Talk:Vancouver/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Visual Art and the Vancouver School

I've restored this section, as there was very little on visual art and nothing on contemporary art. The Vancouver School and Jeff Wall in particular are extremely important in the world of art. I realize not too many people care much for art or Canadian art in particular, but Vancouver should be aware just how big Jeff Wall is. He's pretty much the biggest Canadian artist ever in terms of historical importance and critical writing internationally. Stan Douglas is a close second. Vancouver is home to two internationally important artists. There should be a mention in the main article. The editor who removed it several months ago stated that it was too detailed and "argued with itself". I disagree. It's pretty brief, links to the main article (full disclosure, I created the Vancouver School article), and the "argument" is important in that the term is well-established but the artists themselves don't use it. That's pretty typical in the world of art. If it's too obscure a point for a general audience, we can reword it, but I do think as a whole this section should be left in. By the way, don't know if this means anything, but I'm hardly a biased Vancouver booster trying to get every bit of trivial info in. I'm born in Hamilton and live in Toronto and have no vested interest in this other than I think this is an important part of Vancouver culture. freshacconci talktalk 13:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames of Vancouver

hi all, I have begun work on a Nicknames of Vancouver article. I feel it would be an interesting addition to the Vancouver page. I plan to link it like Houston has for their nickname article. I would love any suggestions, additions, reference help, etc. Here is the beta - feel free to edit! Theinterior (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is now up, linked by the more... in the infobox, after Hollywood North. Theinterior (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Mkdw^talk 04:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Montage for infobox picture

I would like to start up the debate about having a montage for the infobox. I think it would be a great edition as Vancouver has many great landmarks that would look great in a montage. Does anyone still oppose using a montage and if not is there anyone that can create a good one? Nations United (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad idea. If people want to see a "montage" of photos, a gallery of fully-expandable photos could be added at the bottom of the article, as seen on the Bermuda page. Otherwise, a montage photo at the heading replaces a vivid portrayal of the city with a crammed, thumbnail-sized mixture. It's very cluttering, as a bold image of the city says far more than a mish-mash you have to squint at to decipher.

Jackmont Sept 4th, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.122.191 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My nominations for criteria of the infobox that should include the following: (note that one photo may accomplish many of these criteria)

• Mountains
• Ocean
• Stanley Park
• Lions Gate Bridge
• Historic landmarks
• City skyline

I've reverted the change to the image back to the one that includes the mountain. While the Coal Harbour shot is a superior piece of photography aesthetically wise, it is not representative for Vancouver. If a single photo is used, it must include as many iconic features of the city. The use of a montage will allow a broader range of photos to be used, but until then we should stick with Bobanny's. Mkdw^talk 20:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Currently working on a montage.Dolphin Jedi (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo changed to one with no mountains?

Why has the original photo of the downtown core across False Creek been replaced by (an erroneously labeled one) taken of Coal Harbour? The mountains are a huge part of Vancouver, and this new photo does not show this. Also, whoever added it should be aware that body of water is Coal Harbour, not English Bay.

Jackmont Sept 4th, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.122.191 (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion table in Demog section

I've boldly removed the table [1] on religious affiliation in the #Demographics section. Aesthetically it was unsettling, but mostly I couldn't verify the sources. One has nothing to say on the topic, the other link goes away and never comes back and has no provenance to indicate its reliabilty if it did work, i.e. not RS. I looked (admittedly briefly) for census data, I'm sure this is tracked but couldn't find it. Without solid backup on the numbers I feel it should be removed. It can certainly be reintroduced in a proper table format with authoritative or even accessible sourcing. Franamax (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

UBC in photo montage

Why is UBC in the photo at the top when UBC is not part of Vancouver? 24.83.104.67 (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But I also don't like the montage, too busy, too post-cardy, almost cinematic; there should just be one good portrait of downtown/West End and the skyline, or an aerial showing downtown, Stanley Park, Kits? The classic view from Fairview was used by McDonald's for their Olympic ommercial...except they added a few mountains (transplanted bits of Wedge and other peaks from around Whistler...from the glimpses I caught, it's pretty brief). The infobox image should definitely be iconic of the city, and that would largely be its setting and...doesn't have to be cliche, but should include a lot....and, well, look like the place. The shot of the Lions Gate lit at night is particularly garish and "doesn't look like the place", though would make a nice postcard, or at least sell well. One classic view that's only downtown/West End, of course, is from the Nine O'Clock Gun - the mountains are, after all, in North and West Van.....but the montage, it's got to go. I don't have a definite suggestion, just think we should have better, and one simple, telling image.Skookum1 (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Great War-era immigration

This line has brought to mind a couple of times something I'd like to add, but been puzzling over in which book I read it:

Eastern Europeans, including Yugoslavs, Russians, Czechs, Poles and Hungarians began immigrating after the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe after World War II.[9

Yugoslavs, like Italians, also came in large numbers during the 1910s, partly as replacement workers for men gone away to war, and also as the new labour force used in preference to Chinese labour; the final Head Tax increase of 1913 may have been connected to the onset of Yugoslav and Italian immigration (perhaps also Greek, as their original church in the East End is, I think, from the same era). There were so many in the workforce, and in neighbourhoods, when the troops came back from war, that the unrest led to the formation of the various soldiers' parties, which finally unified under a name I'll have to go check on and come back here with, by 1923 I think; the "Grand" party (as I remember was one of the words in its name) also included a host of farmers' parties and others; the unrest of the time was considerable, given a slack economy, a return home to find that women's suffrage meant booze had been banned, and all the (as the term was for Yugoslavs, and sometimes for Greeks) "wogs" and "wops" had taken over construction and general labour; remember too that Italy had entered the war as a Central Power, as the returning men certainly did. It may have been in Alan Morley's book, or in a more recent book; I'm pretty sure it wasn't in Barman or Bowering, and I never got to those volumes of Maj. Matthews (I had only Vols I & II, the other five are in manuscript at the VancArchives only...now 'there's a worthwhile digitization project....). I'll keep on scratching my head; if anyone's reading anything on the post-war period in Vancouver, please take note of anything to do with anti-Euro-immigrant sentiment. The Scandinavians and Germans (incl Bohemians and Austrians, Transylvanians etc) and other, earlier Italians had been here since the earliest days of the gold rush, also Poles and Ukrainians to a lesser degree (and French and Belgians, via Cailfornia and Nicaragua, and Australians). But they were part of the mining and logging industries, and in the case of the Norwegians, the fishing industry, long before the post-railway bomm that led into the war; times had been tough in 1913-1914 and when the men returned home they expected to find jobs and housing; the jobs were taken, housing was expensive, there were no veterans benefits as yet (the unrest led to that).....how to boil taht down to one phrase/sentence in the article I don't know as yet; it would seem enough to mention their arrival, though not the response, though the latter should certainly go in the history of Vancouver article....I'll be back about the soldiers' parties et al.Skookum1 (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

counterculture/alternative culture- demographics section or culture?

It occurred to me editing the passage on Davie Village and the omnipresence of teh gay commuynity in the West End-Gay community (i.e. Davie Village is only a gay-flavoured commercial district, not the actual residential or social core of gay life....certainly club life I guess); but given the ties to Commercial Drive and the alternative world there, and the history of the former Kits and Gastown hippie/counterculture eras it's a particular demograhpic/social/cultural group...something of an ethnicity, though quite typically multi-racial and mult-ethnic in origin. Vancouver's multiculturalism is very pluralistic, and not limited to race, ethnicity or gender divisions...tehre should be a discussion of student poulations and other youth figures in the demographics section, certainly.Skookum1 (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

1871 and 1881 census figures

If anyone has access to older censuses with location-specific entries, there is data available for what is now Vancouver but it won't be listed as such. "Granville, B.I." was the designation for Gastown, I don't think its figures included Brockton Point (where a lot of people lived by '81) or the Hastings Mill itself, so there might be three or four figures to combine, including McLeery's/Marpole and Hastings/New Brighton. The populations of Musqueam and Senakw should be included, along with any other enumerated villages (if any); but the data's out there, it just needs to be dug out. As for 1861, well, there were no white people living in what is now Vancouver then, but there is from that time, I think, an HBC or colonial census of native peoples....definitely in 1851 there was, though not accurate.Skookum1 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the name

The info contradicts itself. If the city named after George Vancouver or does it derive from "van Coevorden"? As the Wiki info states "The name Vancouver itself originates from the Dutch "van Coevorden", denoting somebody from Coevorden, a city in the Netherlands.". So which one is it? Norum 06:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

that should be worded "the family name itself"....but for a while now I've seen no point in having that in the city-article lede, it's in George Vancouver which should suffice. More relevant to the Origin of the name is the CP decision to use it (can't remember if it was Strathcona or Van Horne) because the wording of the Terms of Union said "a railway from Canada to Vancouver", meaning Vancouver Island. Using "Vancouver" was a way of getting out of any suits that they hadn't built the railway "to Vancouver"..."Granville" was dismissed by CPR execs because they didn't want their new city associated with Gastown (which, some say, they tried to burn out to get rid of any competition for their own commercial area uptown).Skookum1 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If that is true--that the CP named it Vancouver to suggest the rail line reached Vancouver Island--it should really be mentioned and cited. I had never considered the rather odd naming of Vancouver the city, given the more known island, at the time, of the same name nearby. Plus, as far as I know, there is no particularly notable connection between George Vancouver and the city. I mean, sure, his ships entered and surveyed Burrard Inlet, like they did from the Columbia River to Queen Charlotte Strait. The connection with Georgie Vanc is obvious, but if the CP had some reason for using George's name, well, that would be more interesting than yet another "named in honor of George Vancouver" kinda thing. Pfly (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well-Hidden Vandalism

