Talk:Lower Mainland/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Population

Changed population from 2 mil to 2.5 mil.I added Greater Vancouver's population with Fraser vally regional districts population.When one adds both,Van-2.2 mil ,Fraser val-300,000=2.5 million.

Those numbers are estimates, not actual census data. I've changed the wording to clarify the number from the most recent census. Sunray 07:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Population -> Demographics

As per comments on Talk:Demographics of Vancouver and Talk:Vancouver concerning demographics, the population section here could include an outline of the ethnic composition of the Lower Mainland's various communities; I'm thinking of the post-war Dutch and German, incl. Mennonite, belt from Langley through to Chilliwack (it overlaps into Mission a bit, w. Germans also in Maple Ridge historically); Mission was very ethnic, pre and post war (it had the largest Japanese population other than Richmond and Vancouver, as well as a large French Canadian element that never preserved French; and a mix of also anglicized Italians, Poles, Finns, Ukrainians, Norwegians, Doukhobours, Hungarians, First Nations etc moreso than elsewhere (other than parts of the Interior); also a strong British-from-Britain component. Needless to say multiculturalism seemed a bit odd and artificial when it came along as an official agenda; we already lived that way without being self-conscious about it, and foreign accents were so common you just accepted them (nearly always parents only, until the Sikhs came in large numbers in the late '60s). Anyway, the resilience of Dutch identity is worth note (not just meaning the Zalm, but a way of life and values, of the conservative variety rather than Dutch liberalism now associated with Holland) in Langley, Aldergrove, Abby, Sardis; likewise the Mennonites; non-Menonnite Germans on the other hand tend to completely assimilate, and aren't as religious for the most part. The valley is also the long-time historic focus of the Sikh community, particularly in Abbotsford which was and is the site of the first Gurdwara in BC, vintage 1900s; Newton, Abbotsford, Mission and Chilliwack have as significant Sikh communities as Punjabi Market, though not the marketing identity (well, except for Newton, almost...). Then of course there's the Persian community concentrated on the North Shore, and increasingly in the West End The particular character of old New West also has demographic issue in terms of its ethnic and class composition (btw its Chinatown was the largest on the mainland from the 1850s until the 1890s when it was destroyed in that city's Great Fire and never rebuilt; Barkerville's Chinatown may have been larger 1862-1870s but there are no exact figures). It's occurred to me while writing this, also, that in all demographics sections there should be some class/social geography such as New West's Queens Park being an upper-crust enclave, or North Burnaby vs South Burnaby - the concentration of Italians and Croatians in North Burnaby, the more complex mix in South Burnaby, the more swanky areas clustered around Burnaby Mountain and Cariboo Hill-Deer Lake. The transient student population of the city and the GVRD, Lower Mainland etc respectively might also be interesting to work out. Also the prison population of the valley towns (the prisons are major economic engines in Mission and Abbotsford, just as the BC Pen was at one time in New West; but less so in Maple Ridge and Kent). Skookum1 09:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Satellite map draft - comments/input requested

I just created a map showing the strict definition of the Lower Mainland, using a NASA Visible Earth image which is public domain; I'm not a graphic artist/mapmaker and so it could maybe be better looking; I also haven't put city-names on it, only the boundary.

Here it is

, and to show areas sometimes included (Hope, Chilliwack River, Howe Sound/Lions Bay)

Here's a second version showing those areas with dotted lines

. I can also make a basemap that has eneough room to show the Lower Mainland EcoRegion (which AFAIK includes the Sunshine Coast, but really is an MoE administrative definition/district) but I'll have to be reminded of what the differences are. On the existing map, the northern boundary could just be a straight line from West Vancouver-Howe Sound across northern Maple Ridge and Mission to Agassiz-Rosedale, but other than northern Mission I've followed pretty much the line of settlement and the line where the mountains "break" into the Lower Mainland; in a strict, quasi-legal sense, the northern boundary should probably coincide with the New Westminster Land District but I don't have that map handy so went with this for a draft. Comments on what else should be on this map welcome - I don't want to clutter it with city names - obviously Vancouver, Abbostford, and Chilliwack for orientation; but "who" else, and what else? I'll load the basemap here, which is an excerpt of a much larger map currently used for Monashee Mountains; my excerpt roughly coincides with a 1:400,000 map of SW BC produced by MoE which reaches over to and including Kamloops and Kelowna, and as far north as Clinton; I'll upload that to Wikimedia Commons so it's genrally available and will come back to post the link to that item here later.Skookum1 04:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Hm. Obviously should change the image-name next time, so they're not unwieldy long...I have a habit of adding txt data to photofiles so as to keep track of what I did to them...which is why the long filenames and why they begin with "Washington" (it was a US source after all).Skookum1 04:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The map looks accurate to what I consider the Lower Mainland, which most definitely does not include the Sunshine Coast. The best perspective I can put on that issue would be how one from the Sunshine Coast would describe themselves to someone not too geographically astute from say, Dawson Creek. It's a self-identity thing as much as anything, which is very hard to formalize with sources. Lions Bay would be an inclusion in my opinion as well based on the same perspective. Hope is right on the cusp, and in fact I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with including such places in multiple regions, when we eventually start categorizing all this stuff--Keefer4 07:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as an addendum re: self-identity perspective. I consider myself intimately familiar with how ppl in every part of the province self-identify. In the course of my last job, over past six years, I've spoken to approx 150,000 British Columbians from every part of the province, 60% of those from outside Van/Vic. And each time I was required to ask them which part of the province they were in. There was variety in the answers, even if they were in same region, but just saying that never heard Sunshine COast folks refer to themselves as LM once.(job was gov't blue page enquiry ;) ) Although I realize that is original research so... but man reading everything above sure was fun!!--Keefer4 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the map should include both Bowen Island and Lions Bay within the boundary line for the Lower Mainland. After all, Bowen Island and Lions Bay are both member municipalities of Metro Vancouver. And all of Metro Vancouver's population has been included in the total for the Lower Mainland. Hence Bowen Island and Lions Bay should be shown within the Lower Mainland's boundary lines. - Boy.bowen (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, Bowen Island is an island and inherently not part of the Lower Mainland by definition. Lions Bay is debatable; the original usage of the term excluded anywhere "upcoast" as well as "upcountry"...and the road used to end at Horseshoe Bay......Skookum1 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, if islands don't qualify for inclusion in the 'mainland', then by rights ALL islands should be excluded in the definition, and their populations should also be excluded. That would mean that Sea Island (YVR) and Lulu Island (Richmond & Delta) and Annacis Island (New Westminster) and others would also be excluded. No, that doesn't make any sense. It is much simpler just to include all of Metro Vancouver, as well as the Fraser Valley in the definition of the Lower Mainland. Boy.bowen (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver-Kamloops NASA sat image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons

Here is the Vancouver-Kamloops sat-map mentioned above, as loaded into Wikimedia Commons. The cloud front above Logan Lake and the bits of cumulus - maybe thunderstorms - north of Kamloops I can't do much about short of pixel-by-pixel retouching edits; another source image may not have these bits of cloud cover; I'll check around. Skookum1 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Population data

Some folks keep changing the population in the lead sentence of the article from 2.2 M to 2.5 M. However, they do not change the reference, so the reference says the number is from the 2001 Census, which is incorrect. The higher number also conflicts with the article's section on Population which summarizes the population according to the 2001 Census. As I have said in more than one edit summary, if you want to change the population in the lead, fine, but you will have to change the reference to the 2006 Census. That isn't difficult, but you also have to change the entry in the Population section, which isn't so easy as you have to add the numbers. I know, I've tried. If you are not up to that, I would suggest we put a request to the folks at WikiProject Vancouver to see if someone can update it. Sunray 22:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope??

Is Hope, British Columbia not considered part of the Lower Mainland? I always thought of it as the eastern edge of the Lower Mainland.Canuck85 (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the map needs adjusting or rather there's another version which I'll dig out and put instead of the one that's there; note the changes to the lede re the BCGNIS listing and also the following section.Skookum1 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely not include Hope in the Lower Mainland, by the terminology I grew up with the Lower Mainland would end somewhere around Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge (which as a kid we would already have considered the Fraser Valley), then the Fraser Valley (ie definitely wouldn't include Agassiz, Chilliwack, Harrison, etc as Lower Mainland), then the Fraser Canyon which would include Hope. I grew up in Coquitlam. I'm sure my relatives in the interior would have a different opinion though they referred to anything from say Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge onwards as 'down at the coast.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

They'll also say that about Mission and Chilliwack - and Hope. I'm from Mission, it's definitely the Lower Mainland, as is Hope; the Fraser Delta proper is reckoned to start around Rosedale-Seabird Island/Ruby Creek. Hope is often described as a town in the Fraser Valley, though equally also as part of the Fraser Canyon; it's both; historically the Lower Mainland properly ended at Yale, which was the jumping off point for the "upper mainland" as it was the head of river navigation.Skookum1 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

BCGNIS coords

The coords given by BCGNIS are roughly on Boundary Road, and conform to the Vancouver-perception, which coming from Mission I can tell you is just plain wrong (as are many of Vancouver's perceptions about the rest of the Lower Mainland). Unofficial coords I'd place somewhere around Aldergrove or Abbotsford/Matsqui. I disagree with the BCGNIS comment about hte rest of the province considering "south of Whistler" to be in teh Lower Mainland, partly because people from Squamish and Whistler (where I've also lived) consider themselves outside of it. I'm hoping to find a historical description somewhere, i.e. from the term's early provenance in 19th C. histories of the province. For now the coords are at least cited; if someone feels OK about the OR needed to adjust them to somewhere suitable, like say those of Matsqui Village, that would be more accurate; there's no need to factor in Squamish/Whistler - the historical point there is before the building of Hwy 99 north of Horseshoe Bay all those places were decidedly in the "upper country", and you had to take a ferry toget there. Hope is definitely the eastern limit, though (see prevoius section).Skookum1 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Earthquakes

"While earthquakes are common in British Columbia and adjacent coastal waters, most are minor in energy release or are sufficiently remote to have little effect on populated areas." This is inaccurate and fundamentally misleading. While recent earthquakes may have been small, the underlying plate tectonics (subduction zone) mean that very large earthquakes are inevitable. These would be much larger than those expected in California, for example. Here are some references to help you in correcting this. Muchado (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/zones/cascadia/mega-eng.php
• http://commons.bcit.ca/civil/students/earthquakes/unit1_02.htm
• http://www.sfu.ca/~acalvert/Web%20Site/Research/Cascadia%20Deep/CascadiaDeep.htm

The Mount Meager lahar hazard and Mount Breakenridge slide hazard should be added, don't have time now....reference to Mt Baker and the Richmond liquefaction hazard are also significant.Skookum1 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The threat of Mount Garibaldi would also be ideal to add in this article. Renewed volcanic activity could produce an explosive eruption. The accompanying ash could cause short and long term water-supply problems for Vancouver and much of the Lower Mainland. The catchment area for the Greater Vancouver watershed is downwind from the Garibaldi area. Pyroclastic fall could also have catastrophic effects on the ice fields east of Mount Garibaldi since the prevailing winds travel eastwards. This would likely cause considerable melting to create floods. BT (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Mount Cayley area could also have impacts on the Lower Mainland but I'm less familar with volcanic hazards at that location. Considerable melting of the Powder Mountain Icefield caused by volcanic activity to produce floods down adjacent river valleys would likely be one for sure. I know eruption hazards may currently be considered low, but no one can really predict when an eruption is going to occur. Evidence of renewed activity would be stuff like an increase of earthquakes, ground deformation, increase of temperatures in hot springs, etc. But these kinds of things normally occur shorty before an eruption takes place. The reason volcanologists consider the chance of renewed eruptions in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt low is because the Garibaldi volcanoes remain quiet for thousands of years between eruptions. But even that can be ruled out. Lots of the Garibaldi volcanoes have not erupted for thousands of years (e.g. Garibaldi or Cayley) and the lack of monitoring at Garibaldi volcanoes does not help anything to predict future eruptions. BT (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

