' in a geographic sense ought to include the Quebec area described as 'Gatineau' -- the two regions represent a common population as concerns workplace, media outlets and shopping, to name but a few. Though a broad-stroke description of Gatineau may describe it as French-speaking, in reality many Gatineau residents work in Ottawa, attend schools in Ottawa, describe themselves in loose terms as 'from Ottawa'. Similarly, many Ottawa residents work in Gatineau located Federal Government offices ... though they are unlikely to describe themselves as being from 'Gatineau' (or 'Hull', as the urban centre of Gatineau was named until recent times).

The more accurate description of greater Ottawa as Ottawa-Gatineau is not frequently used in an 'official' way, presumably because of the interprovincial nature of such a description, but it would explain to those who have visited both why it is that 'Ottawa' seems larger than 'Calgary' -- the former achieves a population of over a million in the 2006 census when bundled with Gatineau -- the latter falls somewhat short of the same. All three of the cities described use geographic boundaries that include suburban and 'bedroom' communities.

Though sometimes -- and even within Wiki -- the region is desribed as a 'municipal area' even this more reflective description is frequently missed. An itemization of the recognized municipal areas by Stats Can does not include this interprovincial abberation, and readers unaware of the specific geography may dismiss the 'municipal area' term expecting it to include 'outlying' areas -- in the case of Ottawa-Gatineau the provincial border divides them at the heart of their respective urban centres; Gatineau and the bulk of Gatineau's population lay closer to downtown Ottawa than most of Ottawa's recognized (and included) suburbs. In practice, there is no reason to exclude Gatineau from any discussion of Ottawa unless describing those handful of things that are by law excluded -- each has a separate mayor and municipal council, independent (though cooperating) public transit systems, distinct (and not cooperating) school boards, et cetera.

Currently, I'm of the opinion that Ottawa should be understood to have a larger population than Calgary in any meaningful sense -- Calgary's growth rate being as it is, I reserve the right to change my opinion some time soon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.225.43 (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This list is for the populations of individual municipalities. There's a separate list for the populations of metropolitan areas. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

-similarly Vancouver isn't really understood as being smaller than Winnipeg - but this is for the municipalities not metropolitan areas- and largely reflects those that have chosen to amalgamate (ie Toronto, Montreal, Halifax) and those that have not. It is interesting to see the growth of suburbs(ie Surrey) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.138.5.20 (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Brampton's Population

As one of fastest growing cities in Canada the population of Brampton Ontario is now about 500,000 not 432,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailgrove (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Likely so but that is an estimate and all figures in this article are from the 2006 census. Updated populations for Brampton and all other municipalities will occur on this page in early 2012 when the forthcoming 2011 census results are released. Hwy43 (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

2011 Census

Do we really need to keep the data from 2001 on this table? Just seems like this table will keep getting wider and wider with each new census. If we do this we might also have to add old census data as well. May as well just use the most recent two census data and the rest can be added on individual city's demographics category. Krazytea(talk) 19:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What about an "archive" list article at List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population in 2006 where the 2006 populations are compared with the 2001 census, and then this would just show 2011 compared back to 2006? Hwy43 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Population density

Might be cool if someone added a column for population density. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.114.233 (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. Though I don't know if I'd want to go and do all that by hand... (And yeah, I'm a n00b, so if there's a way to automate that column creation, teach me!) Zelbinian (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Undiscussed removal of census content

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

Two North Vancouvers

North Vancouver is listed twice (#61 and #100). Might one of them be for West Vancouver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.115.64 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Look two columns over in each entry. There are two municipalities in BC with the given name of "North Vancouver". One is a district municipality and one is a city. Hwy43 (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Growth / Decline of small population centres

It is no coincidence that the municipalities that have the greatest increases and decreases in population are among those with the very smallest population. The reason this is often no mere coincidence is the very nature of the calculation of growth. That is, growth calculations depend on not only the change in the number of persons but also on the size of the population centre in the first place. Both of those numbers enter into the ratio that is growth: Change-in-population / Total-population. Clearly, a smaller "Total-population" results in a higher growth.

I propose therefore that the section be removed.