There is a cute little "Hello" message at the very bottom of the page, but I am unable to find it in the markup. Is it inside a template, or are my eyes failing? The Interior(Talk) 22:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That was strange. An IP put that in, ClueBot reverted it, but for some reason the version with the vandalism was showing for the article, while the correct one was showing when you edit. I reverted the IP again and now it seems to be OK. Some kind of caching issue I guess. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NMMNG, I always forget to refresh the cache when things aren't adding up. Cheers, The Interior(Talk) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver population

metro cities especially in the US cover 15-25 thousand squared kilometers. wouldn't most of BC's population be within 15-25 thousand squared kilometers of Vancouver ? it's a really small area that most of BC's population lives in. why is metro Vancouver quoted within such a small area ? is there an area similar to the green belt in Toronto that covers a larger area ? it just seems weird because Vancouver feels like a city close in size to Montreal, but Montreal has twice as many people (2-3 times as much area as well).Grmike (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

Vancouver is in a unique position in that there isn't really a lot of room for it to grow besides east. The north has the mountains, there is the border to the south and the Strait of Georgia to the west. Vancouver does have its fair share of sprawl but not as extreme as other Canadian or American cities. If we were to use the American metro definition, we would be including the Fraser Valley, the Sunshine Coast and parts of Vancouver Island.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, unlike Montreal, Vancouver is broken into various municipalities. You can drive through five cities in less than one hour. If you consider the entire Lower-Mainland where people commute to and from on a daily basis, then it comes to be much closer in size to the largest metropolitan areas in Canada. Mkdw^talk 11:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you drive through Montreal, you can drive through five cities in less than one hour. Montreal is not as monolithic as you think, though there are attempts to make it so. And until a decade ago, Toronto wasn't monolithic either (over the last decade several Ontario and Quebec cities were forcefully amalgamated by the provincial governments) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of reading comments that go something like this: the reason US cities are so much larger (population wise) than Canadian ones is that their metro areas are so much bigger. No kidding? I think that's putting the cart before the horse. The cities are bigger. US cities don't incorporate their neighboring suburbs like Canadian cities do. This is why a city like Toronto, for example, is almost the size of Chicago, but its Metro area is a little more than half its size. Including the entire population of a state or province will make them seem bigger, but they're too big for most people to think of them as metro areas. (I'm not suggesting that Southern Californians think that their region should be viewed as a metro area, but many editors believe that the Golden Horseshoe should). Montreal has about 800,000 more people than San Diego, but if you were to extend Montreal's metro region by 10 or 20 miles in every direction would you really have that many more people? What about San Diego? Or Chicago. --Antigrandiose (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

you could have a point if it wasn't for the example of Boston. unlike cities like Denver and Houston whose metro areas are 2 or 3 times larger than Toronto's (thus having densities 2 or 3 times smaller but total numbers that are comparable) metro Boston has an area very similar to Toronto's. but guess what they did ? they created another combined statistical area that covers much more area (thus giving it a huge advantage over Toronto) in order to inflate their numbers. Toronto, Montreal, and especially Vancouver do not have larger 'combined statistical whatever' areas. it's not just a coincidence that every major American metro area covers a lot more land than their Canadian counterparts. the ones that don't almost always come up with an extended boundary. if Denver has 2.6 million, Seattle has 3.3 million, Houston 5.7 million, Chicago 9.8 million then Vancouver has 3.6 million, Montreal has 5-5.5 million, Toronto has 8.5 million. there's nothing wrong with viewing them that way. Grmike (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)grmike

No they don't! You're confusing American metro areas with American CSAs, and then claiming that regions in Canada are bigger than American metro areas. The Houston area is bigger than the Toronto area, in any honest measurable way.

The article on Boston says that the city's metro area has 4.5 million people. What parts of the Boston area do you want to take out to make it more like a proper Canadian metro area? It's CSA is larger, but no one would consider Providence or Manchester to be part of the Boston area. A CSA is something that is contrived by the US Census Bureau, and like so much of what the US government does, is nonsensical and is ignored by everyone except for Canadians on Wikipedia. From what I can glean from the article, a CSA is an arbitrary combination of metro areas, much like the Golden Horseshoe in Canada. My point wasn't to compare a spread-out CSA like Denver to Vancouver, but if you want to, Vancouver would only have 2.5 million people. (I don't know where you get 3.6 million, but it seems to be an example of a trend I notice on Wikipedia where a lot of facts about Canada are unsourced and seem to be exaggerated). My point was to show that a lot of places that are considered singular urban areas, like Chicago and San Diego, are really part of larger contiguous urban areas, and their populations would be even larger if combined, and not these spread-out CSAs that Canadians continuously whine about.

It just seems to me that a lot of Canadian commentators on Wikipedia want to do everything they can to make Canadian cities seem bigger and American cities seem smaller, or at the very least characterize American cities as being unfairly big: "Toronto would be just as big as Chicago or Houston, if it weren't for underhanded counting tricks." Are you kidding me?

I don't think that your word "advantage" is appropriate, though. Being bigger or smaller than another city doesn't convey an advantage, it's simply a matter of civic pride, which is something that Canadians seem to have in excess.--Antigrandiose (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am similarly confused by the claim "they created another combined statistical area that covers much more area (thus giving it a huge advantage over Toronto)". What advantage is that referring to? The first paragraph of Urban Planning about population density doesn't make any sense, and appears to be self-aggrandizing, but for what purpose? The boundaries of the City of Vancouver are arbitrary and have no bearing on Urban Planning. The geographic layout of downtown and the GVRD do. There are many urban areas (i.e. in cities with subway systems) of equal or larger population in North America that are more dense than Vancouver's urban area. Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia, Washington, Montreal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Merger#Merger_and_demerger, Toronto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_(former) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.42.221 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cities (municipalities), metro areas, CSAs, and CMAs are all artificial constructs. No population statistic can give you a complete sense of the population or density of a city in comparison to another. To the first question. Most of Canada's largest cities have undergone succesive annexations and amalgamations, making them larger in population and in size. Vancouver has not in recent history. Second, Canada and the US measure metro areas very differently. They are like comparing apples and oranges. That said, once a CMA is established by statscan, it is never supplated or amalgamated with another. This fact only really has an impact on Toronto, however, as it is surrounded by mutiple CMAs (such as Hamilton). With regards to Canada's "whinning", I agree it is ridiculous to compare population like it's some achievement. Many great European cities are not as large, have declining population, but are still considered great. That said, some American's seem to conceive of all Canada cities as little backwaters, which explains the reaction. The Greater Golden Horseshoe is actually around the same size (in area) as Chicago's metro, and with roughly a million less people. However, the area is less developed than Chicago, (the urban areas are more denser), and there is currently less economic integration between Toronto and some of its neighbours. Their are no other CMA's withing close proximity to Vancouver, so I doubt including any nearby communities would significantly alter the metro population. Bisonblight (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Exploration and Contact section

With the introduction of the Asian voyages/wrecks (which are not in Vancouver) and varoius other elements which have been added, this is becoming more and more about exploration/contact re teh whole of BC/the Pacific Northwest, rather than Vancouver or area per se....History of the west coast of North America and Spanish expeditions to the Pacific Northwest cover some elements and might be "main' templates, but they're not about English Bay/Burrard Peninsula/Inlet....maybe the "exploration and contact" section should be limited to material ONLY about he site/lcoation of Vancouver? Chinese/Korean/Japanese (or ??) wrecks off the coast of Vancouver Island are not really relevant here, though I've left them for now....Skookum1 (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I fixed that new paragraph up a bit without really looking at its relevance. Upon reflection, it doesn't really relate to Vancouver unless evidence was found of a Vancouver-area landing. The ref talks only about western Vancouver Island. It should probably go. The Interior(Talk) 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the Straight article and commented there (under my real name, as required by the GS), and it looks to be based on a lot of conjectural stuff; on Joseph Needham, for example, and the shipwreck was not archaeologically-supervised (at Pachena Bay); it could easily be a ship from the marine fur trade era that had Chinese goods on board; the pieces haven't been subjected to scientific analysis; only quasi-scientific wishful/what-if thinking, looks like to me. There's a big difference between blown across the Pacific and wrecked, and sailing here, "exploring" and trading, and returning; the Fusang story is questioned on many accounts (except by Needham, who asserts its truthfulness - but Frank Ney insists the Vikings made it through the Northwest Passage and settled at Comox, too). There were definitely wrecked fishermen in fur trade times; Douglas ransomed three Japanese back from the Mahwitti, a Kwakwaka'wakw group near Cape Scott, for instance, who had been captured and (brutally) enslaved. But bascially, yeah, unless it has to do with the site of VAncouver, it shouldnt' be in this article, though could be moved to others (we need more cites than the gushy Straight article though, for the archaological item). I know in Maj. Mathews there are comments about white men not daring to treat Burrard Inlet during the gold rush, and of bodies being found on its shores in later years; HBC activity in the area was very low, there was some contact with the Squamish, but mostly up Howe Sound, not at BI (Burrard Inlet, but its old standard abbreviation). What I'm meaning is there is more detailed, as well as apocryphal, material about "exploration and contact" that should be tehre befoer something that says "hey, the Chinese were here too, you Euro-ethnocentrists!!" (which is the tone of the Straight article...). There's a bit on a Russian ship, allegedly apocryphal but interesting, in the first story in Pauline Johnson's Legends of Vancouver, which you'll find at most bookstores/libraries....Skookum1 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Montage again - UEL/UBC MUST be removed

The postcard-jumble of the montage is irritating and somewhat brochure-esque as it is; but UBC is not in the City of Vancouver and does NOT belong on this page. At least there's no pictures of palm trees (anymore) and crowd-filled sunny beaches.....if there's a montage it should represent more than just the swank, modern side of the city; a picture of the Drive or Granville in full swing - or the Downtown Eastside for that matter - would compensate for the glossy tourist-promotion quality of this montage; or a picture of a heritage block somewhere representative of the city's housing (not just glossy shots of the modern, slick sci-fi city that is the popular media-pushed image).Skookum1 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Increased postcardiism and those damned palm trees

