Talk:Mississauga/Archive 2

Pictures

http://www.radisson.com/mississauga-hotel-on-l5t2z7/onmisair/locations I think the 3 pictures shown here would be perfect to post near the attractions paragraph, however I do not know how to properly cite it thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliepond1 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

this is a good pic of the lighthouse http://www.panoramio.com/photo/40919764 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliepond1 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ian Campbell" among notable people

While working on Ian Campbell, a disambiguation page, I saw that this page linked there. I've commented out his entry from the notable people section because I was unable to verify the information. I took a look at the Square One Shopping Centre external website and conducted a couple of Google searches which, though not exhaustive I know, only turned up one related reference, which contains a mirror of this article (see [1]). By "commented out" I mean bracketed with <!-- and --> in the place it was sitting in the article, so the information remains but is not visible, pending verification. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mississauga newspaper/local tv station

"While being in the top ten Canadian cities by population, Mississauga is bereft of cultural institutions for a community its size due to the proximity to Toronto. It is the largest city in Canada by far with no daily newspaper, television stations, or commercial radio stations. A bedroom city to Toronto in the truest sense, Mississauga is virtually unknown outside of Ontario."

Saying that Mississauga has no daily newspaper makes it sound as if it has no newspapers at all. Quite the contrary...we have the 'Mississauga News'...also, we have our local Rogers community cable station...something which was not mentioned as well.

It's true they weren't, but then again, The Mississauga News and Rogers 10 are not genuine big-city media outlets in the truest sense. Not by a long shot.

Not to mention how many Toronto Radio Station Transmitters (CFRB, CHUM, at Present, CFTR-680 News in the past) have been located in Mssa. Isn't "The Weather Channel" located in Mississauga? CJMR (1320 AM) was started as "Mississauga Radio", although it's now located in Oakville. Bacl-presby 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Weather Network is based in Oakville, Ontario and The Weather Channel is a US weather channel based out of Georgia. CHUM is based in Toronto, ON. But you are correct about the CFRB transmitters they are located in Mississauga, ON. But their main office is based in Toronto, ON. But isnt the transmitter just an antenna to expand converage, it doesn't make it a Mississauga station. Gsingh 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mississauga_train_derailment_of_1979

I started an article on the Mississauga_train_derailment_of_1979, an important historical event. I simply copied and pasted all the tidbits about the event from various other articles that mention it. But now the article obviously needs to be reorganized in a coherent manner. I thought maybe somebody interested in Mississauga or history might take a hack at it?--Sonjaaa 14:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I already did some minor editing to it - basically structural/wiki stuff. It still needs copyediting, though. Mindmatrix 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sister City

A CURIOUS THING: The article for Ensenada, B.C., Mexico (in it's español version) lists Mississauga as one of its sister cities? Why is this not reflected here? Is there a way to fact check that? Are sister city designations possibly ONE-WAY and not reciprocal? If anyone has any guesses, (or wants to add Ensenada to the sister city list in the article) that's be great. Thanks to all the editors for the good work on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.137.58 (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What does it mean that some city in Japan is our "Sister City"? I am a Mississaugaian and I would like to know. And, although it was stated in a previous comment, I don't think that we are the suburbs. Oakville and Brampton and such cities are suburbs. (Please don't hate me for that last comment). Also, is there an article on Mississauga Transit?

Tyson Moore^Talk 21:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your last question, have you tried searching for it? It's at Mississauga Transit, where one would expect it to be. Regarding sister cities, this is just a political friendship thing, usually determined by city councils, and used to promote trade with foreign companies. In this case, it's also because of Paul Kariya. Finally, regarding the suburbs, yes, Mississauga is a suburb of Toronto. It has been for a long time. It is also a major economic centre itself, especially to Brampton and other nearby areas, but there's a reason that Statistics Canada puts Mississauga in the Toronto CMA. Mindmatrix 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Paul Kariya, from Vancouver, would be flattered!! The link with Kariya, Japan came when Mayor Hazel was much younger!!Bacl-presby 19:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, oops. I even knew that, but for some reason blanked on it when typing my reply above. Anyway, here's some information about the sister city relationship: [2] [3]. Hope this clarifies things. Mindmatrix 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• I couldn't find any mention of Kariya in the article, but found it like Tyson did in the Kariya, Aichi article....Kariya is a street name near Square One...now, if I can figure a place where to insert the twin city into the Misissauga wikibox, I'll do so...