If the section must be kept, then it would make (more) sense to break it down into several sections, perhaps by percentile of total population. That is, there could be the following sections: growth among cities in the 90th percentile, growth among cities in the 80th percentile, growth among cities in the 70th percentile. That seems a bit ridiculous, but to use larger percentiles, eg, "growth in cities in the 50th percentile" would suffer from the same problem as the existing lists: The charts would be dominated by the smallest cities in many cases (but, admittedly not ALL cases) simply because of the nature of the growth calculation -- it naturally emphasizes cities with smaller populations as noted above.

By the way, this problem with the growth calculation is a problem for ALL growth calculations -- not only for Population growth. For example, (almost) every time you hear somebody claim, "This is the fastest growth in the entire group"... you should ask yourself ... "Is this also the smallest in the whole group?" ... often "fastest growth" is practically synonymous with "smallest" ... again often because of the arithmetic behind the growth calculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.204.219 (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

See PDF pages 22-23 of 26 in the source for both tables. These come directly from Statistics Canada and is widely reported by others as a result. Why do you think StatCan cuts off the minimum threshold at 5,000 people? For exactly the reason you expressed above. It would be WP:OR in my opinion to do what you suggest for percentiles or any other arbitrary minimum thresholds. We are constrained to thresholds that are published by reliable sources. Hwy43 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Regional Municipalities and Counties

I would suggest a further clarification in the introduction. This list as compiled is of single-tier and lower-tier municipalities. It excludes upper-tier municipalities such as regional municipalities and counties in Ontario. I don't think that's a bad thing, but the article is factually incorrect as it stadns as many of the regional municipalities in Ontario would place in the top 10 or 20 on the list. For instance, the Regional Municipality of Peel as of last census has a population of 1,296,814, making it the third most populous municipality in Canada. 142.132.10.62 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The intro states that for inclusion, a municipality is a census subdivision (CSDs). Regarding your example, sure Peel, York and others would rank high on the list, but we would likewise have to remove from the list all their constituent municipalities (eg - Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon for Peel). Of course, the regional municipalites are not CSDs, so this change isn't suitable for this article. I've shifted the link for census subdivision to its first mention in the intro, which should hopefully clarify. Mindmatrix 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mindmatrix for the clarification. I gather the regions are categorized as census divisions, not subdivisions. Also, sorry for posting at the top. 142.161.63.8 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is List of census divisions of Canada by population, and yes, regional municipalities are classified as census divisions. Mindmatrix 15:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

'Victoria BC' is missing

Should Victoria British Columbia be on this list? --75.155.220.51 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not missing. Look again. Hwy43 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing city population sources

Since the removal of the long form Census by the forma conservative government, population statistics are outdated and no longer accurate. At Greenscore we track city populations as accurately as possible using Municipal, Provincial, Federal statistics sources in that respective order. I will update Rank, population. We calculate density with a different formula so it is not here.

Due to the restriction on data sources I am only changing the Rank and all population sources are listed on the individual city pages links. A reference to it will be included in the list.

The Government of Canada will do a long form census in 2017 and after its release we can use them as a source again. --MKevlar 16:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Mkevlar, please review WP:CANPOP before making any population edits for any Canadian municipalities.

Also a few corrections to your comments. The replacement of the mandatory long-form census with the National Household Survey (NHS) in 2011 is not the reason population counts are out of date. The population counts were not derived from the NHS; they were derived from the mandatory short-form census. While five years have passed, the 2011 census remains the most current source of population counts with a common base year for comparison among all municipalities in Canada.

Also, the next census (with both short and long forms) is 2016, not 2017. Enumeration begins in 10 or so days. The resulting population counts will be published less than 10 months from now on February 8, 2017. Per WP:CANPOP, I suggest you wait to update replace federal census population counts and change ranks accordingly until mid-February. Hwy43 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that Mkevlar reached out in response here. Also note I've made these slight adjustments to my original message above. Hwy43 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note as well that per our conflict of interest rules, you are not allowed to simply insert your own company's proprietary data into Wikipedia as a replacement for standard sourcing. And Hwy43 is correct as well that basic population statistics were derived from the short-form census that all Canadians were still obligated to fill out — the long-form census issue certainly means that some of the supplementary data (income distribution, etc.) for 2011 was problematic, but the basic population statistics were not impacted at all. So no, the 2011 census is not fundamentally invalid data in this context, and you do not get to arbitrarily impose your own company's data onto Wikipedia as a replacement for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Mkevlar, have you reviewed the WP:COI link that Bearcat provided above? It appears you have since added green rankings/ratings for 14 cities in Canada citing your or your company's GreenScore website. I assume you received from static from others in response to adding these, hence your reply to the nearly year-stale discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic Hwy43 (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Census

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

Sure thing, I will update some of the cities. TheKevlar 00:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

Sorry... what?