A recent round of image replacements has made this page look even more like a tourism brochure than before; where are the streetscapes, images of types of housing? Only monuments adn tourism landmarks? This needs to be addressed - and User:Zerosey is pretty hardcore about wanting to add and re-add pictures of palm trees, with wording saying they're found all over the city yadayadayada....they are NOT representative of the city, and are not even a prominent introduced species like teh flowering cherries, rhododrendrons/azaleas and chestnuts etc.....I am completely opposed to the prominence repeatedlygiven here to palm trees (this ain't LA, and Seattle and Portland don't shame themselves by such a-contextual "we're almost tropical!!" hornswoggling), and know that those who supported them in the past were hostile to the very nice pic of the Stanley Park Seawall in the rain....which would be very fitting in the climate section, were it not for "Vancouver is the best place on the earth" cultists who don't want pictures of the city in the rain shown to the world.....There has to be a major revisitation of what images are on this page; things like the Cruise Ship Terminal picture are NOT illustrative of the city, and how much steel-and-glass do we need to see? How about a leafy West End or Kits street with Victorians or Edwardians? Commercial Drive hopping with people? Or is this page going to be the domain of tourist-boosters and gee-whizzers like "the Palm Tree Kid"????Skookum1 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we find some middle ground? I don't want the article to look like a tour guide, but I also don't want images of random inanimate objects that could belong to any town close to Vancouver like Victoria. The images should expressly represent Vancouver and preferably only show things that only Vancouver has. 99% of collages for other feature article cities are landmarks expressly for that purpose. I propose the following criteria for the images.

• unique to Vancouver
• recognizable by the majority of locals
• shows off more than one aspect of Vancouver (eg weather, people, architecture, history)
• Skyline photo (can't really argue with this one)

Personally I like the idea of a Commercial Drive, Lions Gate Bridge, Stanley Park, and the skyline. Currently the Chinatown Arch, Burrard Bridge, random marina, and totems could be replaced by better examples of Vancouver, in my humble opinion. Just my two cents, carry on. Mkdw^talk 13:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a semi-random anecdote. Earlier today a friend asked me online whether this photo was of Seattle, apparently thinking the leftmost building was perhaps the Space Needle. I said no, that's not the Space Needle, but hmm, isn't there something like that in Vancouver? The mountains could be Vancouver's, I thought. So I came to this page, thinking there would be photos of the skyline showing that building (I still cannot remember its name, though I know I should know it...). Due to the fog/clouds in the photo, there isn't a lot to go on for IDing the city. Skimming over this page I was surprised that it didn't seem to be visible in any of the skyline photos, nor did it seem to be mentioned in the text. Eventually I found other photos that showed it and made me think that foggy photos probably is of Vancouver (isn't it? I didn't spend much time looking into this). None of this is to say that vaguely Space Needle-like tower (which I'm sure is far less significant to the city and its skyline than the Space Needle is for Seattle) should be mentioned or shown in photos on this page, just that from some vantage points (and weather conditions), it can be a distinguishing feature (if, on the chance I'm totally wrong and there is no tower like this in Vancouver, please ignore me/set me straight! It's been many years since I've been to Vancouver) Pfly (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I've been enlightened: Harbour Centre, right. Pfly (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see that User:Zerosey resorted to mild vandalism by blanking User:Skookum1's user page rather than come here and discuss this with the entire community. Mkdw^talk 13:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Double panorama

We now have two panoramas stacked on top of each other. This is starting to turn into photo clutter. Propose losing the lower of the two, as it only shows a limited view of Coal harbour. The Interior (Talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The upper of the two is the better photo. I just reverted the addition of a third panorama that would have further exacerbated photo clutter. Hwy43 (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vancouver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• There are a few unreferenced statements and paragraphs, and a few citation needed tags. Everything has to be referenced to pass as a good article.
• Avoid 'sandwiching' images, by placing them on both sides of the text. Remember that screen can have higher and lower resolution than yours. The images are also not spread out very well: some places are cluttered while others lack images almost altogether.  Done
• A few places there are single-sentence or other short paragraphs. These should be merged with adjoining paragraphs.
• In general prose, use of parenthesis is substandard; although it can be grammatically correct, it slows down the reading, and confuses the reader as to the relevance of the information. Instead, place the information within a set of commas or use dashes.

Specific comments

• The lead, at least the first paragraph, should present information in an order of importance. While the first sentence is fine, it seems odd to mention from whom the city is named before crucial information such as size. That sentence would be fine as the first part of the history paragraph.  Done
• Although not a problem per ce, there is no need to cite the information in the lead, unless highly controversial. You don't need to "unreference" it, but keep that in mind for the next article.
• 'Metropolitan area' is mentioned twice; first it links to 'metropolitan area', then to 'Census Metropolitan Area', but never to 'Greater Vancouver'.  Done
• 'Abbotsford' definitively should be linked at first occurrence.  Done
  • I removed Abbotsford. It is not included in Metro Vancouver, nor is it in the Census district, nor included in any other stat on the page --- JimWae
• Don't presume that the article is being read today. Unless talking about centuries, avoid terms like "Over the last 30 years". Instead, use terms like "since the 1980s...".  Done
• "Chinese people" is a disambiguation page.  Done - now links too Han Chinese
• The sentence "From a logging sawmill established in 1867 a settlement named Gastown grew, around which a townsite named Granville arose." is unenyclopedic and awkward to read. Don't used the term 'a X named Y'.  Done
• Don't link areas the size of or larger than a country, such as 'North America'.  Done
• To be frank, I don't think mention of the 'World Police and Fire Games' or '1976 United Nations Conference on Human Settlements' (the latter which even lacks an article) is suitable for the lead. The Commonwealth, Olympics and Expo are major enough that it is fine.  Done
• Don't use flagicons in the infobox, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes  Done
  • Should I remove the BC flag ot the BC and Canada flag icons? Oddbodz (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The best place for the city flag is in the infobox, no? The country & province flags are tiny and far from distracting. The "avoid" link is clear on avoiding flags for people, but surely if flags are appropriate anywhere, it is for politico-geographical articles, no? --JimWae (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I say that we should keep the flagicons then - Manual of style says you can use country and provincial flagicons and that city flags should only be used in articles about that city which this article is. Oddbodz (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The MOS leaves no room for doubt: avoid flagicons in infoboxes, this also applies to any geographical infobox. Flagicons for sub-national entities are never permitted, not matter where. Flagicons are overused on the project, and many articles used them although not permissible. Also, please do not strike out my comments unless I have stated that it can be bypassed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • 1. There appears to be plenty of room for doubt. "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes" is not the same as "never use". 2. Are we talking about ALL the flags or just the ones for Canada & BC? The Vancouver flag is nowhere else in the article, but OUGHT to be SOMEWHERE. --JimWae (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
        • We are not talking about the Vancouver flag, which is something completely different, as it has direct relevance to the article and is fine. What I am talking about are the small flags of Canada and BC beside the name. The reasons for why flagicons (which is the WP term for the small flags beside text) should be avoided, is explained in the link above, and this is a perfect example of when it should not be used. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Oh, now I understand. I'll go and remove the Canada and BC flagicons now. Oddbodz (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• The history section tends to overfocus on the early years of the city, and less on more recent times. There is an overfocus on the details surrounding the establishment of sawmills—a detail level that is not followed up later in the history section. Most problematic is the failure to mention any history after the 1920s.
• No comma after "on 13 June 1886,"  Done
• The 'twentieth century' section discusses a lot of national and provincial political issues. It should instead focus on issues unique to Vancouver.
• You're going to have to source "a common misconception that the city is located on the island"; personally I have never come across that misconception, as Vancouver is significantly more well-known than the island.  Done (There are various misconceptions about both names. I come across this often in USA also)
• Too much mention of Vancouver, Washington.  Done
• It is not clear for non-experts what "Köppen Cfb" means.
• Don't use "see X" in prose; similarly, avoid using "again" to refer to your own comments. Done
• Link to the airport under climate. Done
• Is it really necessary with two climate charts? The data vary very little. Two might be appropriate in the 'climate of Vancouver' article, but not here.  Done
• New York City, San Francisco, and Mexico City should be linked.  Done
• Given Vancouver's unique planning approach, it would be nice to have more details surrounding urban planning, particularly given the amount on architecture.
• You start off by mentioning three notable buildings, but don't explain why they are notable. Done
• "a Cruise Ship Terminal" is a common noun and not capitalized. If it is the official name, then don't put 'a' in front of it. Done
• Link 'Vancouver Province'  Done
• Edwardian should link to Edwardian architecture, not Edwardian period. Done
• Please find the appropriate link for Parliament Buildings. Done
• My main concern with the architectural section is that it deals with high-profile buildings in the city center. What sort of architectural style is used outside downtown? What style of housing is built, how is the mix between housing and condos?
• I don't think Cantonese and Mandarin are dialects, as they are mutually unintelligible, and thus separate languages.  Done
• Don't link countries, like UK and China. Done
• 'Demographics' does not mention religion.  Done
• It can be presumed that an article exclusively about a Canadian topic uses Canadian dollars, so $ is sufficient. If the need to disambiguate arises, use either CAD or CA$, not C$. First mention should also be written out and linked. Done
• 'nation' refers to an ethnic group (although it is often used wrong), so 'country' is a lot more acurate when talking about Canada.
• No need to re-link 'Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong'. Done
• "The city's selection to co-host the 2010 Winter Olympics has also been a major influence on economic development." needs a direct cite and from a reliable source, not just speculation. From what I have read about Olympic history, there had never been any lasting economic growth caused by any games.
• Link 'Sam Sullivan' Done
• What is COPE?  Done
• I'm not sure if a detailed description of the previous election is suitable. Mention of current mayor definitely is, though, as well as any major parties.
• The section "Policing" should probably be renamed "policing and crime".  Done
• The whole Growbusters issue seems out of proportion for an article of this scope. Of course the police will have a series of campaigns to combat illegal activities, and there may be many other similar issues not mentioned.
• Drop "according to the Vancouver Police."; it is implied that the reader if wanting to know the source goes to the reference. It also indirectly implies that there is reason to not trust the police numbers. Similarly with "according to a 2006 Statistics Canada study". Done
• 'students' normally refer to tertiary education; primary and secondary school pupils are normally called 'pupils'.  Done (Btw, the source, the VSB, uses "students" throughout. No need to change it back, however.)
• The education section needs to be clearer as to which universities and colleges are located within Vancouver, and which are outside the city proper. Done
• 2008–2009 or 2008–09, not 2008/2009. Done
• ESL needs to be spelled out. Done
• The subsections under art and culture are too small: merge the section into one.  Half done
• Cut down the number of marginal punk bands: if they don't have an article, they definitively are not worth mentioning.  Done
• Don't stylize band names: it should be Payolas  Done
• 'Quality and cost of living' should be merged into other appropriate sections, particularly economy and cityscape (which it partially is).  Moved to Cityscape and Sports and recreation
• Again, skip "BC Film Commission reported", just state the facts.  Done
• Link 'trolley bus'. Done
• Cut out the two left-aligned images under transportation, and add something else, such as streets, buses, the SeaBus, cycling etc.  Images removed but no free use images to replace them could be found
• UBC? This needs to be abbreviated in the appropriate section.  Done
• Surely there is a better way to organize the sister cities information. This is very trivial indeed, and I doubt the average person from Vancouver would know any of these.  Done - Put into a table
• It's not called the 'Greater Vancouver Regional District' any more, but 'Metro Vancouver'. This information is best placed in the government section. Done
  • However, Metro Vancouver begins: Metro Vancouver is the brand name[3] of the board of the inter-municipal administrative body known as the "Greater Vancouver Regional District" (GVRD) --JimWae (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• What is UFC 115 and UFC? People not familiar with martial arts will not have a clue even what sport it is. Done
• The sports section has a tinge of recentism. Why mention the 2011 Grey Cup and not the others?
• Also, perhaps the defunct Vancouver Grizzlies is worth mentioning (it being in a very big league).  Done
• Leagues need to be spelled out in full in the table, not just with acronyms. Done
• The see also section should not contain links mentioned in other parts of the article, nor in any of the navboxes. Done