List of communities

Someone had biased this section around municipalities, but much of the LM is not in them, and within them and spanning their borders are various well-known placenames; I've expanded the list and ditched the artificial classification by regional district (as opposed to school district, forest district etc). As a region article, this page actually doesn't need this list, which could be a separate List of settlements in the Lower Mainland as it will be quite lengthy once fully expanded. Modern-day municipal agglomerations are only that, modern-day agglomerations, they do not reflect "communities" or even "settlements", but conveniences of governance; the actual settlements/communities are a reflection of the area's history and identity.Skookum1 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yes, let's not make an edit war out of this. I do not regard it as trivial to make it clear that communities may be regarded as part of the Lower Mainland without being on the mainland - yet mainland remains one criterion for inclusion - for neither Bowen Island nor Vancouver Island are included by any source yet found. Many people might easily wonder whether Sea Island, not being on the mainland, is in the Lower Mainland. There is no harm done by including this information as a point of clarification, and I have seen no reason to exclude it other than your assessment of its "triviality". --JimWae (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to your example, Manhattan is not considered part of the mainland. I am NOT thinking of foreign speakers, but perhaps more of Americans arriving at YVR (which is surrounded by lots of salty water) wondering if they are in the Lower Mainland or not. There is no harm done in being clear about this AND I am NOT suggesting that YVR is not on the Lower Mainland. It's this kind of deletionism of relevant material that can make working on this project less than wonderful. --JimWae (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, the Toronto Islands, then, or Montreal Island...they're part of teh North American continent, period, because they're INSIDE IT. And calling ME a deletionist - that's rich. LOLSkookum1 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[postedit conflict]Yeah, but Bowen Island and Vancouver Island are separated by salt water, not fresh water. Rivers on the mainland are specifically "on the mainland", whether lower or not. Bowen is offshore, Vancouver Island across a major strait; and Bowen is not included in the defintion of "Lower Mainland" historically or in modern terms, though it's part of the GVRD. See my notes on your talkpage and on the WP:CAnada section I linked there. Sea Island IS on the mainland, so is Lulu Island; they're within the limits of the Fraser River, which is sentirely "on the mainland". What you're seggesting is that islands in mainland lakes are not part of the mainland; the mainland is a region, and teh Lower Mainland likewise; it's not a landform and should not be confused with such; it's one reason why in my normal writing, as with most "old era" British Columbians, we capitlize "Mainland" when meaning the region, likewise "the Island" and "the Interior". It doesn't need explaining that Barnston Island and Crescent Island (between Langley/Bradner and Ruskin/Silverdale) or Matsqui Island are part of the Mainland, despite being "not mainland"....in the same way as it doesn't need explaining that Point Grey-as-a-neighbourhood is actually nowhere near Point Grey, nor is it a point...Skookum1 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

repeat: I am NOT suggesting that YVR is not on the Lower Mainland - not in any way. I am specifiying that islands ARE included--JimWae (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The wording is awkward, and as redundant as saying that bodies of water are in the Lower Mainland even though they're not land...Skookum1 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are presenting arguments for the inclusion of islands. I do not disagree with inclusion of Sea Island, nor the several others. Should the article include the arguments or the statement? I am thinking that clarification is called for, for someone such as the New Yorker who would be considered ignorant if he said Manhattan was on the mainland. Our BC usage is a somewhat unusual stretch of the usage of "mainland". Even if the stretch is slight, clarity does no more harm than obscurity. --JimWae (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's the problem - your statement wasn't clear, and over-explained an issue/definition which needed no explaining. Islands which are "inside" the mainland are inherently part of the mainland. Grouse Mountain isn't "lower" but it's still included in the definition/working reality of "Lower Mainland"....these islands are "in the Fraser River" and the Fraser River is part of the mainland....and as for New Yorkers, I think most of them consider the rest of North America to be "offshore"...as distant from them as Staten Island Or Brooklyn (which is on Long Island, of course). Montreal is on an island - is it part of the continent, or does it need explaining that it's part of North America even though it's not "mainland"? But again, taht's an incorrect use of the term "mainland"....in general when including islands in reference to it, it refers ONLY to islands separated by salt water, as with Newfoundland or Vancouver Island. The idiom "on the mainland" includes all things inland from the saltwater, whether a river or a lake or an island on either....Skookum1 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mainland: a large mass of land that forms the main part of a country but does not include any islands belonging to the country. Mainland: the main land mass of a country or continent; as distinguished from an island or peninsula. We are not talking about continents here, so Montreal and Newfoundland (and Greenland for that matter) being part of North America are irrelevant. Ridiculing NYers does not help your argument--JimWae (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

RIDICULING Your English comprehension skills are evidently lacking, JimWae, as well as your appreciation for New York humour; the New Yorker Magazine had a famous cover showing Manhattan as pretty much the whole world, with Jersey as a sliver and the rest of the US a tiny distance; it's an old joke. Much like the British perception of "storms close Channel, Continent cut off". As for trotting out the dictionary definitino and claiming that Montreal and Newfoundland are "irrelevant" only further demonstrates your lack of ability in comprehending either definitions or standard idioms. There is NO NEED to explain that Lulu Island is included even though it's an island; it's like having to say that Long Island is part of the state of New York even though it's an island. Trotting out the dictionary definition of "mainland" doesn't matter AT ALL in describing the Lower Mainland. The absurdity of your addition is only exceeded by the absurdities you've trotted out to defend it. Lulu Island is part of the British Columbia mainland because it's inside the coast of the mainland, the same way Barnston and Matsqui Islands are, or the islands in rivers such as the Skeena or Squamish. There's no need to explain that to "people not from the area". The sense of "Lower Mainland" is "the lower part of the Mainland", dating from the days when the Mainland was a distinct colony from the Island (interestingly, the definition of the Colony of British Columbia excluded offshore islands, e.g. Bowen and Gambier - "offshore" meaning "across saltwater"). The "Upper Mainland" referred to higher-elevation areas inland and/or areas along the coast that could only be reached by boat (e.g. the Sunshine Coast).Skookum1 (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

BC local usage of "Lower Mainland" is in opposition to the use of "mainland" as described in most (and, maybe, all) dictionaries. You cannot simply dismiss dictionaries here in favour of your personal preferences. Pointing out that islands are included in "Lower Mainland" adds clarity & does no harm to the article. I happen to have a copy of that New Yorker cover, but your bringing up the legendary "insularity" of New Yorkers is not relevant to this discussion. The comments directed at me personally also do you no good. When discussing usage of "mainland", citing usages of "continent" is quite indecisive. --JimWae (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lower Mainland is a NAME, not a definition, and as such not subject to strict definition; it is an IDIOM. Saddle Rock in the middle of the Fraser, upstream from Hope, like Lady Franklin Rock in the same area, or Herrling Island near Agassiz/Wahleach, are ALL "part of the Lower Mainland" and "part of the mainland", because they are contained within it. I can't tell you how ridiculous it sounds to have to add as a qualifier, for people obsessed with dictionary definitions as you are,

"Lulu, Sea, Westham, Iona, Deas, Annacis, Deadmans, Granville, Mitchell, Poplar, Barnston, Crescent, Matsqui, Nicomen, Herrling and other islands, including Long and Echo Islands in Harrison Lake, are included within the region even though they are islands and not strictly 'mainland'" - might as well add "Lakes and rivers are also included even though they are not land".

it's inane to do so, or to be expected to have to, as you are insisting.Skookum1 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not go against common usage to say Lake Champlain is a lake on the mainland, while Lake Ronkonkama is not. It DOES go against common usage (which is what dictionaries are an attempt to capture) to say that Sea Island is on the mainland. There is no absurdity in pointing out to the reader that the proper name "Lower Mainland" also includes islands. Simply ignoring the ordinary meanings of words as presented in dictionaries, and not specifying the BC usage is slightly unusual, does not serve the reader. I have nowhere suggested we give an exhaustive list of the islands, and you are repeatedly arguing against a position I have not even taken. --JimWae (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Duh, and you are attacking positions I also have not taken; I am stating, by way of parable, that having to mention that Sea and Lulu Islands are part of the mainland and the Lower Mainland, in terms of how BOTH of those terms are used, you might as well have to include ALL the islands in the mainland/Lower Mainland. It is you who are advocating an absurdity, to whit that islands that are "part of the mainland" OR "part of the Lower Mainland" need to have it explained that they are considered part of the mainland even though they are islands. It's a non sequitur, like having to explain that Sumas Mountain is part of the Lower Mainland even though it is a mountain" (i.e. not "Lower"). Or like having to say "Montreal is an on an island but it is considered to be in the North American continent". I really think your comprehension of English idiom here is what the problem is; you clearly haven't understood any context of my responses and continue to make specious rationalizations of the inclusion of a redundant absurdity...Skookum1 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never said any islands need be named, and have proposed only one example be given. An example is not necessary, but reasonable. Your "parabolic" remarks about naming all of them (and about continents [even Iceland is often considered part of Europe, and who doubts Vancouver Island is part of North America?] [you are using an incomplete analogy while calling my point specious]) is what is specious, as have been most of your remarks & personal comments directed at me. BC usage of "mainland" in "Lower Mainland" differs from common usage. It is not an "English idiom", it is a "BC idiom". Unless you can demonstrate it is a well-understood "English idiom", the divergence from dictionary usage is notable --JimWae (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• The closer analogy to Richmond is Manhattan, which (while never doubted to be part of North America) residents do not consider to be on the mainland. However, in addition to this closer analogy, I have presented dictionary defs that exclude islands from "mainland". You have presented "parables", irrelevant examples, & comments directed at me --JimWae (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You've done the same to me, including dumping on British Columbians as a whole for not speaking/using standard English, which is poppycock. As are your claims to have presented an "analog" which actually it was me who originally presented it. e.g. in describing New York City it is NOT necessary to "explain to people not from the area" that Manhattan Island, Long Island and Staten Island are "not part of the mainland though still part of New York State". The Lower Mainland is THE NAME OF A REGION, it is not any kind of "geographic thing" except as such; the usage is idiomatic and, like all idioms, need not follow logic, nor does it need explicit redundancy in a description such as you are asserting is necessary. Matsqui Island and Nicomen Island are parts of the Lower Mainland by dint of their location within the region and it does not need explaining that "even though they are islands they are considered part of the mainland". You're indulging in non sequiturs to reinforce an absurdity you think is necessary; but it remains an absurdity, no matter how many times you call me wrong, and how many ducks you set up to try and prove you're right. You're not, and that's a fact. Bowen Island is not part of the mainland; Sea and Lulu Islands ARE part of the mainland because they're UP the Fraser from its mouth(s) - which are beyond Iona and Westham Island and the Sand Heads. They are every bit as much part of the mainland as any other island in the Fraser.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, this discussion is going nowhere but downhill. The closest I have ever come to commenting on you personally was when I said "Ridiculing NYers does not help your argument", which technically does not even say you actually did that. You have repeatedly tried to make this about me, my grasp of the English language, and my understanding of the world, and recently even irrationally accused me of dumping on a group of people for the way they use language. --JimWae (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