Re:Mississauga Transit, perhaps the link needs to be bolded in the article (and Monthly passes were added but the box also needs revising!) Bacl-presby 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've misunderstood you, but Kariya is mentioned at the end of the first paragraph of this article. It's been there for quite some time. Regarding the bolding, I don't think it's necessary - we should respect the Manual of Style for such things. If the link is easily missed, we should instead clean up the article to make sure it can be readily found. In this case, we should write some text for the Transportation section, instead of having several lists. Mindmatrix 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

oops, can't see the forest for the trees!Bacl-presby 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

IPA Pronuctiation

What the insistance on IPA for writing pronunciation? Most people don't have a clue how to decipher it. A.L.--70.24.71.154 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a phonetics course you dumbass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.133.212 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Because every other pronunciation method itself has varied pronunciation depending on person, region, and what they think you are trying get across. The "Miss-iss-sah-gah" that was inserted is completely wrong to me. If I were to use non-IPA, it would be "miss-i-saw-guh". But even that is very confusing—vowels are pronounced different all over the English world, so any representation like this will be pronounced differently based on what dialect the person reading it speaks. The only way pronunciation can be represented correctly is through the use of IPA. That many people won't understand it is unfortunate, but unavoidable (although there is the link to the International Phonetic Alphabet so that people can educate themselves). You can always add a sound file to really get the pronunciation across. OzLawyer 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a phonetic such as "Miss-eh-saw-ga (underline=accent)", with a reference to Mississipi would be of some use, because I've tried to read the IPA "language" rules and just don't have time to make heads or tails of it. I'd rather learn Cantonese. :-) And my (computer) system has no clue what to do with the pronunciation by sound card/speakers (and I don't have time to see the more-info link, because it shouldn't take much, like whatever Mississipi uses is what Mississauga should be using) to explain pronunciation. Just one opinion, hopefully of some use, someday. --S-Ranger 21:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[misi'sQga] is not the neutral pronunciation. It is the pronunciation affected by Canadian Vowel Shift (used mostly by women). Non-shifted pronunciation is the one with the low back and UNROUNDED a: [misi'sAga]. Longman Pronunciation Dictionary confirms this. It's an [A] vowel, not the [Q] vowel. (the same vowel used in word like dawn, Don, law, father. 89.172.42.50 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Cammie

The pronunciation given in the article is /ˌmɪsɪˈsɔːɡə/ which is not how people from Mississauga or anywhere in Greater Toronto pronounce the city's name. Canadian English speakers tend to pronounce that vowel lower than British or American speakers, so that [ɔ] becomes [ɑ] for us in words like "caught" [kɑt] and "bought" [bɑt] versus Standard American and Standard British [cɔt] [bɔt]. So the way we actually pronounce "Mississauga" is [ˌmɪsɪˈsɑːɡə] rather than [ˌmɪsɪˈsɔːɡə] which would sound foreign (simply meaning not Canadian) to us. It's usually more difficult for Canadians to detect an American accent, but this is one of the ways to find out. 174.117.237.118 (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)KrazyKanuck32765

Somebody has changed the pronunciation back to [ˌmɪsɪˈsɔːɡə]. I do not think an American/British English pronunciation will suffice for a CANADIAN city, so this time when I change it, I don't want some ignorant American changing it back. I am Canadian and I pronounce it [ˌmɪsɪˈsɑːɡə] NOT [ˌmɪsɪˈsɔːɡə]. Every native English speaker I know who is from Canada also pronounces it [ˌmɪsɪˈsɑːɡə]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.133.212 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious if natives (to Mississauga) pronounce the "misi" part as "mi si" or if it's "mis i"? I ask after reading the http://www.pronouncenames.com/pronounce/mississauga article where it's "m ih - s ih - s aw - g uh". I'm from Wisconsin (and currently live in northern Illinois) but I've always pronounounce Mississippi with "Mi ssi". (I'd pronounce the city [ˌmɪsɪˈsɑːɡə] that way too with the "mi si".) As far as the IPA, do they note the pronounciation based on local speakers? (Here in northern Illinois the "natives" pronounce the city "des plaines" (Illinois) with the 's'es. My wife from St. Louis and me from Wisconsin both pronounced it "de plane". Note that I'm making it simple, as it's the 's' being pronounced that's wierd to us.) It could be that a long time ago, to poke fun at the French, people mispronounced it on purpose, and eventually it stuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PReinie (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

The demographics page regarding the ethnic make-up of the city is much too long. Maybe a chart of the largest ethnic origins over 40,000 people should be listed. The list we have currently is much to long. Galati 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Galati