1. Why doesn't it just show the 2011 and 2016 population, and show the changes from then. 2. If you ARE gonna show older population counts, what is with the comparisons...? 1996-2011? 2006-2016? Doesn't seem well organized. There is a 15 year gap between 1996 and 2011, and a 10 year gap between 2006 and 2016, so the part that shows the percentage changes are confusing, considering one is a change over 15 years and the other is one over 10 years. Get what I'm saying? 3. I'd fix this myself, but I'm a huge noob with wikipedia. Thanks for reading. Socialistboyy (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC) socialistboyy

I support removing the historical, non-current census results primarily because the current 2016 boundaries, which are used for the 2016 and 2011 populations in the 2016 census profiles, may not be the same as they were in 2006, and/or 2001 and/or 1996. In fact, any one municipality could have experienced boundary adjustments between all sets of censuses. It is improper to compare Grande Prairie's 2016 census results back to its 2006 results as it had just over half its geographic area in 2006 compared to 2016. Moving backward, there are two other boundary adjustments affecting the area of the city back to 1996. Instead, I propose splitting the article into archived versions. For example:

• List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population in 2011 is a snapshot of the 2011 census compared back to the 2006 census;
• List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population in 2006 is a snapshot of the 2006 census compared back to the 2001 census;
• List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population in 2001 is a snapshot of the 2001 census compared back to the 1996 census;
• etc.

Thoughts? Hwy43 (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy and usefulness are now an issue with the last census update. As someone who uses population statistics in my daily research, I can shed some light on the subject of usefulness

• Keep the 1996 stats because they are an established baseline.
• Keep the 2011 stats because they show the most recent growth rate
• Remove 2001 and 2006 because the are now superfluous.

This allows anyone to see the current growth trend and the long-term growth trend. This method works well on an ongoing basis.

TheKevlar 17:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I could support this so long as there is no percent change columns comparing 2016 back to 1996, or 2011 back to 1996, per the concerns expressed previously above. That said, I still wonder if snapshot list articles for the intervening census years remain a worthwhile endeavour. StatCan publishes such lists with every census, and these publications aren't thrown out with the bath water once new results are published. They would be encyclopedic in my view, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Hwy43 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I support the historic archiving but not the removal of growth stats. Municipal boundaries are always growing and consolidating adjacent population centres; this is how they grow and are directed to grow by Provincial Municipal Acts. So removal of growth percentages because boundaries have changed is not valid, moreover, they are in fact geographically recognised which is evidenced; newly amalgamated addresses are often changed to those of the new city. TheKevlar 13:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

No. it is totally valid. If there was a 1991 column, we would have pre-amalgamation city populations for Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and the like. Growth percentages derived from that would inflate percentages beyond the truth and reality of what really happened and make internal comparison with other municipalities not subject to amalgamations or more modest boundary changes a joke. It is indefensible to use Wikipedia to compare apples to watermelons in this case, especially when StatCan, the primary and definitive source for population counts, does not themselves publish percent changes between censuses that are 10 or more censusesyears apart; just the two most recent censuses. Hwy43 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

In the 2001 census, there is a reason why StatCan compared Toronto's 2001 population back to an adjusted 1996 population of 2,385,421 instead of its pre-amalgamation 1996 population of 653,734. Had they did, Toronto's five-year change would have been 265%. It would not have been a sound comparison, while the adjusted 1996 count from the 2001 census reflected the new city boundary resulting in an accurate and defensible population change of 4.0%. The same thing applies to Grande Prairie and the countless others with one or more boundary adjustments since 1996. Hwy43 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hwy43 on this point. Population changes attributable to annexations and amalgamations distort the statistics in a deceptive and inaccurate way, which is why if there's a boundary change between censuses (or if StatsCan rejigs its own aggregations, such as their having added Markstay-Warren to the CMA of Greater Sudbury for the first time this year), they retroactively adjust the previous set of census statistics to the new boundaries, so that the new number and the adjusted old number are both referring to the same thing. Toronto's growth rate from 1996 to 2001 had to be adjusted so that the comparison was Old-Metro to Megacity rather than Old-Toronto to Megacity; Sudbury's growth rate in 2001 was bounced off the old regional municipality stats for 1996, not the old city stats for 1996; and on and so forth.