rv trivial addition... 20:18, 2010 August 25 Skookum1 rv bad reasoning... 20:42, 2010 August 25 Skookum1 there's no point in explaining to people "not from the area" (by which I guess you mean second-language speakers) about the idiom; maybe it's necessary in Korean-language or Chinese-language versions of the page, it's not necessary in English, and comes off as nothing more than semantic clutter....Skookum1 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 Yeah, but that's the problem - your statement wasn't clear, and over-explained an issue/definition which needed no explaining. Islands which are "inside" the mainland are inherently part of the mainland. Skookum1 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 Your English comprehension skills are evidently lacking, JimWae...As for trotting out the dictionary definitino and claiming that Montreal and Newfoundland are "irrelevant" only further demonstrates your lack of ability in comprehending either definitions or standard idioms.... The absurdity of your addition is only exceeded by the absurdities you've trotted out to defend it. Skookum1 (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2010 I can't tell you how ridiculous it sounds to have to add as a qualifier, for people obsessed with dictionary definitions as you are... it's inane to do so, or to be expected to have to, as you are insisting.Skookum1 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2010 I really think your comprehension of English idiom here is what the problem is; you clearly haven't understood any context of my responses and continue to make specious rationalizations of the inclusion of a redundant absurdity...Skookum1 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2010 including dumping on British Columbians as a whole for not speaking/using standard English, which is poppycock....You're indulging in non sequiturs to reinforce an absurdity you think is necessary; but it remains an absurdity, no matter how many times you call me wrong, and how many ducks you set up to try and prove you're right. You're not, and that's a fact......Skookum1 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2010

Enough of this repetitiveness crap. The Lower Mainland is the name of a REGION period. It is NOT a discription that means the lower portion of a mainland. That is it. A region can include more than one portion of land and more than one feature. It is quite clear on maps of the Lower Mainland that it includes not only the mainland of BC but also the Fraser River and several islands. So I find statements like "Several locations generally included, such as Richmond, are actually on islands separated from the mainland by river waters." or whatever JimWae wanted to add in the article pointless. Volcanoguy 04:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC on "Lower Mainland"

I propose adding to the lede a sentence such as:

Several locations, such as Richmond, BC, are included in the Lower Mainland area, even though they are actually on islands separated from the mainland by river waters.

Skookum1 has objected to this, and reverted me twice.

And obviously I still object, but the fact of the matter is THIS is what you tried to insert, and I reverted as it's useless and redundant:

Several locations generally included, such as Richmond, are actually on islands separated from the mainland by river waters.

But since that RIVER is ON THE MAINLAND, it's redundant to have to say islands within it are "separated from the mainland", as if they were the same as Saltspring or Texada or Vancouver Islands (which are across saltwater and not "river islands"). The river is on the mainland, ergo so are islands within it.Skookum1 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 issues here:

1: Are islands included in the "Lower Mainland"?

Skookum1 has presented numerous arguments for inclusion of islands within the Lower Mainland area. These arguments are off-topic, for I have never suggested that islands not be included in the area, but do wish to point out that this usage for the BC Lower Mainland differs from standard usage of "mainland" as given in every dictionary I have consulted.

2: Are islands included in "mainland".

Every dictionary I have consulted supports a negative answer. Look at the first paragraph of the Bronx article for unaffected prior usage that excludes Manhattan from the mainland. Manhattan and Richmond are very analogously situated with respect to rivers, inlets and the "mainland". Other islands to consider: Puget Island, Washington and Alameda, California. Arguments about whether or not these places are on the North American continent are off-topic, as they are about usage of a different word, viz. "continent". The sources (dictionaries) say islands are not generally considered part of a mainland -- unless an island is itself comparatively considered the local mainland with respect to smaller islands offshore [as in Ireland, eg].

3: Is the variance in usage noteworthy?

I think a simple statement that this usage is different from ordinary usage is necessary to eliminate an obvious source of confusion. It makes it clear that places such as YVR (located on Sea Island in Richmond), and Richmond (which consists of Sea Island, Lulu Island and several much smaller islands) are included in the Lower Mainland -- even though they are not "on the mainland" of North America. Other islands are also included in the Lower Mainland, but one example is quite sufficient. This makes it clear that other, lesser-known islands, such as Douglas Island (British Columbia), which are not even accessible by bridges, are also part of the "Lower Mainland" region.

Incidentally Hello BC would seem to include even Bowen Island in the "Lower Mainland", as does the RCMP. Bowen Island is accessible by ferry, and is definitely included in Metro Vancouver, but its article 3 times includes statements that make it not on the "mainland" [lower case]).

Our BC usage is a somewhat unusual stretch of the common usage of "mainland". The usage of "Mainland" in "Lower Mainland" is a special usage which is at variance with common usage of "mainland" (lower case). However slight the stretch, it is a stretch, and clarity does no more harm than obscurity here.--JimWae (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Your claim that it is a variance in standard usage is NONSENSE. It IS a standard usage when the term "mainland" refers to a region, not to a speicifrically-defined dictionary "mainland". Capitalized or not (and there are other, cismontane Canadian editors, who will assert that th BC-capitalized usage "the Mainland" is also incorrect and not "standard usage". YOu're trying to apply a strict geographic definition, but the fact is that the operative definition underlying the construction "Lower Mainland" is the STANDARD MEANING of "the mainland" referring to a REGION, i.e. anything that's not one of the coastal islands; i.e. your strict definition is a LANDFORM....but the source meaning is THE REGION. 2. There are different government usages defining administrative regions named for the region, e.g. the Ministry of Environment's definition does include the Sunshine Coast, which is on the mainland, but this is not part of the STANDARD USAGE of "Lower Mainland". The same is true of the RCMP's administrative region, and of the administrative affiliation known as Metro Vancouver (nb which is different from the notion of "Greater Vancouver", though also often misused to mean the region, while it is actually a NAME of a government and though including the term "Metro" includes areas which are not metropolitan at all (e.g. the rural areas of the Fraser Valley and also the montane wilderness overlooking the lowlands). 3.This entire discussion is picayune and rooted in your attempt to add a badly-worded redundancy to the article (which was not the same as what you're provided above) and falls in the CFWT category of wikipedian absurdities. Go ahead, no doubt your RFC will find some admin less interested in relevance than in dictionary-cherrypicking; you've completely dissed all the counter-examples I've provided and summarized them as a lengthy personal attack on myself. while claiming you're being attacked yourself; whereas really what you're doing is just making an inane argument insulting as well.... 4. The core point here is that there is MORE THAN ONE dictionary definition of "the mainland" (capitalized or otherwise), and that this is a NAME, NOT a definition. And the name is rooted in an historic (i.e. standard) usage, and THAT is already clearly stated in the article (i.e. that "Lower Mainland" is derived from it being the lower (in elevation and latitude/location) than the rest of "the Mainland". Meaning the Mainland not in the sense of the continent, but of the mainland portion of British Columbia. 5. As such, it by definition it includes non-land geographic objects such as lakes and rivers. It is NOT needed to say "even though it is a lake, Burnaby Lake is considered to be on the mainland and is part of the Lower Mainland" or "even though the Fraser River, it is considered to be on the mainland". Nor is it needed to state "even though Burnaby Mountain and Sumas Mountain are mountains and as such not lower in elevation, they are included within the Lower Mainland region". Again, the article ALREADY says the NAME is rooted in the concept of "the Mainland" as one of the major region-names in British Columbia; it does not need spelling out further for people "freshly arrived at YVR" that even though the airport is on Sea Island, they are landing in the Lower Mainland region; most of them are probably unaware they're even ON an island. 7. The confusion crated by government administrative regions which have their own, variant usages of "Lower Mainland", can be solved by a section on those usages, and/or in some cases entirely separate articles (as in the case of the Lower Mainland ecoregion, or the MoE's Lower Mainland Environment Region). 8. So now you've wasted a whole bunch of my time, you're now inviting other editors to waste THEIR time, and I guess hoping for an admin even less familiar with the region, or with the English language, than you are, to take your side in not just having your way with the article, but also giving me a wiki-spanking for daring to dispute you. 9. You brought up Douglas Island, but I'd already brought up other islands not accessible by bridge or ferry (Crescent, Matsqui, Herrling, Long, Echo etc.) and while there may be wording on some saying something like "even though it's an island it's considered to be part of the mainland", content like that on those articles is EQUALLY an absurdity and should be removed. 10. Your nit-picking on this, and your insistence on absurdity as valid content, is typical of the type of behaviour that drove me from Wikipedia a few months ago, taking my expertise in BC history and geography and various other matters with me; various editors have begged me to come back, which I have; now you'r driving me away again by wasting tons of my time and protesting my pithy tendencies when I'm confronted by tomfoolery. I do not suffer fools gladly, and right now I'm not very happy about having to explain FOR THE TENTH TIME why you're completely wrong and your proposed addition is a complete and utterly redundant absurdity.Skookum1 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it doubly and somewhat pathetically but typically ironic that you have cited as an example Douglas Island (British Columbia) without taking the time to be USEFUL and fixing that page's various problems, including its lack of coords, its lack of a reference, and the inclusion of a fake "Islands or Greater VAncouver" spam-reference/Xlink and also the presence of an overblown hoax. The only thing USEFUL you've done so far, in fact, is alert me to the presence of that article so that I COULD FIX IT (since you're too preoccupied with arguing dictionary definitions rather than anything to do with useful content).Skookum1 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For what i see Regional Offices BC Maps - Lower Mainland Map 3 - The lower mainland...looks like all the islands are consider past of the mainland even in voting counts. Looks like the divide line is in the middle of the waterway. VMoxy (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As noted, government definitions/usages vary, partly because the sense of the term itself is variable - see its BCGNIS entry; myself I'm from Mission and wouldn't say Mission and Abby weren't part of the definition, as it suggests; and in case of its second description "south of Whistler" I know (from also living in Whistler and frequenting Squamish) that Squamish doesn't consider itself part of the Lower Mainland; though perhaps people in the Cariboo do. In cultural terms, Whistler is an extension of the Lower Mainland as an urban region. The core meaning is historical and refers to the context of the times the region's name originated in; distinguishing between the "Lower" and "Upper" Mainland, the latter being either somewhere you had to take a boat to (the Sunshine Coast and up, and also in those days Squamish) or you had to go through the Canyon or over the Cascades to get to and which was "upper" in elevation and, largely, in altitude. It would help if people new to BC would learn some of its history and geography educated themselves before making pronouncements about why this or that term is wrong because it doesn't follow whatever illusions they may have about "standard usage" or "dictionary definitions". Suffice to say none of those dictionaries were published in British Columbia (things published in Toronto get lots of things wrong, including saying that Vancouver is located at the foot of the Rockies...). BCGNIS is the core reference here; Funk & Wagnall's isn't.Skookum1 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the lead to the article clarifies the range of meaning for the expression Lower Mainland in an accurate way. I live on Vancouver Island. If you asked people here the question "Is YVR on the Lower Mainland?" I think 10 out of 10 would say yes. That some dictionary definition of "mainland" doesn't capture its meaning in the expression "Lower Mainland" is neither surprising nor useful. --KenWalker | Talk 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the issue really about the islands of the Fraser River's delta, like Richmond? If so the comparisons, made above, to Manhattan, Puget Island, and Alameda, seem non-ideal, since all three are islands in estuaries, not islands created by distributaries in a river delta. I looked around for other cities on river delta islands. For whatever it's worth, here are some that seem relatively similar to the greater Vancouver area: Yangon (Rangoon) (and the Ayeyarwady Region) on the Irrawaddy River delta; Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other cities of the Netherlands, on the Rhine delta (granted, the Netherlands is a special case); Kolkata (Calcutta) on the Ganges River delta (the city is on an island between the Ganges mainstem and the Hooghly River distributary), and much of West Bengal and Bangladesh (most of Bangladesh is on river delta islands); Astrakhan on the Volga Delta; and Ho Chi Minh City and the Mekong Delta region. I'm not sure if these links help, but seeing Manhattan and Alameda mentioned I felt it might be useful to point out the differences. Pfly (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing that YVR is not on the "LOWER MAINLAND"; I FULLY agree it is. I am arguing (and have demonstrated) that YVR is not on the "mainland". I am also advocating explicitly remarking that non-mainland places ARE part of the "Lower Mainland". It is not absurd to state something just because some local people consider it "trivially obvious" -- especially not absurd when local usage differs from dictionary defs. --JimWae (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Skookum here, the islands are in a river, the river is on the mainland. Ergo, the islands are on the mainland. And anyway, "Lower Mainland" is such a nebulour term I'm not sure it matters all that much. When they say "it will rain today on the Lower Mainland, that doesn't guarantee every single place will get rain. Going into contortions to explain the technical details of river deltas doesn't seem necessary here. In what way is the reader likely to be confused? Perhaps something explanatory regarding the delta islands farther down in the body would satisfy your concern? Franamax (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Every dictionary defintion excludes islands from the mainland. It does not matter what arguments people present that would include islands as part of the mainland, the sources say otherwise. This is not about whether YVR is in the "Lower Mainland", it is about whether YVR is on the mainland - which no dictionary would support. Nothing need be said about river deltas to say that local usage of "Lower Mainland" also includes islands--JimWae (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I must point out that Skookum1 has repeatedly made this an issue of personalities. After talking about Chinese & Koreans, he has repeatedly talked about my qualifications and supposed shortcomings. Now he has commented extensively on his own qualifications & his own psychological state. Everyone's psychological state would have less toxicity if we stay focussed on the topic actually being discussed --JimWae (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying Manitoulin Island does not lie on the Morth American mainland? I don't follow you here. I haven't read a dicdef yet that says delta islands are definitely not part of a mainland. I think the distinction is more based on whether they have salt water all around them.