Overall an impressive article, particularly from what I can see a new editor. The list may look long, but it consists mostly of minor details and a few extra references that are needed. Feel free to ask if there are any questions or comments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This article had been on review for four weeks now. The article is looking a lot better. However, there are still outstanding issues on the list, particularly regarding references. The review page has not been edited for a week and a half, and I see no review-related edits to the article is a similar period. In particular, there are still large parts of the article which are not reference. There are also other issues not seen to. The article was clearly quite blow GA standards to being with, so the task was not necessarily trivial. Am an going to fail the article; should you wish to renominate the article, please complete the list and, in particular, add references to those parts of the article which are not referenced. Best of luck on improving the article, Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Errors

Anyone know why EVERY update to the Vancouver article results in a Wikimedia Error. The edit gets saved (after a long wait), then the error message appears. So far, it happens ONLY to this page AND has been going on for about 30 hours so far.--JimWae (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comma after year in full MDY dates

As Comma#In_dates indicates, many style guides say to put a comma after the year when full dates in MDY format appear in sentences. So: "It was reported on May 11, 2011, that..." RATHER THAN "It was reported on May 11, 2011 that...". When DMY formatting is used, neither is any comma: "It was reported on 11 May 2011 that..." The SUGGESTION was made in this article regarding a date in the DMY format - which was there when the article had mixed format. This style guide condition was one of the MAIN reasons why autodate formatting was removed - because it did not handle the differences in punctuation. That is why I reverted to "The Great Vancouver Fire on June 13, 1886, razed the entire city" FROM "The Great Vancouver Fire on June 13, 1886 razed the entire city". The SUGGESTION was about "The Great Vancouver Fire on 13 June 1886 razed the entire city." I cannot find a determination on this in the WP:MOS BUT using the comma to make the year "parenthetical" is the style that is used throughout the rest of this article. --JimWae (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The section you referenced also notes that the format is American, listing several US style guides. Given that this is a Canadian article, I think we need to establish what the appropriate format would be. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:STRONGNAT about punctuation. Punctuation is standardized throughout wp. See WP:LQ for example. Nor is there a way to settle a "Canadian style" of doing this punctuation. The article should be consistent. Is there a single style guide that says NOT to put a comma there? --JimWae (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here are plenty of Canadian sources including several style guides that are "Canadian" though. --JimWae (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Vancouver/Archive_8#Date_Format - JimWae promptly went to all the other Canadian city articles and changed them to his style preference after he was wholely rejected here. Now he's back and using his changes on other articles as the basis to change this article. I too can go to all the Canadian cities, change the date format, and come here again. Mkdw^talk 09:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Montage

I'm bringing this issue up again. First of all, UBC should NOT be there. It is not within city boundary and is in an electoral district. Those totem poles should be gone. There are totem poles everywhere, how is this one any different? Instead, use a picture of Stanley Park (let's discuss what kind of picture). And what's with the Chinatown gate (how is this special), Coal Harbour (no one goes here), and Granville Island (that is a REALLY small picture of the island; at first, I thought it was a picture of Burrard Bridge. It should be replaced with Commercial Drive/Granville, Granville Island/False Creek, Canada Place, Science World, and/or English Bay. But that's just my opinion. --Toddlertoddy (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Vancouver Photo Montage.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vancouver Photo Montage.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Downtown Vancouver Sunset.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Downtown Vancouver Sunset.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Elections

Including information about future municipal elections about a mayor that seeks re-election and a bill is a highly unencyclopedic inclusion to a geography article. Elections happen all the time, and this one is not special. Almost no other city articles discuss mayoral elections, not to mention future elections. Mkdw^talk 08:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I just placed a similar response on your user talk page before seeing your remark here. I don't want to get into an edit war, so let's work this out. You twice reverted my verifiable statement that Vancouver has an upcoming election. You suggest this is a "geography article" but my election content was placed in the "Government" section of the article. An upcoming election is a notable future event for the "government" section. I enclosed a reliable source as reference for it. Your revert comment reads: "Talking about a future election is highly unconventional and unencyclopedic". Do you have a basis for this belief? Wikipedia has always maintained content on future elections. In fact, the Wikipedia:Articles on elections page demonstrates that there is communal consensus to maintaining content on upcoming elections. Maintaining content before and election is specifically discussed. Perhaps others have some guidance for me? --Ds13 (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Mkdw. Wikipedia is not news. Sprinkling in all this obscure detail about the number of board trustees, etc... into a general article about the city adds length to the article with no general value. On an article about the city's election, there might be a place for it, but very little in the way of the contemporary city electoral process belongs in that city's article.--Louiedog (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The note about infrastructure projects as well, which in addition to being strangely sourced, is again very obscure and of no general interest to readers outside of Vancouver.--Louiedog (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreement with NOTNEWS is a given for all of us; it is policy. However, future election content (at least at the national level) has long been acceptable, per the above link. Perhaps some day the municipal level will receive similar treatment, but not by me and not today. Waters have been tested. A couple of weeks from now, we'll likely see the election results appropriately added here anyways. Cheers. --Ds13 (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If the recent attempted contribution is deemed obscure detail, then so is the entire fifth paragraph under Vancouver#Government. That detail is more appropriate at Vancouver municipal election, 2008.

I suggest simply inserting the following after the first sentence in the third paragraph of this section:

The most recent municipal election was held in November 2008, while the next municipal election is scheduled for November 2011.

This would remove all the detail from both the previous and upcoming elections, yet provide interested readers with direct links to the appopriate articles if they want learn more. Hwy43 (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That paragraph should be removed as well. Again, needless obscure detail.--Louiedog (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Gentrification

There's a gentrification of Vancouver article, i was wondering if we should add a sub-heading and link to it in the urban planning section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbuchanan89 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Vancouver Montage.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vancouver Montage.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Urban planning in Vancouver

Hi. I've seen a couple of recent articles pop up that, I think, are destined to overlap enough to consider a merging. The articles are:

• Gentrification of Vancouver
• Vancouverism

Not exactly the same, but certainly topics that share a lot of history, references, facts, etc. Possibly all under an Urban planning in Vancouver article. Thinking out loud.  ? --Ds13 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I know there has been some discussion in the past about the IPA pronunciation, but in the local dialect it is most certainly /væŋ.ˈkuːvər/, not /væn.ˈkuːvər/. In fact, to those with an ear for phonetics, the "Vang" versus "Van" dichotomy is something of a shibboleth as to whether or not someone grew up there. The addition of many migrants and non-English speakers to the population may dilute the numbers, but the reality is that most locals say "Vangcouver" (following normal assimilation rules), and non-local English speakers for some reason usually say "Van-couver" (breaking with normal assimilation rules). 192.197.178.2 (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I use this as a shibboleth too :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.196.57 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to verify this? Hwy43 (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not exactly going to find an encyclopedic entry on a minor cultural point. Especially one that is intuitive (it is the non-local "Vann-couver" pronunciation which is unusual in English, not the local one -- no one says "bann-king" for banking or tann-ker for tanker). Most any native English speaker from the city will agree with the local pronunciation, but it's not like they're writing journal articles on it. The only academic source I can find is note 117 here: https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/19387/UBC_1975_A8%20F56.pdf?sequence=1 (if the distinction she makes was true in 1975, it's not any more. People will say the standalone city the same way). This commercial source here also mentions the shibboleth phenomenon: http://www.aboutlanguageschools.com/slang/canadian-slang.asp ("The pronounciation of the name of either the city of Vancouver or of Vancouver Island with a soft and almost unnoticable -g- after the 'Van'. The pronounciation is one associated with native-born Vancouverites who use the absence of a -g- to identify outsiders or recent arrivals.") You can find frequent informal mention of the fact around the Internet, such as here: http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/birthdays_Dec.htm (note the entry for December 31; Rafe Mair is a promiment local radio personality); here: http://www.l2accent.com/blog/page/12/ (March 1st entry); the comment of "Lord Iggy" here, noting the shibboleth effect: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=391201; the comment of Vodka-7 here, also noting the shibboleth effect: http://woxy.com/boards/showthread.php?t=28443&page=4, the comments of "pip" and "eila" here: http://corriecanuck.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/update-for-epiosde-6704-september-19-2008/. 192.197.178.2 (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the UBC thesis paper reference supplied for the /væŋˈkuːvər/ pronunciation. Don't get me wrong; I often pronounce it that way and I think many do. But our guideline for reliable sources suggests that "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Also, while I think the author, Jane Flick, is probably correct, I don't think she is notable. It's an interesting paper. Its pages on this topic are 117 and 154. --Ds13 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I selected the first reference from the numerous ones provided by 192.197.178.2 above. Do either of the two that follow qualify as reliable sources? I'm doubtful about the aboutlanguageschools.com one, but the vancouverhistory.ca one seems more promising. The balance are all blog or forum related, so those won't qualify. Hwy43 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would not accept aboutlanguageschools.com since it appears to be a web site based in Spain, selling ad space. And you're right; forum and blog content is useless in a quest for a reliable source. Rafe Mair might be notable. Now, is he or vancouverhistory.ca reliable in this matter? I don't have an opinion any more. Try it and see if it sticks! Cheers. --Ds13 (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears vancouverhistory.ca is a website for Chuck Davis' preparation of the book "The History of Metropolitan Vancouver". Mr. Davis, who passed away in 2011, was the author of 14 other books as well as a journalist, broadcaster, TV producer and historian. The book has since been completed and will be released by Harbour Publishing as "The Chris Davis History of Metropolitan Vancouver". The BC Entertainment Hall of Fame reported on his death, which provided much of the information I've summarized above.

My understanding from WP:PSTS is that if Rafe Mair were to add the pronunciation to the article, that would constitute a primary source. Although primary sources can be considered reliable, it is recommended that secondary sources be used instead. Now vancouverhistory.ca is a secondary source, which may be reliable if Chuck Davis is considered reliable per the information provided above.

As you suggested, I'll re-add based on the vancouverhistory.ca reference. Hwy43 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding the need for a "source" for the way a city's name is pronounced any more than you would need one to prove that the "k" is pronounced at the end of "New York". "Vann-couver" is actually the one that breaks with standard English phonology -- seems to me that would be more likely to need a source. I note in this respect that none of: the correct pronunciation for Spokane; the local pronunciation of Baltimore; or the usual non-French way to say St. Louis are sourced, even though there is some variation in the way non-locals say it. 192.197.178.2 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced because it was removed after the first time it was added despite the initial contributions to this thread already here on the talk page. Hwy43 (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is weak. The UBC thesis pdf says that pronunciation happens more in "Vancouver Island" than when the name of the city is said alone (with stress on first syllable). It sounds like the way a child, a person with a Scottish or other accent, or someone reproducing their childhood pronunciation might say it. I asked my daughters, who were born in Metro Vancouver, about this & they just shook their heads. It's not like the one-syllabled "bank". I find pronunciations just get in the way of reading the lede as it is - and two of them moreso. I am thinking that giving such prominence in the lede to such an uncommon pronunciation could be Undue Weight. Do any other reference works give such a pronunciation?--JimWae (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We have no idea whether Raef Mair said it in jest or not - nor whether Chuck Davis was simply repeating the jest. Some people say ath-a-let-ik, Feb-bur-air-ee, piss-get-tee, and newk-you-lur their whole lives--JimWae (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the source is weak. It is also difficult to interpret, as JimWae has pointed out. If one reads the second clause of that sentence, he says: "and then there’s “Kit-suh-LY-no.” To my mind, this implies that he is mocking the pronunciation and suggesting that it is invalid (for that is certainly the case for the pronunciation “Kit-suh-LY-no”}. I've removed it. Unless someone can find a reliable source for this pronunciation (Vangcouver) we had best leave it out. Sunray (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually did hear an announcer on a Vancouver TV station say something that sounded very much like Veng-kou-ver Giants (notice veng). As the M.A. thesis pointed out, it is more likely someone would rush the syllables with a multiword noun. I will keep listening for this.--JimWae (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Putting the "4th most densely populated in NA" folklore to rest

I removed the sentence that Vancouver was the 4th most densely populated city in North America. Certainly this is true for the US and I can't imagine any cities in Canada that would have density like this besides Montreal or Toronto, but Mexico? This seemed fishy to me, as developing countries commonly have densities that put even New York City to shame. A quick search between the 4 most populated cities in Mexico revealed another two exceptions, aside from Mexico City both more populous and more dense than Vancouver. And even then, there are plenty of cities between 1.5 million and 500,000 to look through. This fourth densest among North American cities over 500,000 simply isn't true.--Louiedog (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The density statement is indeed incorrect, and another of the statistics in the first paragraph is misleading at best. Numerous other cities have been reorganized to include their suburbs, so to rank Vancouver as #8 in Canada may be statistically precise, but is just a meaningless artifact. It compares a limited inner-City jurisdiction with broader swathes of uni-city (behind Mississauga? really??). The metro ranking of #3 in Canada is far more relevant. And for the same reason, the density comparison is also spurious: it compares the inner-City density of Vancouver with the metro density of other regions. While the downtown square mile is densely populated, the rest of the City, and indeed the region, are quite low density, even by North American standards. Add in even just the inner suburbs, and Vancouver will rank as the third largest, and probably 25th most dense in Canada. I suggest we quote the 3rd-largest size, and delete any reference to density. Doc Adams (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, part of the issue here is that there are two competing definitions of North America: to some users, "North America" has more of a cultural meaning, referring to just the major anglophone nations of Canada and the United States, and excludes the rest of the geographic North American continent because of the other countries' cultural linkages with other continents (e.g. Bermuda and Greenland being territories of European nations rather than independent countries; Mexico and Cuba having more in common culturally with South America than they do with most of the US or Canada, etc.) So it's certainly true that the statement as written was problematic and should rightly have been stripped — but the fact that there are two competing definitions of North America is part of where the problem came from. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"there are two competing definitions of North America:"

The article you link to says otherwise, and makes no mention of any standard definitions that omit Mexico. So anyone calling using "North America" to refer to US and Canada is using a nonstandard usage.--Louiedog (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver would be 50th-55th in density in just US + Canada, but is 1st in Canada of any PLACE (not just other Metros) of more than 5,000 (a change from 25,000 in last census). That is indicative of something significant about Vancouver - even if the main significance is chiefly that it has not amalgamated with its surrounds--JimWae (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, that is the primary significance. Vancouver is, as far as I know, one of the only cities among Canada's top 20 or 30 that hasn't had its municipal boundaries expanded significantly to annex one or more former suburban municipalities within my lifetime. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say the non-Mexico usage was standard; I just said that it exists. It's emphatically not the standard, and it's emphatically not the way we should be using the term on Wikipedia — but it's worth understanding that the usage exists, even though it's incorrect. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just sourcing that 4th is wrong within NA regardless of any usage--JimWae (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This was in response to Louiedog's post, not yours. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Btw, whenever did 4th appear in the article, anyway? --JimWae (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Right before lowered it to 5th and 65th before I took it out.--Louiedog (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead statement on Vancouver's population density is still somewhat misleading, since other Canadian cities with more than 5,000 people are simply organized differently. The city of Vancouver is the centre of its metropolitan area with a limited area of the most highly-urbanized land. One point of comparison is Old Toronto, the city of Toronto before amalgamation in 1998, with a population density approaching 7,000 people per square kilometre. Its land area is slightly smaller than that of the city of Vancouver, but it could be expanded those extra 17 square kilometres and probably still exceed Vancouver all things being equal. A.Roz (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Caption Error

The mosaic of photos at the top of the article has the captions for the Lions Gate and Burrard Bridges incorrectly transposed. fishhead64 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. But also - the picture identified as being of Canada Place is not there at all. Instead there's a not-at-all-distinctive view from Granville Street Bridge of George Wainborne Park area. --JimWae (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the photo of Wainborne Park is distinctive enough for inclusion.--JimWae (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

UBC is also not part of Vancouver, but it's still in the montage. Mingmingla (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Images

The article has way too many images. Did you bother discussing it or finding another solution to the too many images problem? No. You reverted it all. You neither addressed the primary problem of the layout or that the article has too many images and too many maps. I urge you to start collaborating and working towards improvements than reverting in clear cases of editors attempting to make the article better. Your make-work attitude in vetoing everything so it comes to a discussion or 'your rule' isn't what this place is all about. The article already talks about the neighbourhoods so having a 3rd and 4th map with streets and neighbourhoods seems excessive. If you truly care so much about the maps then replace the other historical photos with them. Images as described should reveal or example things that cannot be easily explained in the article. Furthermore, this article has considerably more images than the others tagged with {{Too many images}}. Mkdw^talk 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I did not revert it all today, you did. I left the street map that you removed out, removed an image added yesterday by someone else, and re-added just the neighborhood map. Then the database/server screwed up and chopped off the end of the article. The whole process must be very frustrating for both of us when it often takes more than 2 minutes, to save/see any changes.--JimWae (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling me out on being mistaken is a bit much, especially when that's not really the case at all if you look at the time stamps. You reverted my edit yesterday completely with no further changes. I came back, edited the article, and posted here. Around the same time I was wrapping up, you came back to the article. Mkdw^talk 01:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Vancouver's population density

Hi. I just removed the following statement from the article because 1) it is offered without verifiability, and 2) when I searched for a source, it seems Vancouver's density is lower than many (though probably not most) cities.