The thing is, however, that in order to include growth rates for anything beyond two immediately consecutive censuses, we have to commit our own personal acts of original research. So whatever else happens here, the two change columns currently present both have to go — we shouldn't be pulling out our calculators to perform our own statistical analysis, and should include only the most recent 2011-2016 percentage changes as published by StatsCan rather than calculating any extended 1996-2016 or 2006-2016 numbers ourselves. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I support your original proposal with the historical archiving, it keeps things simple. I also would like to see only the 2016 and 2011 census data on this page until the next census comes out. Mattximus (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we're going to have to start thinking about a new way to organize this information going forward; the new column for the next census is going to push the table past the right edge of the screen and into scrollbar territory even at my screen resolution — which means that for people using lower resolution monitors than mine, that already happened this time (and let's not even think trying to read this on a phone, because SHUDDER.) I'm not entirely sure that spinning off a standalone list for every individual census is the most useful new approach, however, as it would make it significantly harder to compare some stats from one census to the next (such as cities moving up or down in the rankings from where to where.) Perhaps another potential alternative would be to set a specific number of censuses (four? five?) per list, and then start a new list for the next set of four or five. But Hwy43's idea, whereby each year's list would maintain the numbers for just the one census before it for comparison purposes, has merit as well.
For what it's worth, the only real reason this list starts specifically at 1996 is that 1996 was the first year for which census statistics were easily copy-pastable from the StatsCan website, instead of having to go to a reference library to pull out old paper census documents and manually type all the numbers out by hand. There's nothing particularly special about 1996 per se besides that fact. The list could go 100 or more years further back if people were actually willing to put in the work needed to make that happen, and it can absolutely be trimmed back if consensus favours that — it just starts at 1996 because that was the easiest viable place to start at the time the list was created, and there's just never been any serious attempt to diverge from that (either by actively tracking down pre-1996 data, or by formulating a consensus to expire some old data off the page as new data emerges to replace it.) Basically, it starts at 1996 because inertia. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both Bearcat and Mattximus for your comments. Given the 1996 column has the adjusted population counts for the various cities subject to late 1990s provincial-mandated amalgamations in Ontario, I would hazard a guess that this list originated sometime after the 2001 census results where released, which would have compared to the previous 1996 census with adjusted counts for boundary changes as necessary. Separate archived lists for 2001 and 1996 would be very interesting to review and compare, where we would see how all these municipalities ranked before the wave of amalgamations in Ontario (and again 2006 and 2001 after the Quebec wave of amalgamations). In the meantime, we do have List of largest Canadian cities by census as top ten lists for previous censuses for those municipalities with city status only. Hwy43 (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

With this now done, we have a slightly narrower table to start. As this article is about municipalities by population, I suggest we strike the outdated land area column (we do have List of the 100 largest cities and towns in Canada by area anyway). If consensus says otherwise unexpectedly, at minimum we need to update it to 2016 figures. Also, we should at least return a percent change column for between the 2011 and 2016 two censuses. As for the 1996 through 2006 population counts, I am still of the mind that these should be removed in favour of a separate list for each census year, an idea in which Bearcat indicates has merit and Mattximus supports. If there must be something in its place, what could be useful are the national ranks from the 1996 through 2011 censuses, as published at the time each set of census results was released. This can be drawn directly from the data highlight tables from each census for comparison to 2016 rank (first column). That way, the ranks will be based on the configurations each municipality had at the time of each census. This means Toronto would rank as "3" in the 1996 census rank column and then "1" in every census rank column since its boundary changed by amalgamation between 1996 and 2001, which is in essence what is done at List of largest Canadian cities by census. Hwy43 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I would also agree with taking out the land area column; we already have a separate list of the municipalities ranked by land area, so land area isn't that relevant to a list organized by population. However, there may be a case that instead of simply removing the land area column we should replace it with a population density column, since that is more relevant in this context. And yes, I'd agree that we should retain one percent-change column for 2011 to 2016 only; when 2021 comes out, that column should be replaced with a 2016 to 2021 change column rather than having that added alongside the 2011 to 2016 column as a separate piece of data. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Bearcat, Mattximus, Hwy43 for your insights. When drilling into census data down to the subdivision municipal level, they include 2016, 2011 populations, percentage change, land area and dwelling stats. That data collection approach avoids many statistical pitfalls the three of you brought up. Reducing the list to 2016 and 2011 with a single percentage change is consistent with what StatsCan has done. Keeping the Land Area column gives context; after all, Municipalities are land areas. I don't like the suggestion of replacing land area with population density because it embeds land area into its calculation formula. Archiving everything else for historical significance organizes the data. We have consensus on archiving; we have been reminded not to let original research creep into the article. Agreement on columns on a go forward basis should be easy. TheKevlar 14:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