Also if you have a problem with other editor behaviour, you should take it up with them on their talk page, then WQA or ANI (and sometimes mediation) are the next steps. Article talk is best used for discussing improvements to articles. Franamax (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1> According to reliable sources (dictionaries), an island (and even peninsulas) separated from a larger landmass would be excluded from being part of the mainland (but not necessarily from the continent). However, even Bowen Island is included in the Lower Mainland by HelloBC and the RCMP 2> there's plenty of salt water around YVR, Bowen Island, and Manhattan. 3> Would a resident of Manitoulin Island who said he just got back from the mainland be accused of speaking nonsense? 4>I just want the toxicity to end --JimWae (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another wording: Several locations, such as Richmond, BC, are included in the Lower Mainland area, even though they are actually on islands and not part of the continuous mainland. --JimWae (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want the "toxicity" to end, stop arguing for the inclusion of redundant nonsense; dictionaries are not the only "reliable" source; and this is a NAME, not a region, and NAMES do not need to make sense. HelloBC/BC Tourism and the RCMP are extending the name for their administrative regions, likewise the MInistry of Environment includes the Sunshine Coast, which though definitely "the mainland" is not, in normal usage, part of the Lower Mainland. It's also not one peninsula, but two, and therefore according to the OED, is not part of "a mainland". Similarly, Prince Rupert is on an island, but considered "part of the mainland" (especially relative to the Charlottes). The underlying point about Lulu Island (Richmond) is that it is a freshwater island, NOT an "offshore island" (as per th OED definition); in the same way that Montreal is part of "mainland Quebec", unlike Ile d'Orleans and Anticosti and the Magdalenes, which distinctly are not. What you're arguing for the inclusion of is "garbage information", an obvious redundancy, and trying to invoke and over-apply "dictionary definitions", but again this is a name and the context of the word "mainland" is historical and cultural (Mainland vs Island colonies/entities); that is already said in the description of the name's origin, it does not need underlining in any way. "Annacis Island is part of the mainland even though it's an island", an equivalent phrase, is just as nonsensical and useless. And re the peninsula thing, before landfill replaced over half of False Creek with fill from the Fraser CAnyon and Rogers Pass, there were only about two blocks along th area of Columbia Street forming the isthmus between the downtown VAncouver peninsula ("nearly an island" in etymological terms) so according to the OED, and invoking your specious logic "Downtown VAncouver is nearly an island but it's considered part of the Lower Mainland anyway". AS a matter of fact, between the fact that canoes were hauled across the mud of that isthmus, it pretty much was an island; so was Stanley Park, as at high tide Lost Lagoon and English Bay were linked by waves washing over that very short isthmus. And "Granville Island is part of the Lower Mainland even though it's an island" falls in the same category; even though its "island" status has long, long, long ago been filled in by fill etc. The application of strict dictionary definitions does not apply well to any geographical discussion, particularly naming discussions. AS much as dictionary-ists try to apply strict definitions to words, it often does not work well to try and apply any such limited definition to the real world. It's sufficient to say what's already said about the name-origin of the term as the "lower" part of "the Mainland" (as in "the Mainland" vs. "the Island" and/or "the Islands"), a concept which implicitly includes islands in rivers, which even according to your beloved dictionaries are not "offshore". "Grouse Mountain, even though it's of high elevation and not lower in terrain, is considered part of the Lower Mainland even though it's really upper" is the equivalent to what you'r trying to say about Richmond. Richmond is part of the Lower Mainland is an obvious fact, invoking dictionaries and picayune arguments as you have been doing is what's "toxic". Don't fill Wikipedia articles with garbage; if you wanted to do something useful contribute relevant content and take out the garbage - which you didn't do re Douglas Island, though invoking it as an example. Do something useful, and stop wasting the time of people who DO make useful ocntributions by arguing inane points which have no real relevance to anybody else but you. Learn, don't teach, if you're not qualified to "teach" in such matters (and you're not).Skookum1 (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so I checked the OED's definition of "mainland". Ready?

1. A large continuous extent of land, including the greater part of a country or territory and excluding outlying islands, peninsulas, etc.
2. Any such large continuous extent of land viewed from the perspective of the inhabitants of the outlying islands, peninsulas, etc. [examples: a. The largest island of Shetland (Mainland). b. The continent of Australia, as opposed to Tasmania. c. The continent of Europe, esp. as distinguished from the British Isles. d. That part of British Columbia on the mainland of Canada, as opposed to Vancouver Island; (also) the mainland of Canada as opposed to Newfoundland, Cape Breton, and Prince Edward Island. f. The People's Republic of China, as opposed to Taiwan or Hong Kong. Freq. attrib., in mainland China. g. Great Britain, as distinguished from (esp. Northern) Ireland.

That is it. Looks pretty clear to me. Pfly (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Clear as in: 1> Vancouver Island is not part of the mainland, (nobody contested that, and it does not mention the Queen Charlotte's either) and 2>Richmond is not part of a large continuous extent of land. Agreed? --JimWae (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comparison of VAncouver Island and the Charlottes to Lulu Island is anything but clear, it's specious and inaccurate. Islands within a mainland, i.e. in a river or lake on that mainland, are clearly within the Mainland. Vancouver Island is 30-60 miles of saltwater from the mainland, at least around Georgia Strait, and the Charlottes more like, I think, 150 miles or more. Lulu Island is not even two hundred yards from either Delta or Vancouver or New West.Skookum1 (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned the Queen Charlotte's only to point out that an exhaustive list was not given, and that not appearing on the list does not make a place part of the mainland. I do not consider Lulu Island & QC's very "comparable". The best comparison is with Manhattan. Lulu Island is not part of a continuous extent of land & many (and perhaps all) dictionaries (reliable sources) specifically mention islands as not being on the mainland--JimWae (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I have over 2,000 articles on my watchlist (which may or may not be less than yours) & last time I checked this was still a voluntary project in which nobody gets to tell other editors they are remiss for not editing an article they might link to. I long ago learned that if I set as my goal correcting every error I come across on WP, I will have no time to do anything else at all.--JimWae (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

