Talk:Lethbridge/Archive 4

Demographic statistics on religion and language

The current prose incorrectly states that Statistics Canada did not count the number of Mormons, which is the main reason why I am making a change to this section. I also think that at least one figure after the decimal point is relevant and that the distinction between 'mother tongue' and 'first language' should not be overlooked. I am hoping that a little more detail ahout the religions and languages of Lethbridge will help improve the article.--Paulalexdij (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you show where in Statistics Canada's community profile the number of Mormons in Lethbridge is mentioned? If you can't, then perhaps you can explain why you think the information currently there is incorrect. I don't think the decimal point is relevant. We're talking about a population of 80,000 people. WP:GNL specifically states to avoid gender-specific language, which "mother tongue" is. Even on Wikipedia, "mother tongue" redirects to "first language". Percentages under 1% are not useful to the reader and are statistically insignificant. Also, as per WP:MOS, "percent" should be used in place of "%". I appreciate your taking this to the talk page. As per WP:HOW#Major edits, "before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page." --Kmsiever (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I did in fact already provide the link where Statistics Canada lists the number of Mormons in Lethbridge. If one could click on the link I had provided (which was quickly deleted) one would have seen a list of the different denominations. The Mormons are listed under L for Latter Day Saints. This is not shown on the summary community profile page currently linked to, but it is shown on the more appropriate and free religion topic-based tabulation for Lethbridge. So I therefore must insist upon the removal of the current wording "While Statistics Canada reports no separate census numbers for Mormons," since this is patently false, evidently untrue, clearly inaccurate and grossly unfair to Statistics Canada. To save the time and trouble of going back to the links contained in the previous versions of a page I shall provide the link again here: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2001&PID=55822&APATH=3&METH=1&PTYPE=55440&THEME=56&FOCUS=0&AID=0&PLACENAME=0&PROVINCE=0&SEARCH=0&GC=99&GK=NA&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&FL=0&RL=0&FREE=0&GID=431636<br I do realise that Lethbridge is not a huge city which is why I did not suggest two digits after the decimal point as are commonly used in articles about Canada as a whole for example. I do also realise that I can be overly pedantic about such statistics. Nevertheless it can still sometimes be quite relevant especially for these kinds of sensitive stats even for smaller cities. I am sure many people would be interested to know that 8.8% of Lethbridgians are Mormons, and not just 8%. Of course one might round that to 9% but that causes its own problems. Nevertheless keeping prose references to full percentage points as suggested is generally good advice most of the time.
The term 'mother tongue' is the one used by Statistics Canada , and in Quebec for example, the distinction between first language learned (mother tongue) and first language spoken is a matter of furious importance, as is the second place after the decimal point, but I shall not demur on these points.
There are of course some other problems with the interpretation of the census data in this article, such as the inclusion of aboriginals in the list of visible minorities when they are specifically excluded by Stats Can, and the prominence given to the Church of Latter Day Saints when the adherents of the Roman Catholic Church and United Church are more numerous, as shown in the link I provided for the Census Agglomeration of Lethbridge (which in 2001 was exactly coextensive to the City of Lethbridge).
Overall this article is a very well-written well-presented one, and its recognition is well-deserved. It would be a shame to have it marred by the glaring inaccuracy of the failure to recognise Statistics Canada's painstakingly detailed hard work.
So I am going to be very bold and go ahead and once again make some, again even more greatly reduced, small amendments.
If you disagree with my edits I would greatly appreciate it if you would please edit them rather than just reverting them in full. And do please check the stats in the link provided.--Paulalexdij (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be. Thanks for that link and I apologize for overlooking previously. I have been looking for something like that since 2001. You have to understand that there is some history behind Mormons even appearing in this article. I had originally insisted they were not sufficient to warrant so much space in the article, but what ended up in the article was a compromise to avoid edit warring. I really like how you incorporated the stats into much easier and more flowing prose. I'll just make a few minor adjustments. Thanks for your worthwhile contribution. --Kmsiever (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:) I know those stats are a little difficult to find if one is not a statistics addict like I am. Anyway, I do like the way that you have now formatted the references so well. I think I shall adopt that style on other pages. I did not know about the previous controversy on this page. But I am very happy that this is now resolved and that this great page can now boast of some accurate precise detail in this regard. :) --Paulalexdij (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the stats you provided are for the metropolitan area of Lethbridge, not for the city itself. I modified the demographics section of this article to reflect that. --Kmsiever (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