Sixth-largest city

Who put the population at 750,000??? People use statistics from a census. Until I find the most recent municipal census figure, which should be around 704,000 the 2006 figure of 668,549 stays.Jabbist (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless another reliable source is cited next to "Mississauga is the sixth-largest Canadian city" (which mean Census Subdivision/CSD in Statistics Canada terms) then this is the list and Mississauga is seventh, not sixth -- and most populous municipality, not "largest". has been placed beside the allegation for now. It will be removed and seventh-largest, with the source above, will take its place in a week or two if no one comes up with anything else. --S-Ranger 07:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
>>>Mississauga is the sixth most populous city, not the seventh. Winnipeg is the seventh. Click here. Jabbist (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the City of Mississauga web site needs proper citations or it's just marketing that means nothing. If using it as a source then get it to prove its allegations. Quite a few are made by city web pages but with no verifiable sources it's no different than anyone/anything else sticking whatever up on a web site. Does the City of Mississauga have/pay for a national population enumeration system of its own? It either cites its sources or all of it is irrelevant; other than around what municipalities can know about themselves and national population rank isn't one of them. --S-Ranger 07:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the 6th largest claim comes from stuff like http://www.realestate-ontario.com/PDF/MississaugaPopulationDemographicsHousing.pdf but that makes the assumption that Winnipeg isn't growing fast enough to keep up (probably a safe assumption). In any case, I agree that the best thing to do is probably just leave it as the 7th, and wait until March 13th, when the next census is released (http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/release/RelDates_e.cfm) and settles this one way or another. Mucus 16:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and it seems to be what every other CSD (municipality), CMA, CD, etc., in the Canada articles is doing; sticking to the 2001 Census numbers, which are verifiable, mentioning estimates and waiting for the 2006 Census results for CSDs.

The City of Toronto article doesn't even have an estimate for 2005, let alone 2006, just "over 2.4 million" (from the 2001 Census) even though the Assessment Office of the Ontario Ministry of Finance, a reasonably credible source, does provide population estimate updates for every CD in Ontario.

And the City of Toronto, simply because it happens to in its own "county" (Census Division/CD) and the municipality of Toronto is all that's in the Toronto Division CD, makes getting population estimates for it rather easy. Peel Region has to work out the CSDs/municipalities of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. --S-Ranger 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. And I think that it's quite a safe assumption that Mississauga has gained more in population, not being far from Winnipeg in the 2001 Census. Mississauga's percent change in population from the 1996 Census to the 2001 Census was 12.6%. Winnipeg's was only 0.2%, but what I "think" doesn't amount to a verifiable fact, it amounts to original research, which is not allowed around Wiki articles. FWIW. --S-Ranger 23:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state that Mississauga IS the 7th largest city in Canada. Either say that Mississauga IS the 6th largest city (which the city has been claiming for quite a while now) or say that Mississauga WAS the 7th largest city in Canada as of 2001. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.127.60 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Employers

Trimmed some obviously small employers, that were probably added just for publicity. If someone has time on their hands, feel free to trim the "known" employers that may only have a handful of employees actually in Mississauga. i.e. Microsoft is big, but how many people do they have in Mississauga? Mucus 16:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for some clarification on one point, Microsoft Canada (which is hopefully stated as such, not just "Microsoft") is headquartered in Mississauga but all of Microsoft Canada only employs 400 people. I just did a Google on +"microsoft canada" +employees +mississauga and this is the first hit I got. Regardless of the employees, Microsoft Canada is still a large company, it is heaquartered in Mississauga and revenues generated (with the fewer employees the better; for investors) is more important than # of employees.

There might be 400 people employed by some huge mining operation in the northern Canadas, but number of employees isn't all there is to a business. How many employees do GM, Ford, Chysler, etc., have in Windsor (to-be cut), Oshawa (to-be cut) and so on? One has to look at the overall picture, not just the number of employees and the overall picture around Microsoft Canada, for starters, is that its head office is in Mississauga. :-) --S-Ranger 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The heading then 4.1 Primary employers is pretty ambiguous because I would interpret it to simply mean, well, an important employer in terms of jobs. Judging importance in terms of a combination of revenue, the overall picture, and whatnot seems to be too dependent on POV and smacks of original research. Personally, looking around at a couple of articles, I would prefer the solution in the article on Winnipeg#Economy in which it seems to state categorically that only large employers are listed. Mucus 04:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: Canada Customs and Revenue Agency does not exist--it was split into Canada Revenue Agency and Canada Border Services Agency in 2003. Are there CRA offices in Mississauga, or was it supposed to be referring to Customs officers working at the airport and the ports? Or was it both? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Osgoode: I'd say both (and was surprised to see that they'd split up -- again), but am not sure how to find out how many are at Pearson and in Mississauga in general to process new immigrants, nor where it is done in Mississauga. I'm not even sure what to Google to attempt to find out. Any suggestions from anyone? --S-Ranger 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mucus: No offense intended but I think you're contradicting yourself by stating "I would interpret it to simply mean..." (based on what?), which could also be deemed as, I'm not sure if original research is the proper "violation" but perhaps WP:NPOV and just having an unbiased point of view doesn't tell anyone what percentage of the population of a municipality (or whatever else) must be employed by a given company before it qualifies to be mentioned.