By clear I meant that the claim "Every dictionary defintion excludes islands from the mainland" is incorrect. The two best dictionaries I have at hand are much less strict. Merriam-Webster's entire entry reads "a continent or the main part of a continent as distinguished from an offshore island or sometimes from a cape or peninsula." If a "large continuous extent of land" cannot be cut by any water channel, then the entire eastern half of the United States is an island. Thanks to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal there is no land connection between the North American mainland and the area east of the Mississippi and south of the Great Lakes. The northeastern part of South America is not "mainland" because there is a natural river linkage between the Orinoco and Amazon systems. There are other equally absurd examples. The OED's phrase "excluding outlying islands, peninsulas, etc.", if read with pedantic strictly, would mean no peninsula (or "etc"s) can be rightly called "mainland", which is absurd. The city of Vancouver is on a peninsula, therefore it is "part of the Lower Mainland but not on the mainland". I doubt the OED intended such a thing. Merriam-Webster's phrase "sometimes from a cape or peninsula" is better. The word "sometimes" undermines the strictly literal reading. I won't belabor the point further. Pfly (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1>So you presented a dictionary def that excludes islands as a demonstration that not every dictionary excludes islands?!? Btw, splitting the US & splitting North America are not the same thing (though I seem to recall there might be a canal of the Red River of the North that splits the continent into 2 nearly-equally-sized pieces). 2>Your argument about split continents is just that - another argument that is original research. Nobody is arguing here that rivers split continents into 2 continents. We are not arguing here about peninsulas & it is not our job to argue about which dictionary definitions are the correct ones. 3>Many (perhaps all) dictionaries specify that islands are not part of the mainland AND many people use the term that way to specify that islands such as Manhattan are not on "the mainland". When usage of a term is at variance with both dictionaries AND widespread usage, it is a courtesy to the non-local reader to specify the difference in usage in the article--JimWae (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Only YOU are operating under the delusion that dictionary definitions are relevant, and also under the completely wild misapprehension that they are binding or somehow mandatory. English doesn't work like that. This is a NAME, not a landform, and the name originates in the concept of "the Mainland" as a REGION, distinct from "the Island" (NB "South Island" in BC usage is, to you, inaccurate, no doubt, because you'd insist on precision and want "Southeast Island"). Idiom is idiom and dictionary definitions do not matter. Also, you keep on dodging the point about l'Ile de Montreal and Ile Laval, claiming they're "not relevant", but nobody in Montreal, on going to Longueuil or Kahnawake, or driving down to Toronto, would think to say or consider "I'm going to the mainland". There are doubtless other cities around the world where river-islands, especially those attached by bridges and/or heavily urbanized as parts of larger cities, are never considered to be "offshore". This is certainly the case with New York...and, come to think of it, Rhode Island. Different in that latter state's case if you're talking about Martha's Vinyard or Nantucket, which ARE offshore and explcitly "not mainland". And I daresay that residents of the Bronx or Queens do not think of themselves as "offshore". Or would you insist that a resident of Ile d'Orleans in Paris would consider the rest of that city "the mainland". "Ile d'Orleans is part of the Ile-de-France even though only it is island, and the rest is actually mainland" would be an absurdly comical think to put on any of those pages. "Frisia is considered part of continental Europe even though most of it is islands, which are not properly part of the continent." (likewise Denmark). "Stockholm, though mostly islands, is considered part of the Swedish mainland" (ditto St. Petersburg re Russia). You're asking for the inclusion of a non sequitur with no relevance to any context other than your own addiction to "dictionary reality". Islands that are in rivers that are part of mainlands are explicitly part of the mainland; because they are in a river in that mainland. It's that simple; and while that logic is simple (to those of us who don't try and evaluate the world through dictionaries), the simpler fact is that, since the term originated, there was no question at all in anyone's mind who used the term that "Lower Mainland" included Lulu, Sea, Annacis, Deas, Poplar, Barnston, Douglas, Matsqui, Herrling, and countless other islands in the Fraser River as part of "the Lower Mainland". This is because it's a NAME, and nobody had to consult (or wanted to) t he OED or Merriam-Webster when the name originated. My last name means "steep slope", but picking hairs with me because my family currently doesn't live on a steep slope is tomfoolery; so is your time-wasting insistence that this line of yours would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. It's NOT - see WP:Undue weight, which is what you're doing with this line of yours; it's meaningless, redundant and a huge waste of time. YOu were willing to start an edit war with it, then resorted to RfC to try and back it up - because you were out of your depth and clearly lost the argument, even before it started. Please go find something useful to contribute to Wikipedia....and stop using the dictionary to tell you how to use English, or how to tell people their usage of English is wrong because some dictionary you've got you can interpret, as if it were the Bible, to defend your position, no matter how silly and trivial it is....and it IS silly and trivial. Go write a useful article, or make relevant contributions somewhere; you're not doing that here.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, you have this thing about wanting to mention Lulu Island, and ignoring all the others. A more accurate, though no less superfluous, statement would be "over a hundred islands in the Fraser River are including in the Lower Mainland, even though they are islands and not really mainland". But you clearly have this thing about Lulu Island, as if it were somehow different, or were the best example of the supposed conundrum you are trying to find dictionary support for. Stop using English as if the dictionary dictates how it should be used, or if they could accurately reflect "standard usage". "Standard usage" includes idioms, and names; and neither of those are logical in any kind of general way. Deal with it, and give it up - and go find something useful to write about.Skookum1 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, Skookum, The Bronx is the one part of NYC that is not on an island, offshore or otherwise! Anyway, NYC is rather a special case in the way the people think and talk about the local geography. Part of it is because the East River is actually a maritime strait, and wide enough to have kept Manhattan and Brooklyn connected by ferries only long after both were major, dense urban centers. The bridges across the East River, and the Hudson, are huge and tall. Using them, you can't miss the fact that you're crossing a major waterway. Add to that the fact that most people who work in Manhattan live elsewhere and so make the crossings at least twice a day--often on a subway that emerges from the underground only when crossing the bridge; ie, you can't forget that the Manhattan is an island (Brooklyn is on an island too of course, but somehow the insularity of Manhattan is more striking, perhaps because of its size and because its the core of NYC). And again, walking is common in NYC, making the bridge crossings all the more remarkable. I used to walk from my job in Manhattan to my home in Brooklyn when the weather was nice. The Brooklyn Bridge may be on the small side compared to the biggest bridges today, but it is still a really really large structure. And the pre-bridge era was not all that long ago. The Fulton Ferry terminals in Brooklyn and Manhattan are major landmarks. You can tell just from the way the streets are laid out that many commuters used to take street rail to the ferry to get to work and back. Anyway, I'm not trying to argue for or against anything here--just pointing out how NYC's geography, mass transit, history, and so on, make it a special case when it comes to terms like "island" and "mainland". Sure, people understand that Manhattan is an island. But most of the city is on one island or another. People don't really say "mainland" there. The Bronx is technically "mainland", but ironically crossing the Harlem River from Manhattan to The Bronx is easy and the bridges are small and relatively unremarkable, making it the least obvious crossing! People don't usually call New Jersey "mainland" either. They call it Jersey. Anyway, just writing because I see Manhattan repeatedly mentioned here, and it doesn't seem like the best comparative example. Also, ex-New Yorkers can't help but talk about the city. Pfly (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Chill, guys. As a totally disinterested observer, who btw has never been to that part of the world, I think you are both right - but you are both expending a lot of time, energy, and feelings over one little word, which is a waste. Yes, technically an island of any size is not part of the "mainland" - however, just by looking at google maps, I can see that this Richmond place is not at all prominent as a disconnected island; it fits right into the mass of surrounding land area in that delta, like one slice of pizza in the whole pie.

So it seems to me a bit pedantic to insist on saying it's "not part of the mainland" - technically, maybe so, but I rather doubt the inhabitants think of themselves as leaving the mainland when they cross any of numerous rather short bridges to get to Richmond. Not something worth getting heated up about, guys; it's just as correct to describe the place either way, so - why not agree on a description that doesn't use the M-word, and devote your minds to subjects more worthy of your time and energy? Just sayin' . . . . Textorus (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it is already there in the existing description about the origin of the name, being relevant/contextual to the macroregion known as "the Mainland" and that any insistence on apologizing away a variance from strict dictionary definition is irrelevant to that context, which is already inclusive of anything considered to be part of the Mainland. It does not need further explication, which JimWae is insistent upon and has called upon dictionaries, and now an RfC, to back himself up, even though it remains irrelevant. It's already implied in the existing wording; the M-word is part of the name, and the name is that of a region, and derived from a larger region (i.e. a conceptual region, with long historic precedent and cause). I'm also stating over and over again that JimWae should find more useful ways to contribute to Wikipedia than knocking heads, and being intent on a stubborn almost-edit-war, over a picayune point of this kind. But re New York, Pfly, the relative comparison to the British Columbian concept of "the Mainland" is "the contiguous 48 states", of which New York City, in all its constituent islands and little chunk of mainland, is clearly apart; whereas Hawaii most certainly is not. Richmondites are also aware of bridges - just get any one of them talking about traffic! and of course about a certain tunnel (the Deas Tunnel on 499, also a notorious bottle neck). When you do hear talk about a pie-in-the-sky bridge to the Island (i.e. Vancouver Island) the wording goes "making Victoria/Nanaimo part of the Mainland"....PEI retains its distinctive "island-ness" despite the Confederation Bridge, however, and Cape Breton Island is bridged by the Canso Causeway (which has a little bridge-span in it for small vessels) across the Strait of Canso, but "Capers" do not think of themselves as living on "an island", they (and other Nova Scotians) refer to "the Cape" (even though Cape Breton is technically only that island's northern - or eastern? - tip...but the term, in Nova Scotianese, refers to the region and culture/identity...which includes Antigonish, which is on the mainland proper....it's discussions like this, including an old one about special BC usages like "the Island", "the Mainland", and "the Interior" (which certain admins east of the Rockies shouldn't be capitalized, though they'd defend "the Lakehead" and "the Golden Horseshoe", which are equivalent region-names). Quite often, by way of further example, you see/hear writers and journalists referring to places like Prince George or Lillooet or Boston BAr as being in "the Fraser Valley", but "the Valley" as it is also known, is a region-name which only applies to the last 100 miles of the Fraser's basin (more like 80)....similarly when trying to create subcategories, "we" were confronted by that same admin insisting we had to have citations for "South Island" and "North Island" and "Mid Island" even though these are common terms heard in broadcasting and agency/corporate names (when in fact category names don't need citation....). Anyway, it's got me thinking of doing my own book on "A Popular Geography of British Columbia", explaining all the region-names and their proper usages, i.e. why "North Shore" means only North and West Van (and sorta Lions Bay, though as regions go that's really Howe Sound), and not the north bank of the Fraser (Coquitlam-Maple Ridge-Mission-Agassiz/Kent).....at least with my own book I don't have to be put to arguing with somebody who wants to throw the OED or Merriam-Webster in my face to try and tell me I'm wrong....and then if my book exists, it can be used as a citation....which is why, hm, I wonder why I'm back in Wikipedia, where I'm being thrown thumbtacks to stumble and prick upon when I could be writing without interference from people who want to turn molehills into megaprojects. @Textorus: I type really fast, and on top of that know my stuff, and don't like it when I'm told that things I know are wrong because somebody has a book from somewhere else that they insist should be Doctrine; I want this discussion to go away as much as you have pointed out it's unnecessary; but every explanation/counterargument/example I provide is dismissed as irrelevant, and the dictionary trotted out again though it's not relevant while irrelevant examples and specious adherence to strict rules of language (which are irrelvant to idiom) are re-hammered.....I left Wikipedia a few months ago because of exhaustion with such behaviour and I may wind up doing so again....who knows, maybe that's JimWae's whole purpose here, to drive me away again so irrelevancy and nit-pickery can rule supreme as it is increasingly doing...the article was fine as it is; all I can see is that JimWae has a "thing" about Richmond...I could just as easily have a "thing" about Nicomen Island, which is also a river in the Fraser, and technically "not mainland", but it's really really inane to have to say such a silly thing. There's only so much space for content in Wikipedia articles (partly because of the bloating growht of hidden code) so adding irrelevancy and the over-obvious as if it were meaningful is just....aggravating.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll resist describing how Long Island feels "offshore" in some places, though not Brooklyn or Queens really. Seeing "South Island" and "North Island" makes me think of New Zealand. I assume its Vancouver Island in this case. With regional terms like Fraser Valley, Lower Mainland, South Island, etc, I still find it funny when I hear people say things like "I'm from Puget Sound". Pfly (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they live on a houseboat?....."North Island" refers to what's north of Campbell River, "the South Island" refers (mostly) to Greater Victoria and, often, the Cowichan Valley; but the term "Mid Island" also refers to the Cowichan Valley, as well as to everything between Duncan and Campbell River. North Island tends to be what's far past CAmpbell River, though, including places actually on the west coast of the Island but at heads of inlets, e.g. Gold River and Tahsis and Quatsino. Port Alberni is "Mid Island" also. And NB within BC, "the West Coast" pretty much refers specifically to Tofino-Pacific Rim-Ucluelet-Bamfield, not so much to places like Kyuquot or Yuquot unless the wording is "the west coast of Vancouver Island". It doesn't refer to Bella Bella or Prince Rupert, which are Central Coast and North Coast, respectively. Whereas in other parts of Canada, "the West Coast" refers to British Columbia as a whole, though to Albertans it would tend to exclude any reference to the Interior, which the farther-eastern usages wouldn't distinguish (and wouldn't really know about). In Prince George, though, someone going to Prince Rupert might say "I'm going out to the coast" BUT if they said "I'm going down to the Coast, they'd be meaning Vancouver/Victoria....Skookum1 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that, if you zoomed out with Google Earth to a few thousand meters height, and the islands in question weren't distinguishable from the coastline, then most people would consider them part of a "mainland" without qualification. If, however, they seem to be separated by a lot of water, a non-local would probably not consider them "mainland" and hence be confused by the name "Lower Mainland." The argument here is focused on the dictionary and on local usage. However, the article needs to be useful to the entire English-speaking world, and the arguments here seem very locally focused. Perhaps it would be best to discuss whether or not clarifying text is needed to prevent confusing non-locals?