At 5,335 people per km² (13,817.6 people per mi²) in 2006, Vancouver is more densely populated than most North American cities.

For example, if you look at List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density, you'll see almost 50 cities in the USA with greater population density than Vancouver. Anyways, rather than getting into our own original analysis or synthesis of statistics, I think we need to source a solid statement about Vancouver's ranking in population density to a reliable source. At least the West End must hold some density claim to fame. Thoughts? --Ds13 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I just added a "densest in Canada" fact, with a Stats Can source. Interestingly, Westmount (Quebec) had Vancouver beat in density until 2011. Anyways, this suggests Vancouver would rank very highly in North American density, but still need a source... --Ds13 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood North

I believe written discussion of and analysis of the nickname "hollywood north", is better served to be left on its own page. Brief mention of the nickname in the toronto and vancouver should be adequate as an in-depth page already exists for the nickname and its role in relation to both citiesDuhon (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary with regard to the yearly production is misleading, sorry to say, as there is no falsehood involved. One would hope that you would self-revert. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The way you presented the statement was that vancouver's drop 3rd to 4th ranking was solely due to its decline in domestic productions when in reality if it was not for the 31% increase in ontarios production the ranking would have not changed domestic decline or not. BC's domestic production declined 16% while ontarios overall production increased by 31%. That was the defining factor in the changing of rankings. Regardless my earlier point stands we have the hollywood north article to note these things. The toronto or vancouver pages are for brief mentions not in-depth reviews or statement.Duhon (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What about saying that Vancouver lagged behind Toronto due to fewer domestic productions being filmed on the west coast? Mkdw^talk 21:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't present one side without the other. Like i mentioned Toronto went over a billion in overall production for the first time in years that is arguably the bigger story than the 16% drop in Vancouver's domestic production. Both elements have played a factor in the switch in rankings between the two cities. Either way it seems like the Hollywood North article is or it was slowly being slid into the vancouver page with many of the same facts and and details becoming redundant in both.

If readers need a detailed explanation of the numbers and elements at play behind them they have the hollywood north article they can view.Duhon (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We should not be mentioning what Toronto's film numbers. We don't list the numbers for New York or Los Angeles -- nor do we list the numbers for the 5th place spot. Whether this was a large milestone for Toronto is irrelevent to the Vancouver article. Such information belongs on the Toronto article or subsequent Canadian film related articles. Mkdw^talk 03:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If this article chooses to keep the reference of Vancouver being in 3rd place in 2008 and then slipping to 4th in 2011 without even any mention of who this city it slipped behind is. This is pure and utter hiding of facts out of bias. I say either remove mention of vanoucer ranking 3rd place behind LA and New York in 2008, as well as it slipping to 4th place or mention the city it fell behind. Otherwise this is a blatant disregard of facts. When in the passage above it contains such benign information as the number of production in vancouver in 2008 but apparently the city that overtook vancouver is not worthy of mention.Brodey (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, the only reason you're showing an interest in the Vancouver article is to simply promote Toronto's film industry. It's why you only have ever shown an interest in editing the Hollywood North article for Toronto and why you and Duhon are here in the first place. The conflict of interest is blindingly apparent and frankly your only contributions to Wikipedia have been to the Hollywood North article as far back as 2007. You're suddenly back only when Duhon -- also an editor of Hollywood North from the same time period reemerged which I find highly suspicious. Perhaps I should go to the Toronto page and add a section about how Toronto lagged behind Vancouver for 20 years. Though I suspect I would be met with the same argument that it has nothing to do with Toronto. Mkdw^talk 19:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mkdw that the only reason editors are showing an interest in the Vancouver article is to simply promote Toronto's film industry. Even the name "Hollywood North" which for a long time a reference to Vancouver has been "borrowed" by Toronto to refer to themselves. It's kind of sad really. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I find myself having to side with Brodey on the merits here. Putting the whole "Hollywood North" thing aside (can you say "larger corporate tax subsidies"?), if Vancouver is going to be explicitly ranked against the 2 "higher" cities, it makes eminent sense to note the 3rd city involved. It's a pretty basic question, if A was 3rd last year behind X and Y, and is 4th this year, who is the Z? Obviously there is a rivalry there, that's the whole point of ranking things. So I have no problem with stating that Toronto is the new 3rd place with those short words "behind Toronto" or "after Toronto". Franamax (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Measurements -> rankings -> "rivalry" -> drama.  ;-) The only opinion I have is (when this issue settles down) please ensure the various sections that mention Vancouver's film industry agree with and complement each other. There are currently paragraphs about Vancouver's film industry in 1) the intro, 2) "Economy" section, and 3) "Media" section. Cheers. --Ds13 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself and I personally have no vested interest in promotion of any industry or what have you. When I first became involved in editing the hollywood north article, I had no prior knowledge of any inter-city rivalry. What attracted me to the article at first was how in disarray it was in general and how it was being used perhaps by both sides to push agendas. Regardless, most of my edits on wikipedia in general are to remove elements of bias which often slip their way in to articles, not to add any in. As Franamax talk, has mentioned this article seems to be going out of its way to omit information when it would be common sense to include such information when presenting a ranking and a change of such ranking.Duhon (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Homelessness

The section is too large in comparison to the rest of the article in my opinion. I'm not sure what everyone's thoughts are on this but it seems hugely disproportionate compared to the demographics section. Mkdw^talk 02:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking about that yesterday. I think the title should be changed to "housing", the paragraphs rearranged (housing in general first, then the homelessness problem), and some stuff that doesn't specifically discuss housing in Vancouver removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, do the homeless compose a demographic? I suppose they do. The topic really should be covered in brief somewhere in the article. There's currently no mention of an issue that gets a large amount of media coverage. The Interior (Talk) 02:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The transient population is mentioned in the economics section briefly but the bulk of the contributed material should and has been moved to Demographics of Vancouver. I suppose Economy of Vancouver would be an arguable alternative. Mkdw^talk 04:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

MoneySense

A small magazine study hardly deserves being put inside the lead article of an encyclopedic article. Not only does it seems unreliable but its made very little splash by notable third party sources unlike other ranking studies. The lack of peer review or attention makes it a poor addition. Lastly, this single purpose editor only seems to have an interest in MoneySense making this a candidate for spam. Mkdw^talk 03:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Mkdw, Moneysense is not exactly a "small published magazine"; it has a fair degree of credibility and certainly an established history. Whether the information in question is appropriate for the lead is one matter, but I would strongly disagree with discouraging editors from using Moneysense and I would say that you are mistaken in doing so. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It might be good to have a counterpoint to those Economist ratings, which, if I understand correctly, are from a foreign businessperson's pov (i.e. "best cities to relocate to on the company dime"). The Interior (Talk) 06:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't block consensus on this issue, but I find the lack of attention to this study to be a strong indication of its notability or accurate as a recognized peer reviewed study. For example the Economist study was cited in most media publications when it comes out. MoneySense, couldn't find a single mention. Fine, MoneySense might be a larger publication, but at the same time it doesn't mean its study has all its numbers in order to be inclusive. Mkdw^talk 22:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Too many photos

I move to suggest that CanadaRed's additions do not satisfy WP:PERTINENCE. There are many images that I argue are not directly relevant, or relevant enough for inclusion for the purposes of illustrating and supporting their sections, as well as adding too many images thus overwhelming the article. Even on some lower resolutions it leaves very large and undesirable blank gaps between written sections to make room for the images running along the side. The MoS specifically warns against this and its why most featured articles have a solid balanced and often never more than one or two images per section. Not 3-4 or even 5 with some of these additions. Mkdw^talk 07:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• First off, you made your edit in bad faith by accusing me of "showing off pictures of my own". That was a direct personal attack, and an incorrect and very much misleading statement. None of those pictures belong to me, are uploaded by me, or have any connection to me whatsoever. They are all images that are in the wikimedia commons and uploaded from various uploaders. Second, direct personal attacks on other editors are against wikipedia policy. Thirdly, the images are relevant and directly related to the article so it does not in any way violate WP:PERTINENCE. Fourth, as far as I can tell, there are no blank spaces created by the addition of any of those images. Fifth, your personal, subjective, and arbitrary dislike of the pictures is not a good enough reason to delete them. CanadaRed (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Also, you made another change in the edit which you have not mentioned and that I would like to discuss. Details about SFU's category rank (i.e. Comprehensive University rank) are irrelevant to an article about Vancouver. There already is a mention about general rank in that section. Further mentions of rank are better placed in SFU's own article.CanadaRed (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I was mistaken about the photos origin. Do not accuse me of personal attacks; please calm down. There are gaps. I can take screen shots at various resolutions but anything over 1280x768 creates blank spaces for the images. Some of the images you added are from items outside of Vancouver. They could be added to their corresponding articles such as North Vancouver. I have removed that one. Also, many of the other photos you added were redundant of ones we already had. For example, we already had a photo of the lions gate bridge. Another one from a different angle is not necessary. Another was a photo of windpalms you put in, except there was already a photo of exactly a windpalm. Not to mention there were right on top of each other. They have been swapped and one removed. The aerial UBC photo was already in the article. You literally took an image already on the article and added it again. The education section doesn't have a photo and could use one, but don't use the one in the infobox. Also, by adding the two beach photos, you pushed the ecology photo down into the climate section due to the stacking images against their sections. If you think some of the photos you want to add are better than the ones currently in the infobox or article, swap them out, but don't add repetitive ones or ones that don't illustrate very much such as adding 2 beach photos when we already have other English Bay and beach photos... I never said anything about not liking them as a reason for removing them, and frankly that assumption about an "arbitrary dislike" is as much as personal attack. Mkdw^talk 09:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to compromise. I understand your point about the windmill palm pictures being redundant, so I haven't changed your edit to that (except for the caption). I do think the beach pictures should remain, as they are different beaches, but I didn't undo the removal of the Stanley park image. I also, didn't undo your removal of the lions gate bridge image. I do think that the UBC picture should remain, as it is so small and barely visible in that collage of pictures at the top. Also, it's an iconic image of both the school and Vancouver. I've taken your advice on moving the kits beach picture into a different section. I haven't undone your removal of the Capilano suspension bridge, but I would like to discuss re-adding it into the sports and recreation section, as it is generally considered a popular Vancouver tourist attraction, and many Vancouverites visit it for recreational purposes (e.g. hiking). What are your thoughts? CanadaRed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The sports and recreation section has three photos at present. I would be in favour more of having a photo of the mountains which also define Vancouver's geography and the Capilano Suspension Bridge technically is not located in Vancouver. I wonder if any others have any thoughts? Mkdw^talk 00:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