If Microsoft Canada is going to exist at all in Canada (did you read the link I provided just to read the basics about it? A question, not an accusation), the location of its head office has to be on the Mississauga page.

Otherwise, Microsoft Canada can't exist anywhere in Canada, nor can any of its 1,000 solution providers and 15,000 resellers. No company (or person) can exist without a head, and Mississauga provides the head office, with revenues $22.69 billion, or $22,690 million. How does that compare to these entire industries, for which Statistics Canada provides zero employee information about? Look for anything, individually, not in sums/sub-totals, worth '$22,690 (million) last year (2005 column), including subsidies and this is for all of the Canadas.

Gross domestic product at basic prices primary industries, 2001 and 2005
$ constant 1997 (millions)

_______________________________________________________________________________
                                                                           % of
Agriculture forestry fishing and hunting          2001     2005  Growth*    ALL
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 Crop production ..............................  8,147   10,066    1,919   0.93
 Animal production ............................  4,016    4,230      214   0.39
 Forestry and logging .........................  6,215    7,211      996   0.67
 Fishing, hunting and trapping ................    913      851      -62   0.08
 Support activities for agriculture
  and forestry ................................  1,520    1,663      143   0.15
                                                _______________________________
 Agriculture forestry fishing and hunting TOTAL 20,811   24,021    3,210   2.23

 ______________________________________________________________________________
                                                                           % of
 Mining and Oil and gas extraction                2001     2005  Growth*    ALL
  _____________________________________________________________________________
  Oil and gas extraction TOTAL                  21,133   23,469    2,336   2.17
                                                _______________________________

 ______________________________________________________________________________
                                                                           % of
 Mining (except oil and gas)                      2001     2005  Growth*    ALL
  _____________________________________________________________________________
  Coal mining .................................  1,357    1,183     -174   0.11
  Metal ore mining ............................  5,163    4,646     -517   0.43
  Non-metallic mineral mining and quarrying ...  3,088    4,665    1,577   0.43
                                                _______________________________
 Mining (except oil and gas) TOTAL               9,608   10,494      886   0.97
                                                _______________________________
 Support activities for mining and
  oil and gas extraction .....................   4,766    7,390    2,624   0.68

Mining and oil and gas extraction TOTALS        35,507   41,353    5,846   3.83
                                                _______________________________
PRIMARY INDUSTRY TOTALS (ALL)                   56,318   65,374    9,056   6.06
_______________________________________________________________________________
ALL Industries                                 960,657 1,079,142 118,485 100.00
_______________________________________________________________________________

* Growth is simply the 2005 GDP number (per industry or in total for all primary, then all industries) subtracted from the 2001 GDP number.

% of ALL is the percentage the industry (or all primary industries, or all industries in the bottom two lines) of the total GDP in the "ALL Industries" row.

Source: Statistics Canada - Gross Domestic Product - Primary industries (2001-2005)

Last modified (by source): 2006-04-28
Last updated/checked: 2006-05-30
_____

All crop production, including subsidies, was only worth a puny $10,066 million. Oil and gas extraction is the one and only primary industry in the Canadas that made more money than Microsoft Canada, and that's quite a big picture for quite a huge portion of the Canadas.

And it's due to the nature of computer software, which can be purchased online and shipped, providing Canada Post/Purolator, UPS, Fedex and others with work just doing that.

What about a gravel quarry in a town we've never heard of in a country we've never heard of in Africa that might have 2,000 "employees" (kids, slaves) smashing rocks into gravel 12 hours a day, every day for the equivalent of $3 a month Canadian? Should that be held aloft as an economic beacon to the world, simply due to "employees", whether they use kids or not?

There is smart work and there is stupid work. There is the developed world, as a result of doing smart work, being able to afford, have enough credit to afford, the latest (or close enough) technology and there is the medieval world still using oxen (or equivalent) and very difficult manual labour to plow fields, sow by hand, irrigate and so on.

Would you rather grow corn in whatever boiling heat doing everything manually (but employing more people and paying them nothing due to that) or own/rent/least/co-op farming equipment to still end up with all Agriculture forestry fishing and hunting being worth only $24,021 million (split among how many people across the Canadas?) compared to working at Microsoft's head office in Mississauga for a company that only needs 400 employees Canada-wide due to the nature of that industry (and employing others to do the marketing, copying/packaging, distribution, sometimes, if the product can't be bought/downloaded online, and sales?) worth $22,960 million on its own and forcing no one to do hard labour, miserable work with no lives to speak of, for next to nothing?