I can't state a strong opinion, though; frankly, the degree of vitriol and incivility I'm reading in Skookum's comments is impossible to ignore and prejudices my opinion to the point where I'm not sure I could decide based solely on the facts. Skookum, your lack of decorum does you a disservice, because the way you are saying things is so overshadowing what you are saying that you may be losing hearts and minds that would otherwise agree with your logic. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Facts are facts no matter the tone in which they are delivered; in this case it's increasing frustration with someone's obstinacy in promoting a rank absurdity/redundancy....and I note that since this article's creation, an original line of text explaining how "Lower Mainland" came from "the Mainland" (region, or the old Mainland Colony) has since been gotten rid of; it's the name origin, and dictionary meanings remain irrelevant; or in need of fixing (the dictionaries I mean). Lakes and rivers, and the islands within them, are inherently part of "the mainland" whether that's a conceptual abstraction OR in terms of teh historical region/colony name. THAT was originally exlpained here, somebody "fixed" the article, no doubt removing it as uncited, without bothering to ask for a citation....Skookum1 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Facts are facts, but you're stating opinions, not facts. Further, since Wikipedia is built on consensus, taking out your frustrations upon other editors doesn't advance your cause, as uncivil behavior doesn't help sway consensus in one's favor. You perceive this RFC as "rank absurdity." More than one person disagrees with you, myself included, and it seems that editors who decline to agree with you are "obstinate" for not changing their mind after a long, rambling diatribe that attacks their intelligence, their command of the language, and their use of your time spent writing such. I wonder if you're too close to the issue to discuss it rationally and with an open mind; coming in from the outside, it looks like you're running down the "what not to do" checklist from WP:CIVIL. Admittedly with no small effort, I will assume good faith on your part, and that you don't mean to do this—which is difficult considering the nature and volume of the statements you've made here. Commenting on content is one thing, but attacking the contributor is another, and it's not appropriate. Neither is it for you to pass judgement on the qualifications of another editor to contribute to the article or make comments; when I review your statements on this talk page against the examples of "ownership behavior", it further disquiets me. It seems like you believe that other editors have to prove themselves to you, or at least that's how your comments here read to an outside observer. I would like to help you and the others here reach consensus, and the best way I know how to do that is to point these things out to you, in the spirit of good faith, assuming you do not realize that this is how it may appear to others. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

This is getting out of hand and I'm tempted to go looking for a heavy hand to get it stopped or just box all this up myself. Can everyone please recall that the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss improving the article? We can dicsuss attitudes and outcomes with individual editors in their own spaces, I'm trying to do that right now though all the efforts might not be visible. This is just not the place to be getting into personal discussions on behaviour. And no, it doesn't matter who started it, what matters is stopping it, which everyone has to do on their own. Are there more comments on the substantive issue of the "mainland" terminolgy? The consensus I read is pretty much that the current wording does not need to be altered in the manner proposed. Any thoughts? Franamax (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone is attacked on a talk page, it is reasonable and commensurate for that person to raise at least some objections to being attacked on the very same talk page. Hopefully, not every attack needs to be handled by administrators. I am glad there is also someone else who has told Skookum1 to "knock it off", but disappointed it took so long for someone else to say something. A central problem with this entire discussion has been that at least one editor cannot allow that people are not defective just because they use some words differently, and that other editors are not defective just because they think the article should take note of this variance in usage. Many people in NYC do not consider Manhattan to be "on the mainland", and there are many (perhaps all) dictionaries that support that usage. One dictionary has been found that says "offshore islands", but even "offshore" is also not a term on which everyone's usage would agree. Readers not from the Lower Mainland will not know if the term is or is not an "idiom" and will not know which dictionary some editors approve of. --JimWae (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dictionaries do not define OR REGULATE the English language; they only reflect it. This is not a dictionary term, it is a NAME - like "New World" or "the Lakehead" or "the Rustbelt"; and it is a region, not a definition - and logic, if anything, dictates that if a river is on the mainland, then an island in that river is on the mainland. Period. End of discussion.Skookum1 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And dictionaries do reflect actual usage of many New Yorkers. The fact that the name is not descriptive (according to some widespread usage and many dictionaries) is notable, and remarking on it makes the meaning clearer. Several BC agencies even include Bowen & Texada islands in the "Lower Mainland" region. Remarking on this variance in usage clears the way for acceptance of a usage that could otherwise spark cognitive dissonance. Names that are non-descriptive can be confusing. Your logical argument is "original research" and not in accord with actual common usage. It is also about "mainland" (not "Lower Mainland") so I guess you do agree that the meaning of the term "mainland" does have relevance to the "Lower Mainland" article. No period - No end of discussion yet --JimWae (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You're wiki-lawyering and indulging in verbal gamesmanship and supposed "logical entrapment". Look at the BCGNIS reference; the application of the term to wider areas covered by administrative boundaries is as irrelevant as your obsession with "enforcing" dictionary definitions. You started this with an edit war, now you're continuing it with an obstinacy war and insisting on your own original research re the interpretation of the word/region-name "the Mainland" -> "the Lower Mainland".Skookum1 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "Lower Mainland" consists of 2 words. "Lower" is clearly meant to be based on its descriptive meaning (as in some combination of latitude & altitude), and "Mainland" is, for the most part, also based on its descriptive meaning -- by including the continuous extent of land connected to the continent, and excluding Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. This has nothing to do with wp:wikilawyering as we are discussing content, not policy or guidelines. I am not "enforcing" dictionary definitions. I am looking at widespread usage as reflected in dictionaries. I did one revert - you did 2, along with comments about me & my thoughts being defective -- while I have never attacked you, though you have claimed I have. I have already submitted, besides dictionary defs, many examples of usages in which Manhattan is not regarded as part of the mainland. --JimWae (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

YOur position is equivalent to saying "the Lower 48" are not lower in elevation, but only in relation to their latitude vis a vis Alaska. "48" refers to the number of states, not the equation 6x8=48". And going back to Manhattan when Pfly (who's from there, or was) already threw that example in the dustbin is just more persistent obstinacy in defence of an absurdity. Richmond is on Lulu Island, Lulu Island is in the Fraser River, the Fraser River is on the Mainland; ergo, Richmond and Lulu Island are on the Mainland. I see you claim to have studied philosophy, surely you can handle that basic logic?Skookum1 (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"In" and "on" are not synonymous. The relationship is not transitive across the non-synonymous terms. Your "logical" arguments are not valid, nor are they relevant to actual usages, though the fact that you think they are relevant indicates you do have a sense that the term "Lower Mainland" has a descriptive as well as a nominative application. "Lower 48" is a deprecated term. Pfly has some some strange things that I can only best attribute to not being proofread said "The Bronx is technically "mainland"." Manhattan is widely considered not to be on the mainland. Whether you think that is wrong is not relevant--JimWae (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If the two of you are going to just keep repeating the same arguments back and forth at each other, and not listen to the input of any third parties that want to try and build a consensus, why bother with the RFC in the first place? This isn't remotely productive. The world will not end if the article explains that the term "mainland" is not used in the strict dictionary sense, nor will it end if some non-locals of a particularly pedantic bent get confused by the region's use of the term. This is a little thing. So I have to wonder, what is it about this particular issue that justifies a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners attitude toward your respective positions? I understand that you both have strong feelings on this issue, and for this article. However, we are not discussing a BLP violation, we're not debating adding a falsehood to the article, it's simply not a big deal.

This should be a minor disagreement!

If there is consensus that the change is a good idea—meaning that more editors than not agree it's a good idea, it should go in. That's why an RFC was properly called on the issue. Unfortunately, I suspect that other editors may have been scared off by the sheer volume of argument between JimWae and Skookum1. Conversely, if there is not consensus to add this change, it should not go in at this time. Consensus can change, and if future editors express that the article needs this wording in order to be accessible and useful by the world's English-speaking population, it may need to be added later even if it's not justified now.

But any way you look at it, it's up to all of us as Wikipedians, not just the two of you, to reach consensus on how best to improve this article. That won't happen through pages of petulant statements that boil down to "No way!" "Yes way!" Please, I beg you, step back, cool down, and let the rest of us discuss this too! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

posteditconflict:

Breaking down "the Lakehead"...."the term refers not to a lake, but a region adjacent to lake. And even though that region is not at the head of that lake (which is at Duluth) the term is used to mean that region". Breaking down Cape Breton, as in the region, "Cape Breton is not actually a cape, but a region including both Cape Breton Island and adjoining parts of the mainland. The name is derived from a promontory on the NW side of that island". "Newfoundland is not new at all, but is the oldest part of British-settled territories in North America". "New England is not new, nor is it England". etc etc etc. "the Palliser Triangle is not a triangle, but only vaguely triangle-shaped" None of those are needed in their articles and would sound silly.....if anything "Name origin" here would explain that "the Mainland refers to BC's traditional division between the Island and the Mainland, with the Lower Mainland referring to those areas of the Mainland lower in elevation and latitude relative to the rest, most of which is referred to as the Interior." that would suffice to explain the origin of the term; as for arguing that freshwater islands on the mainland are not part of the mainland in dictionary defiitions, that's just picayune inanity, period.Skookum1 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