I would be satisfied with following the same approach used in the current and budding featured list of municipalities by province/territory (see the latest at List of municipalities in Nova Scotia). They present, in the same order presented by StatCan – 2016 pop., 2011 pop., change, land area and pop. density. This has emerged as a standard for most community lists in Canada that features latest census data. I can get started on the historical lists when I have a moment. I have placed hold requests on the 1996 and 1991 census national overview (population and dwelling count highlights) publications in the meantime since the 1996 census data online is now quite limited and 1991 census data is largely unavailable. Hwy43 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

1991 census

Bearcat, curious query for you. I have accessed the 1991 census population counts by census subdivisions. As you know, "census subdivisions" are usually "municipalities", but there are exceptions – unincorporated areas (too numerous to list) and subdivisions of county municipalities (in Nova Scotia). In 1991, the amalgamations of Halifax and Cape Breton had not occurred yet (happened in April 1996 and August 1995 respectively). Coming in at #99 in 1991 was Halifax, Subd. D – one of seven subdivisions of the county municipality named the "Municipality of the County of Halifax". The county municipality therefore had population of 136,882, making it #25 on the list of largest municipalities in Canada in 1991. This results in the census subdivisions ranked #25 through #98 becoming ranked #26 to #99.

Now summing all the other county municipality (CM) subdivisions into the full CM population counts, we have one more CM that crosses into the top 100 – the "Municipality of the County of Cape Breton" sums to 45,555, which by coincidence is good for #99 on the list. It pushes Newmarket from #99 to #100, while Medicine Hat (#100) falls out of the top 100.

Now I'm reluctant to say that adding the seven Halifax County subdivisions together to determine a population for the county municipality is WP:OR. Given the scope of a 1991 list would be the 100 largest municipalities, not census subdivisions, this addition of subdivisions is necessary to generate an accurate list. We have WP:CANPOP that states "… unless a) you know how to retrieve individual census tract data from the Statistics Canada site, … do not give an unsourced population estimate for a neighbourhood or community within an incorporated municipality. It is preferable for an article to have no population information at all than it is to give an unsourced or poorly sourced figure."

I assert that the subdivision of county municipality scenario I have described is no different that the census tract scenario described at CANPOP. As we know the seven county subdivisions equal the entire county municipality, then the sum of the parts must equal the whole. Therefore, listing Halifax County as #25 with the code {{nts|{{#expr:10814+14611+45667+37289+18211+6130+4160}}}} to produce a 1991 population of 136,882 in the table is not OR in my opinion, especially if supported with a referenced note indicating "The total population of the Municipality of the County of Halifax in 1991 was derived of summing the populations of its seven subdivisions – 10,814 (subdivision A), 14,611 (subdivision B), 45,667 (subdivision C), 37,289 (subdivision D), 18,211 (subdivision E), 6,130 (subdivision F) and 4,160 (subdivision G)."