That's the picture, or at least part of it and if the amount of revenues Microsoft Canada means nothing, then none of the primary industries in all of the Canada above mean anything, other than oil and gas extraction. It's the only primary industry in all of the Canadas that makes more than Microsoft Canada does.

So perhaps that fact should be added to the Canada page's economic section and any mention of any of the above industries that are not worth as much as Microsoft Canada is (which includes only oil and gas extraction) should be removed from every Canadian page that even mentions any of the primary industries above that don't make as much as Microsoft Canada does, and despite millions of dollars in federal and provincial handouts/subsidies.

Most Canadians, in my experiences, which the "business news" media supports/lies about as well, think that Canada is rich due to natural resources.

They, the ones who happen to stumble across this, now know otherwise and can prove otherwise via Canada's Statistical reporting agency. And if anyone has a problem with it, take it up with Statistics Canada.

I hope it's of some help/use explaining, not any point of view, just simple reality. --S-Ranger 17:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Small point for the introduction

It's irrelevant to me, if it happens to come up and someone happens to be from Mississauga, they say that they're from Mississauga, not Mississaugan (I assume). But many articles include a sentence such as, "Residents of <wherever> are known as <whatever>."

It only comes up when trying to refer to the residents of, usually a municipality in the U.S. and Canada, surely others, but it's worthy information for an encyclopedia, IMO. I assume that the proper term is Mississaugans, but someone who knows for certain might want to add it to the intro, first couple of paragraphs or so. --S-Ranger 00:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's almost always "Mississaugan", but I don't think "Mississaugian" is totally unheard of. If I were going to add it to the article, I wouldn't bother mentioning "Mississaugian", though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Now we just need someone to add "Residents of Mississauga are [called | known as] Mississaugans." Flip a coin? :-) --S-Ranger 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions

From the Mississauga mainspace article:

"Despite its size, Mississauga is thought of by some as a suburb of Toronto as the two cities' urban sprawls are indistinguishably linked. As Toronto has continued to grow economically, Mississauga has followed suit, building predominantly low-density tract housing and high rise condominiums to attract individuals tired of city life." ... (bold for emphasis only)

It continues on, along with what is mentioned previously (impressive transportation infrastructure, etc.) to state that Mississauga is a city, not whatever a bedroom suburb of Toronto is, which makes what I'd call "to attract the skilled human resources [or human capital and investment capital] the city needs", as opposed to making it sound like it is some, whatever a "bedroom suburb" is, with people tired of "real city life" (presumably in Toronto, which may or may not be the case, there is no verification; how many newcomers are from other countries in much larger cities?) as though Mississauga IS a bedroom community where people from "the real cities" move to, because Mississauga is not a real city, which is then contradicted again and rightly so.

I could see that being said of the (moving further and further north) cottage country, but of Mississauga? The suburbs of Toronto are "indistinguishably linked" to Mississauga, but people are moving to Mississauga, which is quite a big city compared to most of the Canadas, to escape city life?

It makes my head spin. Any thoughts? --S-Ranger 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I do have a thought (talking to myself? :-) ) and it would to be replacing "tired of city life" to "the skilled human resources the growing city [needs or requires and attracts, which is the case, or a better word that means all of it]." Or something along those lines as opposed to "escaping city life", which outright states that Mississauga is not a real city (which is hilarious given the rest of the Canadas; it's the 6^th most populous municipality of whatever/any type in the Canadas, even though verifiability requires waiting for the 2006 Census numbers for Census Subdivisions/CSDs/municipalities of whatever or no type). --S-Ranger 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The population of Mississauga is 714,000 as of JULY 2006. Information provided by city of Mississauga Paphlet in JULY 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.110.8 (talk • contribs) 05:50, October 30, 2006 (UTC)

Such a pamphlet, without further information regarding how such numbers were come to, is not reliable, as cities often over-estimate their populations. The approximately 673,000 number I have re-added to the page has been confirmed to have been come to by statistical analysis of a reputed consulting firm hired by the Region of Peel (see Talk:Brampton, Ontario#Population_Estimates for an email from the RoP confirming this). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has been vandalising demographic sections for Hamilton, Missisauga, and Brampton. I am in the process of fixing them. I have finished Hamilton and Mississuaga, and I am working on Brampton. - Galati

Ethnic origin table

Ethnic Origin	Population	Percent
Canadian	105,215	17.22%
English	89,980	14.73%
East Indian	68,890	11.27%
Scottish	59,305	9.70%
Irish	56,345	9.22%
Italian	48,035	7.86%
Polish	42,005	6.87%
Black	37,850	6.19%
Chinese	35,955	5.88%
Portuguese	31,795	5.20%

The table above (removed from the mainspace Demographics section), the source it is based on, does not state population it states Total responses and if you add them up from the source the total responses are 865,435, which is quite a bit over the 2001 Census population of the Mississauga CSD at 612,925 as per the source used for most demographics in the article, the 2001 Census "Community Highlights" tables and specifically the Mississauga CSD/Municipality/City Community Highlights tables.