and in this case, "in the mainland" and "on the mainland" mean the same thing. And macwhiz, the upshot of all this little carousel is that, no doubt to JimWae's lasting satisfaction, I'm quitting Wikipedia AGAIN, and gonna try and stay away because too much of my valuable energy is being eaten up by nonsense. It's not a "way, no way" equation, it's somebody who knows what he's talking about (me) vs somebody who needs to point at dictionary to tell the rest of us how to use our native language. I'm done, gone, poof, vanished. Let JimWae rewrite this article to his heart's content, I give up.....but when people ask me if Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, I won't have very good thigns to say about it....Skookum1 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither a content dispute nor an RFC ought to become a "vote of non-confidence". Several locations, such as Richmond, BC, are included in the Lower Mainland area, even though they are actually on islands and not part of the continuous mainland is not an unreliable statement. Nobody should be placing themselves in the position of being the last bulwark against a flood of unreliability.----JimWae (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, an RFC is supposed to be a place for collective discussion, not for you to go on endlessly about your pet notion about "islands are not mainland". My reading of the opinions expressed above is that most people do not agree with you or don't find the point significant. You have yet to come up with a dicdef that says "islands in a river delta are not on the mainland". As I noted in my first comment here, it's simply not significant enough to discuss in the article lede. Again, can you propose a different location? This is a trivial factoid, not some crucial distinction that simply must be flagged up for our readers. Franamax (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys - Our personal interpretations of geography or semantics don't count here on Wikipedia. If nobody can quote a a reliable source on this very minor point to justify changing the article as it was written, give it a rest. This argument is longer than the article now, and that is totally a waste of everybody's time and attention. Textorus (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, once it becomes 5 times bigger we can paste it into the article and get credit for a Did You Know? on the main page. :) Franamax (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Franamax, you are so bad. Grin. Textorus (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I "gave it a rest" for 5 whole days -- until there were 3 posts for me to reply to. Then I got accused of "wikilawyering" and not knowing logic, so of course I did not wait another 5 days. I have tried to keep all my posts here short & to the point. I would be content to put the remark in a footnote to the lede. --JimWae (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In case it has become lost in the sea of words above, my comment is basically that I didn't agree with JimWae's proposal. I supported this opinion by citing the two best dictionaries I have at hand, the OED and Merriam-Webster. It seemed to me neither definition supported JimWae's position. He seems to have argued that the OED does support his position and that Merriam-Webster counts for little, or something. It doesn't matter though--I don't think it ought to boil down to dictionary definitions in the first place. So, I still don't agree--although it is such a minor point I don't really care. A footnote could work. Also, I do apologize for adding unnecessary and irrelevant chatty text about life in New York City. Pfly (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, JimWae, why don't you put a small footnote there - and Skookum you leave it alone - and then everybody can just move on to things that actually matter, like building an encyclopedia. Textorus (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if that will get things to stop. It's a bogus note though and IMO will confuse rather than enlighten the reader. They will have to start thinking about why those particular islands and not all the other islands in any river in the world, or even the ones farther upstream in the Fraser. We are inventing an artificial distinction, cut from whole cloth from an imaginary loom. Bowen Island would be more germane, since it would fit all the definitions of an offshore island that I have read. I still don't see why it's so relevant that we need to point it out. But the islands in the delta, it just strains my imagination to construe them as not being part of the "mainland". I could ask at the RCGS but when I did that before on whether Hudson Bay is part of the Arctic Ocean their response was basically "why would you even ask that, it's all water, it doesn't need such a hierarchy" - so I'm not gonna go back there for this question. ;) Franamax (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This entire discussion is totally freaking irrelevant to to anyone but a truly maniacal geographer. Give peace a chance, guys. Textorus (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More on geography and history?

Now that I've been looking at this page more closely, I am finding a number of points confusing (note, I'm not from the region but have visited and passed through a number of times--I live in Seattle, but at less than fully versed in BC's geographic terminology). The first sentence reads "The Lower Mainland is a name commonly applied to the region surrounding Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada." I understand basically what is meant here, but "surrounding Vancouver" seems a strange choice of words. Isn't Vancouver's location basically at the western end of the Lower Mainland? "Surrounded", on the north? Barely. On the west? Not at all? Another way to phrase it, that sounded better to me, I found here: Metropolitan governing, p. 149. First there's a definition of Lower Mainland (paraphrased): "bounded on south by US border, on north by mountains, on east, at Hope, by similar mountain ranges, western extremity, including the city of Vancouver, the gulf waters... The Lower Mainland represents the economic center of the province." And then the role of Vancouver in the Lower Mainland (similar to the Lower Mainland for province, it seems): "this Vancouver-centered "Lower Mainland" forms one coherent "city region"." That phrase, Vancouver-centered, seemed better than "region surrounding Vancouver". It's a minor wording issue, I realize.

Anyway, I thought about a better way to describe the Lower Mainland, tersely, for the lead. My first thought was that the Lower Mainland is basically the broad, fertile plains of the lower Fraser River and its tributaries' lower reaches, extending into the foothills here and there, and bounded on the south by the US border at the 49th parallel (which rather arbitrarily divides this broad and fertile plain). This thought led me to the Fraser Valley page, which seemed to be exactly this broad plain centered on the lower Fraser River. But I soon found complications. Searching further, it seemed that both terms, Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley, have a history of being used for planning regions and regional districts. If I understand right, there was a "Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board" (LMRPB) from 1949 to 1968, which included Greater Vancouver and the whole region east to Hope. Later, this was split into two planning regions, Greater Vancouver RD and Fraser Valley RD. There's probably more to it than this, but what effect does this history and changing geographical focus have on the terms Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley? Am I correct in the idea that "Fraser Valley" typically refers to the populated plains outside (mostly east) of Greater Vancouver? And the term "Lower Mainland" usually referring to both Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley? Anyway, my main point and question here is: Perhaps this page would benefit from explaining a bit more on the history and geographic scope of all these terms. I'm not even sure if the planning regions and regional districts have had much of an effect on the meaning of the terms. But my searching around on the terms brought up mostly stuff about regional planning and such. Another source with info of this kind: Planning Canadian Regions, p. 308, also check out page 333.

Must run now, will check back later. Pfly (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Great Minds think a like; I was just googling "Lower Mainland" to see what turns up and there's all kinds of associations and organizations that use the term, not surprisingly; one sense of some of them, e.g. the MoE's Lower Mainland Region, is that the administrative/organizational region in question is centred on the Lower Mainland, rather than defining it; ahother way to look at some usages is that they exist in much the same way that chilliwack and hope are considered part of the "Coast" region (vs. "Interior") without actually being on the Coast. But you DO see odd pairings like "Greater VAncouver and Lower Mainland", but take these the same way you'd hear "British Columbia and Pacific Northwest", even though one is part of the other. Myself, as a long-time resident of Whistler, I wouldn't include it as part of the Lower Mainland, nor Squamish, though it's an increasingly common usage as both are very definitely "exurbs" of the region as a metropolitan area. And about the LRMPB, it was ditched by WAC Bennett because it told him things he didn't want to hear and was recommending things he didn't like; so he abolished it and created the regional district system, which is more controlled by the municipalities (which tended to be mayored by government-friendly politicians) than autonomous as was the case with the LRMPB; it was abolished because it had the semblance of an independent-minded "true" regional government; the regional districts exist only at the pleasure of the minister responsible for municipalities and are really only approval bodies rather than planning ones; planning comes from higher up in provincial level ministries; RDs have tried to exert some influence...but they're still generally only mayors, and other than electoral area reps the boards of the RDs reflect only the region's mayors, who appoint themselves to the RD boards (occasionally only a councillor will get a board seat, but not generally). Anyway, the usage varies, and it may be useful to have a section delineating the different official or para-official bodies and what they use it to mean; but NONE of them are trying to "define" the region, and in many cases (like the MoE and the RCMP) they "extend" the meaning to include regions not historically or popularly part of the Lower Mainland, such as the Sunshine Coast and Bowen Island. I think the term dates to Dr. Helmcken or thereabouts (1840s) and there may be a "provenance" source for it somewhere. As I've explained before, if you had to take a boat to another part of the mainland, e.g. the Sunshine Coast or Squamish or even Lions Bay, then by definition it was "Upper Coast" rather than "Lower Mainland". NB "Lower Coast" would refer to that part of the South Coast from Campbell River southwards; though that's pretty much synonymous with "South Coast" except that those in the North Coast might include Queen Charlotte Strait in the latter term...locational references in BC are often relativistic; and sometimes more cultural than geographic, e.g. the inclusion of Whistler. Also, like the "Upper Coast" vs "Lower Mainland" context (note one couplet in the google runs "North Shore and Lower Mainland", which is another archaic context, as you had to take a boat to North Van until about the 1950s...or was it late '40s when Lions Gate was built?); the "Upper Country" was what was beyond the Fraser Canyon or Allison/Coquihalla Passes, the Lower Mainland everything on this side of them, except for "transitional" places like Yale; Hope is normally the extremis of the Lower Mainland, but in practical terms so is Yale, though it's technically Fraser Canyon (which is not part of the Lower Mainland); similarly Sunshine Valley, British Columbia (formerly Tashme) is not, to me, in the Lower Mainland; but certainly to someone in the Similkameen it is....(that's short for Similkameen Country).....Anyway everything from whippet breeders to motocross and ATV associations and the Red Cross and baseball leagues use the term; but all might have different boundaries/memberships and "Upper Fraser Valley" might be a separate baseball league from the "Lower Mainland" one ("Upper Fraser Valley is Chilliwack-Agassiz up to Hope (but not Yale) and MIGHT include Chehalis/Deroche....). Pemberton is explicitly NOT part of the Lower Mainland, though some organizational/association definitions include it by way of "an organizational region centred on the Lower Mainland and/or headquartered in the Lower Mainland". In the same way that the Greater Victoria Dog Fancier's Association (if there is such a thing) could include Port Renfrew, Saltspring Island and Duncan, without any of those being part of Greater Victoria (though Saltspring is part of hte Capital RD and Port Renfrew of, I think, the Cowichan VAlley RD (but not part of the Cowichan Valley). The RD names are problematic, but that's a whole 'nother discussion....Skookum1 (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Pemberton; it's usually spoken of as "an Interior town" despite its sub-coastal climate and (since 1967 only) road access; before that you got in there only via the arduous Pemberton Trail from Squamish, or by ferry/steamer to the head of Harrison Lake and wagon road and another steamer on Lillooet Lake; or similarly from the rest of the Interior via the rest of the Douglas Road lake-and-wagonroad route from Lillooet...."anywhere you had to take a boat to get to" also applied to the inland waters....Yale had the Grand Trunk Road, now Old Yale Road, since early on, y'see....(not long after province-hood oreven just before....)Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Back. I was mainly wondering if the lead would benefit from having a general geographic description of the region. As it is, the lead basically says "surrounding Vancouver" and provides a relatively vague definition based on cities and towns. However those not familiar with the region are unlikely to know where Horseshoe Bay is, or the other places named: Whistler, Mission, and Hope. The satellite map is useful, of course, but it doesn't tell you where these places are. The thing that stands out most on the map is that the area outlined is (mostly) non-mountainous, developed urban or farmland, with a major river running through its length, with a straight line southern boundary crossing the farmland plains. I thought it would be useful to provide a geographic description along the lines of: "The Lower Mainland is approximately equivalent to the broad and fertile plains surrounding the lower Fraser River, extending into the foothills in places, and bounded to the south by the US border." Obviously that wording is not great. But something to that effect? Is there a name for those broad, fertile plains, which extend south into the US and the lower Nootsack River? Some other online book I was reading today (I forget which) had some info on how the Lower Mainland produces the vast majority of BC's agricultural products. Obviously there's a connection between the fertile plains and the large population. But the only names I can think of, like "Fraser Valley", seem to have been coopted for urban planning type uses. Pfly (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll also find them as community org/identity names, and descriptions; "the Fraser Valley towns" include, for example, Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Coquitlam, New West and PoCo - all of which except New West were agrarian in character and "of a certain kind" culturally....there's a bit of a cultural divide, or was, between the much more agrarian and "Bible Belt" towns of the south side of the river from the much more logging/service oriented populations of the north side. "Was a time" there was a distinct Fraser Valley "culture", though now it's just all suburb or exurb (Abbotsford is something between the two; Chilliwack is decidedly an exurb as it's pretty much beyond commuter range). Hope is considered "the gateway to the Interior" (as used to display on an arch over the highway, and may still on the bypass around the freeway there which is waht the old highway is) and while it's still considered "a town in the Upper Fraser Valley" and is very much part of Fraser Valley community/social organization like e.g. high school basketball leagues and quiltmaking clubs etc, it's also "a Fraser Canyon town" or "canyon town"; it's on the cusp, which is why I was mumbling vaguely about Yale, which is "at the entrance to the Fraser Canyon" and was, in fact, and still is, the head of river navigation (if anyone wanted to run a steamer or tug up there, that's as far as you can go....); technically it's "Interior" but has a very wet coastal climate....And note that, although Vancouver has a Fraser River shoreline, it's not considered part of the Fraser Valley, nor is Burnaby (which also has a long Fraser River shoreline); but when you see a mention like "the Fraser Valley mayors"...it's dollars to donuts the mayor of New Westminster would be included; the linguistic exception might be "mayors of municipalities along hte Fraser River met to discuss anti-pollution/flooding measures - then you'd have Vancouver and Burnaby represented). But don't read too much into "and" eg. if you had a phrase like "mayors from Seattle and the Puget Sound region" that Seattle is included within the region is an ambiguity; so when you see "Vancouver and the Fraser Valley" that's one thing, an they're separate, but NB "Vancouver and the Lower Mainland" the sense of "Vancouver and [the rest of] the Lower Mainland" is implicit. Anyway, the Fraser Valley is all the lowland and the towns along it, even if they include (as with Mission and Maple Ridge) upland areas away from the river, as far up as Hope; at which point begins the Fraser Canyon, which is a separate region. As I've noted above somewhere, it's odd to hear "eastern journalists" describe Prince George or Quesnel as "cities in the Fraser Valley"...what they mean is "in the valley of the Fraser" but within BC 'the Fraser Valley" means ONLY what's downstream from Hope....note that Hope is where the floodplain begins, in spots, though it's not until below Sea Bird Island that the Delta is defined to begin....see this map which is on Georgia Depression as well as the explanatory volume, or rather the volume upon which it's based....Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Note List_of_landforms_of_British_Columbia#Western_System - cf. "Fraser Lowland", which also includes non-floodplain areas such as Mission and the Burrard Peninsula (Vancouver-Burnaby-New West and western Coquitlam), which is part of the Georgia Depression of the Coastal Trough. But NB there's also the Fraser Delta, which (counter-intuitively) is regarded by both geographers and geologists as starting at Rosedale (east of Chilliwack).Skookum1 (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, isn't that interesting...I just searched Holland's book, which underlies BCGNIS in fact, and it doesn't mention "Lower Mainland" NOT EVEN ONCE....velly stlange....I'm gonna look in some 19th Century historians and see what turns up, and when.....Holland mentions "Fraser Valley" only once, on page 113...btw pictures from that volume I have verbal permission from EMR (Energy Mines and REsources, though now formally that's Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources - one of the main ministries) that I got when adding stuff to bivouac.com....I doubt they'd pass license inspection from Wiki-masters-of-the-license-verse, barring an actual explicit permission for general use, but some are very interesting....I have them on my laptop and will email them to you for your enjoyment; aerials of some pretty remote locations, including Mount Waddington and the Tiedemann Glacier there, but also much more obscure areas....Skookum1 (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