mixed date formats

I've audited the dates, which were about half and half, including the refs. Can you decide whether the US format (which I chose) is the one you want? Often best to go back to the original first date-choice, as for eng.var. Please let me know if you decide international format is better, and I'll change it. Tony (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Largest city in southern Alberta

Since this statement in the lead offends at least one person, I thought it would be useful to clarify this. "Southern Alberta" does not include Calgary (see Calgary Region). Unless, someone wants to argue that The Hat is larger. --Kmsiever (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Population

the population for lethbridge 113,531 according to this http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/cen06/profiles/detail_b/FED48019.pdf the b.c governement's 2006 Census Profile for lethbridge please quit spamming this page and red dear with incorrect and or outdated information 21:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.178.246 (talk)

You may want to re-read that source. It clearly states that is the population for the federal riding, which includes (in addition to Lethbridge) Coaldale, Coalhurst, Raymond, Magrath, Cardston, and so forth. I am reverting your edit to the results of the 2008 municipal census. --Kmsiever (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance rating in banner

I've updated the WPCanada banner to have a rating of "mid" importance. These ratings should reflect the relative importance of the subject in the broader scope of Canada; for an Alberta-relative scale, you'll need to implement an Alberta banner, or update WPCanada to have sub-ratings for each potential sub-project. There's no value in having one banner template which mixes ratings, eliminating any consistency it was designed to achieve. Mindmatrix 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Alberta banner was migrated a while back and merged into the Canadian one, not without some resistance. Truth be told, the importance rating has no consequence or use whatsoever at this stage. --Qyd (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

name

I think the article's name should be changed from Lethbridge to Lethbridge, Alberta since there is a disambiguation page with other towns named Lethbridge also according to WP:CANSTYLE the article name should be city, province since it's not that big of a city and plus the is a disambiguation page. RebaFan1996 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:CANSTYLE : “Cities which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles.” It's not size that determines whether a Canadian city gets an undisambiguated title; it's notability. Of all the other locations named Lethbridge, this one is certainly the most notable. Even if we used population size, this is by far the largest of all the others sharing the name. --Kmsiever (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Metro area has surpassed 100,000.

The survey that stated that it was around 95,196 was taken in 2006. In 2009, the population was around 85,492. This means that the area has surpassed 100,000 in the year of this 2009. --Sega31098

That may be, but that is an assumption and qualifies as original research. If you provide a published source that proves the metro area has indeed surpassed 100,000, we can include it. Also keep in mind that the municipal government includes student population in its counts, and Statistics Canada does not. --Kmsiever (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Demonym

I have a feeling this is a topic of contention, but I am wondering if the demonym should be added to the article. I know a few people say Lethbian, but since there is an article "List of Lethbridgians", is Lethbridgian now the accepted term that can be added to the article? 142.179.173.143 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lethbridgian has always been the demonym used to refer to people from Lethbridge. Lethbian is a recent invention of local post-secondary students. Lethbridgian is already used in the article (see the demographics section). --Kmsiever (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, what does the Herald or City publications use for the demonym? I would suggest that to be the definitive demonym to be used in the article. HistoryStudent113^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sun Times uses Lethbridgian.[1] I cannot find any online examples of the City or the Herald using either Lethbridgian or Lethbian. --Kmsiever (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that counts as a verifiable third-party source. Lethbridgian it is HistoryStudent113^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the use of lethbridgian in the article, but thought it would be a nice feature to have it in the sidebar like in the Boston article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston 142.179.173.143 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)