So, is that acceptable when balancing WP:OR and WP:CANPOP? Note we won't (or shouldn't) have this problem in 1996 moving forward since the amalgamations took place before 1996 census enumeration (though StatCan does suffer from lags at times). Hwy43 (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I meant to start creating the 1991 list in my sandbox, but I mindlessly put it in article space. Can you move the work-in-progress List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population in 1991 to User:Hwy43/List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population in 1991 on my behalf please? I don't think it is quite ready, and was going to ask for feedback from you and the others here first before pushing it to article space. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say you're correct about this. Because the boundaries of the municipality don't necessarily correspond exactly to the boundaries of the census subdivision in all places, it wouldn't be original research in that case to combine them. I know of at least one similar situation in Sudbury, where the Statistics Canada CMA of Sudbury did not correspond exactly to the actual regional municipality of Sudbury, but for some reason excluded the town of Capreol for many years — so in that instance a CMA list should reflect their number, but in the article about the RM we would need to do a two-step addition of the CMA population to the population of the town of Capreol. You're correct that the guideline statement above wouldn't apply to a matter like this. It would apply if you were trying to go the other way, taking a StatsCan population for Halifax as a whole and trying to isolate a population for a smaller portion of it that wasn't properly sourced to any breakdown data — but if you're combining data upward because the data is on smaller units than the actual municipal boundaries then no, that wouldn't be OR as long as the reference note clarifies where the data came from. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bearcat. And I spoke too soon as the problem persists in 1996, but with a new wrinkle. The amalgamation that created the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) came into effect on April 1, 1996. Census day for the 1996 census was May 14, 1996. Despite the amalgamation occurring before census day, StatCan had not yet caught up with the amalgamation, and the census results were issued as if all former municipalities still existed. In this case, I also think we are okay in summing all the parts into a population of the amalgamated HRM for a future List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada in 1996, so long as there are referenced notes that confirm how the final figures were determined and why they were determined (because StatCan had not yet acknowledged the amalgamation). Thoughts on this scenario? Hwy43 (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Guelph Downtown DJS.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Guelph Downtown DJS.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Gallery

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

Just 100?

Why is only the 100 largest included? None of the other articles except for its sister take the largest 100 of something. If it were discussed in secondary literature it would be notable so am I missing something?Catchpoke (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is notable but the title seems off. List of the 100 largest cities and towns in Canada by area is another problematic article.Catchpoke (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

What this article is and isn't

This is a list article. I've made a (since reverted) edit to remove the "Highest growth" and "Largest decreases" tables, as they should not be here. See MOS:LIST. Thoughts? 162 etc. (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

After every census, Statistics Canada publishes lists of the fastest growing and fastest declining census subdivisions, summarizes them in its data release highlights, and then such gets significant media coverage as a result. This is why these sub-lists are presented in this list. Hwy43 (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

How does that make them relevant to an article named "List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population"? These sub-lists mostly include municipalities that are not in the Top 100. Furthermore, the Top 100 table is sortable, so anybody can instantly see which places have the highest growth and largest decreases. 162 etc. (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorting won’t work because only two or those listed in the other tables are featured in the main table. Good point about scope in relation to the article title. We could simply split to resolve this. Hwy43 (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not arguing the notability of these tables, but rather that they don't belong in this list article. 162 etc. (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above, I have removed the two tables from the article. 162 etc. (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe I will create a separate related article for the deleted content when I am as bored as heck during the next pandemic. Hwy43 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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

Errors in table

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

Addition of daggers & double-daggers

Someone has added a bunch of daggers and double-daggers to the city list. This is to indicate whether it is a provincial or federal capital, and whether it is the most populated city within its province.

I reverted the edit because it clouds the info, it is distracting, it's not needed, and is not the standard on Wikipedia.

My revert was reverted and told to follow BRD and take it to the talk page. That's not how BRD works. I reverted a bold edit. It's not (BRRBRD) Bold, Revert, Revert back, request others to discuss.

If editors are just going to side with the non ip editors every time without even properly reviewing what the edits are, then what is the point of the review at all? I reverted a bold edit. The bold editor should justify the edition of a bunch of distracting daggers on the talk. The reverted should not be the one that has to justify the revert on the talk page. These are not Wikipedia's standards. 2605:B100:D3C:A57A:BCD6:7AE7:3ACE:BAAE (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It would appear the daggers were added on January 20th, 2024. While you were correct in that the proper B.R.D. process was not followed, it is best to bring it to the talk page either way. I would agree they are distracting, not needed, and don't appear on other countries lists. I will remove the daggers and if any editors disagrees we can discuss here. Also, I noticed the United States article uses colours, which perhaps could be a resolution. Itooksomepics (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)