GA

I ask this every couple of years but are there editors out there interested in a GA push for this article? Mkdw^talk 05:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Can help with: copyediting, source checks, layout, etc. The Interior (Talk) 22:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vancouver/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Elephantsandbacon (talk · contribs) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	After reading through all seems well.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pending
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Quite a lot of citation needed tags
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Want a second opinion on this one

Hi Elephantsandbacon, thanks for reviewing. Is it possible to get more specific notes here? Question mark symbols kinda don't give editors much to work with. The Interior (Talk) 23:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, those are sections in which I haven't reviewed yet. Hope this helps. elphantsandbacon ^{Care to talk?} 10:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize you were still working on it. The Interior (Talk) 18:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that there are numerous {{citation needed}} tags which need to be addressed before this can pass. TBrandley 18:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to relist this if the reviewer does not return to complete the review soon. Mkdw^talk 08:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion - The citation needed tags indicate that this article is clearly not ready to be a GA. Just fail the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There's at least two editors (Mkdw and myself) willing to dive in on improvements if we can get some specific notes on work that needs to be done. I'll start on some of the CN tags today. The Interior (Talk) 15:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm only seeing one remaining CN tag, for this paragraph: Though polarized, a political consensus has emerged in Vancouver around a number of issues. Protection of urban parks, a focus on the development of rapid transit as opposed to a freeway system, a harm reduction approach to illegal drug use, and a general concern about community-based development are examples of policies that have come to have broad support across the political spectrum in Vancouver.[citation needed] This is a broad statement, as such a bit of a sourcing challenge, but I'll work on it. The Interior (Talk) 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I count four citation needed tags (found quickly using CTRL+F). The one I checked the date on had been there since December. This suggests to me that the article wasn't closely checked before nomination, and I'd also suggest just failing it for now so that any fixes for these won't be a rush job. I'm glad to see there are editors working to improve this one, though, and I hope it'll be renominated soon! Thanks to everybody for their efforts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• The original reviewer, elephantsandbacon, has not edited on Wikipedia since April 4 (after making the second opinion request). With four significant "citation needed" tags still on the article, it's clearly not ready. There has been no action on the article to address these tags, despite their having been pointed out weeks ago and again 10 and 9 days ago, so I'm failing it per the prior second opinion recommendations. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Request Article Title Change

I'd like to request that the article title be changed from just "Vancouver" to "Vancouver, British Columbia". This puts it in line with the "Vancouver, Washington" article and helps the readers more easily discern between the two cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrigel (talk • contribs) 06:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrangled over long ago, you won't get anywhere with that. MOSTCOMMON applies, and the int'l most well known is Vancouver BC, pure and simple. Anyone who knows about Vancouver WA knows that it's not the main place referred to by that name. The previous discussions about this are all archived, maybe someone else will dig out the links for you, it's a moot point and, frankly, not worth raising again.Skookum1 (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Look near the top of the page where there is a link to User:Mkdw/Vancouver why no disambiguation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Population

The ban on population estimates doesn't make sense. The unadjusted census data typically undercount the population. The postcensal estimates take into account CNU (census net undercoverage), and they are more up-to-date. Prairie oyster (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Marine Building

I removed the clause stating the Marine Building was inspired by the Chrysler Building in New York. I don't see how this can be true - the Marine Building was completed in 1929, two years before the Chrysler Building.

Film Industry Nickname?

I attempted to place a citation next to the claim about vancouver having a "film industry" nickname called "hollywood north". What exactly does this claim even pertain to, specifically the claim it is a "film industry" nickname? Which film industry the canadian film industry or the american one? which? It is very vague. The only citation it has is from an un-accessible book from the University of British Columbia.

I know many people who work in the american film industry and have never heard that term with regards to vancouver? Even clicking on the link to the main page it appears to reference a nickname for the entire Canadian film industry and toronto, as well as the fact that the vast majority of references there are from only canadian sources. I believe this sentence should be edited to detail it as a "canadian film industry nickname" at most. Wikispeaks (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit of a hard argument to address. Firstly, sources are rightly the measure of how wide spread the term is and not so much the people you work with. So in regards to the term itself, most sources are Canadian, but plenty are not if you look through all the sources. For example, I did a quick search in foreign media and found this New York Times article, this Reuters India forward from the Canadian Reuters, this LA Times article, this Chicago Sun-Times article, this Chicago Tribune article etc. etc. Secondly, the name is a nickname used outside the industry as well as evident in a lot of regular mainstream news media. To change it to Canadian film industry term when most of the film industry is largely based on the American film industry would be inaccurate and not supported by many sources. Mkdw^talk 22:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well firstly in the sources you provided they seem to make no mention specifically of Vancouver and simply reference Canada as a whole. That does little to further you're argument that Vancouver the city is known by the "industry" nickname Hollywood north. At most you can say film production in canada in general is known as "hollywood north". Not to mention this seems mostly a media driven nickname not an actual film industry one. To try to pertain that this is some city-nickname doted upon the city by the US film industry still rings false. At most this is A) a purely canadian nickname for the city B) A nickname the city has embraced itself. From the Hollywood North Article itself there is no consensus as to what it even pertains too either canada, toronto, vancouver? If the article itself can't even decide who should posses the nickname, how exactly does that support the assertion it is an industry nickname? The passage is misleading leading the reader to assume hollywood itself has given Vancouver such a nickname when there is no evidence for such. Wikispeaks (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

YOur repetitive insertion of the dubious template is becoming an edit war; read the debates on Talk:Hollywood North....the rebranding of the whole Canadian film industry is a media creation, the term originated in Vancouver because of its close airtimes to the actual HOllywood an the greater number of American-oriented/based productions.......it began as a film industry reference to Vancouver, from there the Toronto-centric Canadian film industry liked the term and hijacked the concept and tried to make it about Toronto. Halifax's film industry, by the way, is Haliwood. The ongoing campaign by supporters of the actual Hollywood, California has included attempts to blur the meaning of Hollywood North even more, claiming it applies even to Santa Barbara and San Francisco and to downplay Vancouver's importance and the origin of the term. To me, you are just more of the same; the cites you are demanding and the accompanying debates which prevented that article fomr being hijacked and/or deleted are on Talk:Hollywood North. Please do not add the dubious tag again, as your own motives are somewhat dubious....and you are causing an WP:Edit war.Skookum1 (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Your line "the industry has given itself" is indeed the case.....because those who coined the name were Americans working on set in Vancouver, and why there were even magazines (started by industry people) using this term; "the industry" in Vancouver is rife with Americans; and it applies to their social circle, too, e.g. clubs and restaurants they frequent. This is not something "Vancouver created for itself", it's an organic term that arose from within the film community. I know, I worked in that film community when all this began and have watched the term's meaning and use spread from there. You sound like someone assigned to go after this term and challenge/question it......Skookum1 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears we're arguing two different points. My initial reply was in response to your argument that no one in America uses the term which my sources show as false. If you feel there is a lack of evidence showing Vancouver as Hollywood North, that's a completely different discussion in which there are literally hundreds of sources. Mkdw^talk 19:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added two sources that explicitly name Vancouver as Hollywood North, both are non-Canadian, and reputable sources. Any disagreement must be equally countered with equally reliable and independent sources and not original research or synthesis. Mkdw^talk 19:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this - replaced sources with scholarly publication - as for the statement "In 2008 more than 260 productions were filmed in Vancouver, making it the third-largest film centre in North America - after Los Angeles and New York City - and second only to Los Angeles in television production in the world" ,,,, This does not seem correct as per Princeton University Press.Moxy (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the Princeton source it was published in 2005. I know BC had a massive boom in 2007, but having some 2013 numbers seems preferable as I'm sure that statement is no longer accurate. Mkdw^talk 20:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

My issue relates to the characterization of it as a "film industry" nickname. With the insinuation it was a nickname bestowed upon by the city by a particular film industry. I'm not doubting that nickname exists but as i've mentioned to me it is more of a "media nickname" than an actual nickname used in the film industry. I have yet to see any sources provided to back the claim it is indeed an authentic nickname used within the film industry. The onus lies on that to be proved not to argue how it can be disproved. So as it stands I find the the passage somewhat misleading. Wikispeaks (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

ps. It appears the majority of people who are engaging me in debate here are also major contributors to the actual Hollywood North article and may have some vested biases. I'd appreciate it if we can get some other thoughts and opinions here? Wikispeaks (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Never seen that article - Moxy (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thomas L. McPhail (March 8, 2010). Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends. John Wiley & Sons. p. 29. ISBN 978-1-4443-3030-4.
• David Lavery (15 January 2010). The Essential Cult Tv Reader. University Press of Kentucky. p. 261. ISBN 978-0-8131-7365-8.