But the source for the Ethnic Origin table is Selected Ethnic Origins, for Census Subdivisions (Municipalities) With 5,000-plus Population - 20% Sample Data - Mississauga, City. Please hold down a [Shift] key and click on that link to get the source of this mess open, drag the right scrollbar to the bottom as soon as it loads and read footnote 2:

“ ² Respondents who reported multiple ethnic origins are counted more than once in this table, as they are included in the multiple responses for each origin they reported. For example, a respondent who reported "English and Scottish" would be included in the multiple responses for English and for Scottish. ”

(emphasis added by me)

This explains why there were 865,435 total responses (create a spreadsheet and check it yourself, or add it all up with an abacus) when the population of Mississauga was only 612,925, which also explains why "Population" is nowhere close to the correct heading for the table above. The correct heading, if the Total response column from the source is going to be used, is Total responses and then explaining it. You could always post footnote 2 under the table, though people from wherever browsing Wikipedia might not have a clue what it's supposed to mean.

Total Single responses are 426,050, total Multiple responses are 439,415.

What the Total population column at the top of the source table is supposed to mean, well your guess is as good as StatsCan't's (oops; that could be illegal; the double single possessive quote and contraction quote I mean) is, which isn't much. Feel free to ask them at infostats@statcan.ca

There are probably not 89,980 people from ENGLAND in Mississauga. It is simply what people responded with when asked for their ethnic origin on the long forms that only go to 33% of the population (2001 Census) so 20% data means 20% of however many of 33% of the responses they actually received back properly completed were. My ethnic origin is U.K. and if StatsCan asked me about ORIGIN I might be stupid enough to respond with U.K. even though my family has lived in Toronto (and the before-maths of) for at least 8 generations, which means that when I am asked what my ethnic origin is, I say Torontonian. But that's simple because they turn that into "Canadian."

And I could answer English, Irish, Scottish, Aboriginal and who knows what else. Just look at the user pages of those who advertise their ethnic origins with country flags; there are usually quite a few and that's how the "multiple responses" get in there along with meaningless responses like South Asian, African (Black), Yugoslav (it doesn't exist and hasn't for quite some time), Latin/Central/South American, EUROPEAN (to clue in the whiteys out there; what is a European? Who has descended from all of Europe, every single cult and Kingdom and Empire in all of the iterations of "Europe"?) Scandinavian (Norwegian, Finnish, Danish, Icelandic, which one?)and I'm surprised not to see Carribean n.i.e. and Asian n.i.e.(not indicated elsewhere as footnote 1 explains) on the list or even North American n.i.e.. What about all of the people who have dual citizenship in the U.S. and Canada and probably the U.S. and Mexico and Canada and Mexico as well.

It's not "ethnic origin" but the whole point of this is that whatever someone responds with is what Statistics Canada gets; not what they want or anything that is verified or it would be a violation of many federal and provincial statutes and the Statistics Canada Act.

The total responses column is the one to use but it's not population by any stretch and no percentages can be derived from it that mean anything other than the percentages of the actual total responses: 865,435. If either of the other two columns are used then it's absolutely worthless.

Not so much around these tables (the worthless "Languages spoken at work" tables that authors use as though it means languages spoken most often in the municipality, which is quite wrong for the City of Toronto and the City of Mississauga if the commuting claims on the mainspace article are anywhere near accurate, because there will be Cantonese, Mandarin and Chinese n.o.s. (none other specified), so all three have to be added up to get "Chinese") also have to look at the "n.i.e." categories, even though there are none with more than 10,000 responses and who picked that number and why, even though the table never showed up? [Whomever had written "(see the table below for ethnic groups with 10,000 or more PEOPLE)" in the Demographics section but there was no such table so I deleted it.]

Take a look at the percentages based on the actual number of total responses, which I arbitrarily dropped when it went below 1.00% (close enough to 10,000 in Total responses as you'll see), which is all any percentages can be based on:

Selected Ethnic Origins¹, for Census Subdivisions (Municipalities) With 5,000-plus Population - 20% Sample Data
2001 Census, Mississauga, City

Ethnic origin	Total responses2	% of Total responses
Canadian	105,215	12.16
"English" (politics)	89,980	10.40
East Indian	68,890	7.96
Scottish	59,305	6.85
Irish	56,345	6.51
Italian	48,035	5.55
Polish	42,005	4.85
Chinese	40,000	4.62
Portuguese	31,795	3.67
"French" (politics)	28,410	3.28
German	26,870	3.10
Filipino	25,900	2.99
Jamaican	21,270	2.46
Ukrainian	17,260	1.99
Pakistani	11,420	1.32
Spanish	9,290	1.07
Croatian	9,140	1.06
Dutch (Netherlands)	9,105	1.05
Vietnamese	8,870	1.02
Greek	6,710	0.78

¹ Includes origins with total response counts of 15,000 or more for Canada.