see also List_of_physiogeographic_regions_of_British_Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thanks--it looks like "Fraser Lowland" may be a useful term. I've only researched briefly, as it is late. My cursory search suggests that the term Fraser Lowland is approximately equivalent to the region of the Lower Mainland. Key differences, as far as I can tell so far, are that the Fraser Lowland includes areas in Whatcom County, WA, and may not usually be defined to reach eastward as far as Hope. I can't look into this any further tonight. Perhaps this could be the basis for a description of the Lower Mainland in the terms of physical geography (in addition to the urban geography already on this page). I'm still not sure what people think about this, other than Skookum, but it seems to me useful to describe the region as more than just a bunch of cities and towns, but also as a a place with distinct physical characteristics, visible on a satellite image, and capable of supporting a dense population, relative to the rest of BC. The connection of the Fraser Lowland with Whatcom County, WA, could be a lead in to a description of the cross-boundary relationships. What I mean is--despite there being a fairly strong political border at the 49th parallel, there are a number of links, especially between the Lower Mainland and that part of Whatcom County that is within the Fraser Lowland. Also, looking at the topic historically, perhaps more could be said about the Lower Mainland being, historically at least, defined in contrast to the earlier population center of Victoria and Vancouver Island. But I can't think about it any more tonight. Pfly (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

[undent]Yeah, in terms of a physiogeographic label it's apt, though doesn't include the mountains overlooking the Lower Mainland, which pretty much are considered part of it (Grouse/Seymour, the Golden Ears, the "Coquitlam Range" (unofficial but you often hear it) etc. As for it being a physical region rather than a formal grouping of municipalities, bang on - "Lower Mainland municipalities" is certainly a term you hear, but it's not the municipalities nor their borders that define the place; it's a physical/cultural space, and note my emendations to the mentions of the RDs; they include areas outside the Lower Mainland (particularly the FVRD, which includes Boston BAr which is decidedly NOT part of the Lower Mainland). BC's "traditional regions" are not that hard to bottle once you're familiar with the place; Bearcat once averred that they could not be formally defined, but that's not really the case to locals; when you hit the summit on Highway 3, for example (the Sunday Summit, which is east of Allison Pass) there's no doubt that's the beginning of the Similkameen Country; as soon as you head up Highway 8, which follows the Nicola River, i.e. from Spences Bridge, you're in the Nicola Country and no longer in the Fraser Canyon. Some of these divisioins literally "turn on a dime"; in other cases some areas are in two or more other areas, e.g. Lillooet considers itself part of the Cariboo, and the Bridge River Country has been called the West Cariboo and, of late (and incorrectly IMO) "the South Chilcotin" (and the Chilcotin is sometimes reckoned as a subarea of the Cariboo, though it's not really, especially away from the Fraser) but the Lillooet Country also spans the Pemberton and Gates Valleys, which are NOT part of the Cariboo and in more recent times are an extension of the Sea to Sky Country, which is a modern appellation that evolved since the creation of the RMOW (Resort Municipality of Whistler) in the 1970s....the term in fact comes from about 1982 or so, I remember it being spawned (IMO they "stole" it from the Ski-to-Sea race in Whatcom County...). But the other traditional regions - the Shuswap, the Okanagan, the Boundary, the Kootenay, - and the Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland - they're extremely boundary-specific though undocumented as such formally; they're the underlying geo-units beneath many of the RD names (e.g. Bulkley-Nechako and Columbia-Shuswap) and electoral districts (Boundary-Similkameen) and tourism districts (Thompson-Okanagan) or in weather reporting (the Thompson-Shuswap)...it gets fuzzy, to some people the Shuswap is part of the Okanagan, likewise the Similkameen and/or the Boundary, and the Boundary technically includes Osoyoos historically (it existed long before the rest of the Okanagan was settled); and there's items like "the Kamloops Country", which is that part of the Thompson centred on Kamloops but west and northwest of the Shuswap; and "the North Thompson" which is very linear, along that river, or "the Clearwater Country", which is mostly what's up the Clearwater River and the immediate environs of Clearwater - by all accounts (I've never been in there) a staggeringly beautiful area btw. And some areas away from settled parts of the province just get referred to by their landform, e.g. the Stikine Ranges. It gets a bit more dicey when these names get "extended" as is the case with Lower Mainland being used to include, say, the Sunshine Coast and Bowen Island....in its historical, proper sense, Lower Mainland does NOT include "offshore islands"...someone on Bowen or in Sechelt might say, for example, "I can't handle life in the Lower Mainland anymore"...but the Ministry of Environment Lower Mainland Region, meaning that its offices are in the Lower Mainland and t hat's the centre of its regional focus, includes both those places. In some reckonings Bowen gets referred to as a Gulf Island, though that's sort of modern and it's true there's a cultural affinity between it and Gabriola and Saltspring and Quadra etc, but if anything I'd say "Howe Sound Islands"....the Howe Sound region seems, to me, to be everything BUT Gibsons/Langdale, which are part of the Sunshine Coast, and includes Woodfibre, i.e. not just the east coast of the Sound plus the islands....and Horseshoe Bay and Whytecliffe, which are parts of West Vancouver, are part of it too....the landform articles like Fraser Lowland, Nahwitti Lowland, etc. need articles, and that's where geological information can be....regional information - climate, fauna, general settlement info - is what belongs on "traditional region" pages, and because StatsCan uses the RDs for counting heads, that stuff belongs on the regional district pages; but regional district pages should NOT be used as if they were geogrpahic regions; they're governments, and fairly weak ones at that....gotta go, ttyl.Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

provenance search

I looked in http://www.nosracines.ca which is an amazing resource, and just did a general search; haven't looked through all the pages of results yet but even the first items are provocative: here.Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fraser River islands

The preceding discussion (ahem) led me to making up a draft List of islands in the Fraser River and its tributaries, which I guess could just be lifted from Talk:Fraser_River#List_of_islands_in_the_Fraser_River_.5Band_its_tributaries.5D, though I know there are other islands upriver, and in the Thompson, that have yet to be added (though only a few, other than the dozens of mostly-unnamed ones in the Robson Valley). Note that around 50 of those listed are in the Fraser proper, rather than in Harrison Lake or on side-oxbows like Hatzic Lake and the lower Stave River; there are at least that many again unnamed islands, some of which might only be construed as rock bars or sandbars; and there are one or two in Pitt Lake, likewise in Stave Lake. NB Sheridan Hill in Pitt Meadows was historically an island until dyking changed that, there are similar examples elsewhere. Court's out on whether Matsqui Island or Lulu Island is the largest, I haven't done a map-comparison yet...and NB the western shore of Lulu Island is still a long ways from the open waters of Georgia Strait...Skookum1 (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Natural threats

This section is missing a major natural hazard, volcanism. It should have been added in the article a long time ago when earthquakes and landslides were mentioned. This has to be one of the least subjects discused in BC articles other than ones about volcanology. It is a large geologic hazard that perhaps lots of people ignore or do not know about. It's like oh it last erupted thousands of years ago it will never cause problems in my life. Volcanism in British Columbia may be less frequent than earthquakes and landslides, but it can be just as destructive and as far as I am aware of, there is no good prediction of volcanic activity in British Columbia. Just because a volcano has not erupted for hundreds or thousands of years does not mean it will not do something in the future. In fact, a great majority of potentially active volcanoes on Earth are unmonitored, and of the historically active volcanoes on Earth, less than one fourth are monitored. Only 24 volcanoes on Earth are thoroughly monitored for activity. At least 75% of the largest explosive eruptions on Earth since 1800 occurred at volcanoes that had no previous historical eruptions. As a result, the Canadian Cascade Arc volcanoes pose a major threat to the Lower Mainland because none have erupted in historical time, they are not monitored closely enough and they are capable of producing large explosive eruptions, typical of subduction zone volcanism. This goes for Mount Garibaldi, Mount Price, Mount Cayley and Mount Meager. As pyroclastic material falls from ash columns, it would probably melt surrounding glaciers and ice fields to create floods and lahars. These would in turn flow down river valleys to areas that are populated, especially those in the Lower Mainland. Even without explosive activity, the eruption of lava would also melt glacial ice to produce floods. An area for such activity would probably be the Mount Cayley volcanic field because some volcanoes are situated under the Powder Mountain Icefield. I do not have the time to add volcanic hazard content right now but whenever I have time I will hopefully add something in the article. Volcanoguy 09:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lower Mainland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626080216/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=570b533b-65a6-438c-813a-04f5a4c4ec89 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=570b533b-65a6-438c-813a-04f5a4c4ec89
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/science/v-print/story/34512.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)