² Respondents who reported multiple ethnic origins are counted more than once in this table, as they are included in the multiple responses for each origin they reported. For example, a respondent who reported "English and Scottish" would be included in the multiple responses for English and for Scottish.
_____

There is only a 0.25% difference between Pakistani (10,000 or more responses, not population) and Spanish. But below 1% of total responses, given how close it is to 10,000 or more responses, seems a bit more reasonable.

Whether the table above is of use as is, or should be turned into a pie chart/graphic that no one can see or make heads or tails of as is goin on around other pages, is up to everyone to decide. Or just align the above right, stick the ref cite (commented out in the first table as it would make no sense on this page) to the first column of the table above as in the first table and run it along the right side of the text; but it's probably too long as is and I'm not cutting it arbitrarily at 10,000 responses or more because the percentages of the actual total responses are too close for that; but anyone else can feel free. :) --S-Ranger 11:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Attractions

From the Attractions section of the mainspace article, this, as it was:

“ Mississauga planned over 60 free events to bring more people to the city square. The square was transformed and now includes a movable stage, a restaurant that sell snacks, extra seating, sporting equipment (basketball nets, hockey area, chess and checker boards and a skateboarding area.) ”

...makes no sense. Sporting equipment or facilities? Do you have to rent the nets for the hoops and string them or something? A hockey area is not sporting equipment. Sticks, pucks, nets if they aren't in place, helmets, skates and other gear would be equipment. Skateboards, knee pads, helmets, etc., would be equipment for a skateboarding area, but not the area itself unless you have to rent that and "assemble it" then disassemble it and return it when you're done.

I was going to delete it all (in the parentheses) because I can't make heads of tails of it, but perhaps someone else can figure out what it's supposed to be claiming with no verification as usual. --S-Ranger 12:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned it up a bit, very minor, but I think it makes a bit more sense.

“ The square was transformed and now includes a movable stage, a snack bar, extra seating, and sports and gaming facilites (basketball nets, hockey arena, chess and checker boards) including a skate park. ”

--JordanZed 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This article or section may need a complete rewrite

The {{Cleanup-rewrite}} tag (displays a 'box' stating "This article or section may need a complete rewrite.") was added for glaring reasons.

The introduction has been cleaned up somewhat, different subjects have been given their own paragraphs (one line or not even) as different subjects are supposed to have, so that everyone can see what is actually documented and, perhaps, how to put it all together so that it flows in some logical manner, even if bullets (bullet points) have to be used to state disjointed little facts that probably won't flow with anything: though I can't say that I've ever seen an intro for this type of article with lists of bullet points in the intro.

Everything from "The city is debt-free and has not borrowed money since 1978." (totally unverified and it's been tagged with {{fact}}, along with everything below it, is being deleted on 2007-03-23 (whenever I have a chance) as it has all been pointed out for months and months that it's all unverified so it's totally meaningless in an encyclopedia and I'm not supposed to be giving any "warning" about removing alleged, unverified anything: just deleting it on sight but I've seen it all about 100 times now and time is up.

If y'all want to copy the messes to some work_in_progress sub/stub, your talk page, text editor, whatever, feel free. But don't post it in the Mississauga article again until everything is verified. Or why not put it right here with what needs verification now (it's been MONTHS) if it's going to stay in the article:

The city is debt-free and has not borrowed money since 1978.^{[verification needed]}

“ While being in the top ten Canadian cities by population,^{[relevance? It's a suburb of the most populous and richest anything in the Canadas and I've already been over it on this talk page]} Mississauga has few cultural institutions for a community its size^{[verification needed ... according to who/what is it "unusual" being a suburb of a big city that targets the markets in the suburbs; there is no City of Toronto news anymore, just "GTA" news]} due to its proximity to Toronto.^{[which goes without saying and it should be written the other way around: Due to Mississauga's close proximity, literally attached to Toronto's west end, of course the suburb has few "cultural" institutions though what some little rag newspaper has to do with culture, who knows?]} It is by far the largest city in Canada without a daily newspaper^{[verification needed]} (The Mississauga News is printed three days a week), and currently doesn't have any commercial radio stations.^{[As I stated on the talk page months ago; if the DEMAND were there for an entrepreneur to make money from, you can be sure that Mississauga, were it in Newfoundland or something with sort of large markets (huge markets compared to anything else in Newfoundland, but that's not saying much) would be capitalizing on it. And they are--but from Toronto because it makes more sense to expand coverage than to set up entirely new subsidiaries for what isn't a very big market at all in this region of 8.1 million people in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.]} Mississauga is beginning to break away from its label as a "bedroom community" of Toronto as 25,000 more workers commute to jobs in Mississauga than leave.^{["workers" or commuters? What industries do they work in, where do they come from and where is the PROOF as usual?]} ”

With ZERO verification it's all gone (from the main article) and you'll never find adequate verification for Wikipedia to back up what is nothing more than whining and moaning about nothing. The "culture" in Mississauga is about the same as it is in every middle-class suburb -- suburban culture like mowing the lawn and waving to neighbors who are doing the same, shoveling/blowing the driveway and waving at neighbors (if they can be seen) while doing so, planting tomatoes, flowers, pruning hedges, having tea parties to discuss tulips and such ... waiting for buses that take a long time to come and so on. And probably not engaging in even "suburban culture" while waiting with others or on buses.

Y'all are simply going through real life at the moment for a change, just like "Old Toronto" did, York, East York, North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke did. Welcome to the world; sort of. There's a lot more to come and there's a lot more you'll all be bitching and moaning about in 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 years unless the "Ontario" and confederate feds keep stealing most of our money to hand away to the rest of the Ontarios and Canadas and then we'll all have moved to the U.S. or the like and the former "GTA thing" will rot much more quickly.

The intro alone to the Mississauga article made it sound as though suburbs (and the usual around all of them) is something new and unusual or something. It's not. It's just new for y'all, no one else and this isn't your personal web page for use by Mississaugans only; it's an encyclopedia that the world has free access to and if y'all think that they need to know anything about suburbs that they don't already know much better than Mississauga does so far; then document it in the suburb article (and watch it get deleted there), not in the Mississauga article. There is nothing "special" about Mississauga; or Toronto either as the urban core of this city-region other than the billions of dollars a year the 'Ontario' and confederate feds steal from us, while dumping their own responsibilities/expenses on us as well.

And I am not dictating anything. Wikipedia is and this post shouldn't even exist after the MONTHS the editors of this article have had to get proper verification in place. I, anyone who runs across the main article should just immediately delete any/all unverified "facts" given that the #1 problem Wikipedia has are articles like the Mississauga article: It is not considered to be a reliable source of information entirely due to specific facts being thrown around with nothing at all to back them up. —S-Ranger 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

New MPPs

What about Carolyn Parish?

Fair use rationale for Image:Mississaugacoa.gif

Image:Mississaugacoa.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Mindmatrix 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename: Mississauga, Ontario → Mississauga

Per Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities and Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide, there have been some long-running discussions about renaming articles about Canadian cities. I propose we rename this article to Mississauga, which currently redirects here. One point of contention may be the existence of Mississaugas, but a simple disambiguating note on each article should suffice to resolve that issue. Mindmatrix 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Mindmatrix 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, as per WP:CANSTYLE. One of Canada's largest cities - and a Google search indicates that the city is the overwhelming primary use of the name. It is also well established on Wikipedia that North American place names do not require disambiguation simply due to there being an article on the First Nation people after whom the place was named (see, for example, Ottawa, Mississipi, Massachusetts, Yellowknife, etc.). Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. A hatnote should be sufficient to disambiguate the city from the First Nation, and no other potential meaning is sufficiently prominent. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Consistent with other major Canadian urban centres. - SimonP (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support with top link to Mississauga first nation. Franamax (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom with Mississaugas hatnote. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Please submit extended comments about the page move here.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tomasz Radzinski

Why is he even included in the "people from Mississauga" section? Perhaps he lived here for a few years, but he's been born and lived for a number of years in Poland as well as England and Belgium. This does not make him from Mississauga. His anme should be removed.

Norum (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The section is "Notable people from or residing in Mississauga". So he meets the criteria. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

People from Mississauga

I removed the partial list of people from Mississauga. The list included people born, live, and use to live in Mississauga. It has been tagged for over 2 years (October 2008). The list had to go. If anyone wants to re add an improved list, please feel free. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect statement regarding Mayor McCallion's age and her being deceased

The Politics section of the article states mayor McCallion died at 131 years of age. The Wikipedia article on McCallion indicates she was born in 1921 and still lives. I recommend deleting the last sentence, "But McCallion died at the age of 131."

File:Mississauga Montage 2012.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mississauga Montage 2012.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mississauga Montage 2012.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)