What about your vested interests? Why is your usercontributions focussed on this issue? My "vested interests" would be from being a Vancouverite for most of my life, and an eyewitness to the growth of the film industry in Vancouver (which I no longer work in, and was only low-level e.g. bit-part actor, background; when the term originated I worked as editor for a small start-up magazine about the industry that's gone now). The "media nickname" accusation is of course to do with the local film industry being closely tied to the industry and the existence of film-media publications such as Hollywood North Reports. Previous attacks on this term came from a loyalist of the California film industry who seemed to be at war with the term "Hollywood North", challenging its legitimacy.....and you sound just the same. There's some sour grapes in your activities and your arguments; much ado about nothing, or actually about a common and well-established term. Oh "Metro Vancouver" is a media nickname for the GVRD, too, like "Metro" and "Vancity"......."the onus lies on that to be proved not to argue about how it can be disproved" is a nice blanket way of saying "even if you prove I'm wrong you can't prove you're right". But WP:MOSFOLLOW and WP:COMMONNAME applies, the term exists and had staying power. Doesn't matter whether you can disprove its legitimacy or not - because you wash your hands of proving that it doesn't have a right to be used.....which is really what you're saying. So out with it - what are YOUR "vested interests"? Why your one-editor campaign against this term. Whose interests do you represent....and don't claim you're an innocent bystander who's decided this is some kind of worthy cause.Skookum1 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

PS how's the weather in LA these days?Skookum1 (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikispeaks, the sources we have provided ARE other opinions. So far you have only presented your own and nothing in reliable third party sources that support your claims. Mkdw^talk 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Weak claim - Vancouver is the 4th largest producer of films in Canada. Saying it's "one of the largest producers of films" is kind of grasping. Would 5th largest be worth bragging about? Classically only the top 3 are worthy of mentioning in any category, especially with the lack of large cities in Canada. Vancouver is the 3rd largest metro region and isn't even 3rd largest producer of movies. Weak. I really think this is one of those things that only Vancouverites say. Part of the confusion might be because people think Lionsgate is still Vancouver based, and they produce a lot of Hollywood movies. But they moved to the States long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.139.142 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Arts and Culture: Music and nightlife

I suggest making two sections out of this. "Music" and "Nightlife" are two different topics. I continue to change the list of composers to include a) more women, and b) more accurate information about the composers. "Alexina Louie" has not lived in Vancouver since 1980 (according to Wikipedia), and Jocelyn Morlock is a Vancouver-based composer since the mid-1990s who continues to exemplify the Vancouver sound...Runner ups include Jordan Nobles, Stephen Chatman, Keith Hamel, and John Oliver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysonwiki (talk • contribs)

Barry Truax, Randy Raine-Reusch, Barbara Pentland, Elliott Weisgerber (Elliot Weisgerber?), and Murray Schafer come to mind also.Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And yes, the music and nightlife sections shoudl be separated, and maybe classical music from the rest too.Skookum1 (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Date format

JimWae recent changed the dates to MDY. This discussion occurs every couple of years -- and generally because JimWae makes the mass change and someone probably like me reverts it and asks for a discussion. I know he's worked very hard to get all the Canadian articles to go in line with the American style format. The last two discussions, Talk:Vancouver/Archive_8#Date_Format and Talk:Vancouver/Archive_9#Comma_after_year_in_full_MDY_dates ended in stalemate or consensus for the British format. Essentially Canadian articles have the choice between the American and the British format. It's not the end of the world to use either and since JimWae has changed most of the other Canadian formats to the American it has it's merits. I still think a new consensus should be found rather than outright making the change even though this consensus has been done against them in the past. I feel like then it won't feel as pushy from both sides. 15:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

UBC in photo in infobox

I mentioned this a few years ago but it got no traction. The photo in the infobox features, among other things a picture of UBC and the endowment lands. UBC is not strictly speaking in Vancouver. It would be a bit like putting in a photo of SFU (in Burnaby) or Steveston (in Richmond). From a larger view, sure, they are in Metro Vancouver. This article, however, is not about Metro Vancouver but the city proper. The photo needs to change, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingmingla (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you make an alternate collage we can poll the editors about it. Mkdw^talk 18:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to, but I'm afraid I lack the skills. Mingmingla (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

London

I think there is a wrong London link in the first section. Is another London (one in Canada) meant? Someone should correct it, I dont know which London is meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.93.223 (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The right London is being linked. The one in the UK. Mkdw^talk 00:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sister Cities

NightShadow23, it's great that you have this information about Vancouver and Sochi maybe becoming sister cities in the future, but we should not say in this Wikipedia article that they are sister cities until they are in fact sister cities. The reference you provided only states that they are currently evaluating an agreement to possibly become sister cities in the future. This also means that they may not become sister cities at all. If we say that they are already sister cities, it is factually incorrect. Keep your eye on this situation and only add the information back into the article once it becomes official.Air.light (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hello. Please see the second proof link (russian language).
  UPD: added another proof link: Sister cities/Sochi (russian language) NightShadow23 (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that there is no information about this sister city arrangement anywhere on the internet that I could find, in English, in Canada. The one website you have mustered apparently says that there is an agreement but to me it seems quite sketchy to say that it is sufficient "proof" of this supposed agreement. Why is there no mention of this in Canada? Was Canada and Vancouver not made aware of this agreement? To have something like this in the Wikipedia article for Vancouver, it should have a little more evidence supporting it. I do not want to get into an edit war with you so I will not continue to remove it just to have you keep on putting it back up.

What do others think?Air.light (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Air.light & NightShadow23: my name is Jhenifer Pabillano and I'm the social media strategist for the City of Vancouver. I'd like to clarify that the City's protocol office has confirmed that we are NOT sister cities with Seoul, Korea and Sochi, Russia, and we would like to see them removed from the Sister Cities section. The City only has 5 sister cities and we haven’t entered into a sister city agreement since 1985. It is very confusing for cities who have made a sister-city request to think that we have two new ones.

I'm new to Wikipedia so let me know if any more info is needed. Thanks! Jhenifer (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jhenifer: Thank you for helping to contribute to Wikipedia. It is very difficult to authenticate your identity here but there does not seem to be any readily available information from the City of Vancouver on the issue (e.g. website or press release). I will go ahead and remove the two sister cities from the listing as they have yet to be verified. The gokuban.ru references used for Sochi are actually available in English as well at http://www.gokuban.com/activity/blood-brothers/ where it does not list Vancouver for Sochi. Mkdw^talk 18:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Thanks for the clarification. The last major public mention of sister cities is in an administrative report from 2008, which lists our existing sister cities and the moratorium placed in the 1980s. Sochi and Seoul are not included. It is already linked as reference 200 on the Vancouver Wikipedia page: http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20080311/documents/a14.pdf

To verify my identity, you can check out the directory/org chart on the City's website, where I am listed as the City's social media strategist: http://app.vancouver.ca/QFOrgChart_net/default.aspx?id=585

The main page for the City's directory is also here: http://app.vancouver.ca/qf_net/Default.aspx

Let me know if you need anything more!

Jhenifer (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jhenifer: Thank you for providing those links. The biggest challenge for us is to verify who actually operates the Wikipedia account User:Jhenifer. While most people are honest, sometimes people make claims, even with links on their Wikipedia userpages claiming to be someone or a person who represents a company, but in fact do not end up being connected. If you really wanted to assert your connection to your Wikipedia account, the best form of 'proof' would be on your City of Vancouver profile to state or provide a link to your Wikipedia account. That provides a two way authentication. That being said, I do not think you need to do that necessarily. There are also quite a few reasons why you may not want to do that. Paid editing and conflict of interest (and even conflict of influence) are considered a very controversial issues and the City may want to avoid it. While you may not break the 'rules' around it, it may become something that draws public attention and sometimes criticism. I don't mean to scare you off with it, but it's definitely something you should be aware when you make the choice on how to best proceed. The Wikimedia Foundation does have a system that allows people and companies to address concerns and issues they find on Wikipedia through a ticket system called WP:OTRS. The system is quite flexible and can handle a great number of things. It may be one venue the City may want to explore in the future. In any regard, welcome to Wikipedia and you, yourself, as a person are always welcome to edit Wikipedia and the talk page for articles about the City are definitely a good practice to continue knowing your affiliations. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 21:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Got it. Well, I can't do that for vancouver.ca but I have edited my userpage and put a link up on my personal website to verify my identity if that helps.

* http://pabillano.com/about/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jhenifer

Your guidance is very much appreciated btw! I don't mind verifying. I very infrequently edit Wikipedia and am very conscious of conflict of influence. Hopefully this identity verification will help more clearly outline my commitment to transparency and good behaviour. :)

Jhenifer (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"an alternative to sprawl"????

"Vancouver is characterized by high-rise residential and mixed-use development in urban centres, as an alternative to sprawl" Really? I had to guffaw when I saw that; apparently this is about only the City of Vancouver and the writer of the reference was oblivious to Surrey, Langley, Maple Ridge, PoCoMo et al. The vanity of the "Vancouverism" myth is kinda humourous if it weren't so deluded. Self-serving architect's babble is what I see in that claim. Surrey and Langley are "LA with rain".Skookum1 (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move underway on Talk:Stanley_Park (disambiguation)#Requested moves

Please note the current RM on Talk:Stanley Park (disambiguation)#Requested moves re adding comma-province disambiguation back.Skookum1 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for a recycling related page?

Hi I'm a UBC student designing a wikipedia page for a science class. My topic is recycling in Vancouver. Do you have any suggestions for recycling-related things in Vancouver that need a page or can anyone suggest a page that needs work? Thank you - Sci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencegeek3332 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected to force participants in the edit war to come here and discuss. --John (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion about infobox flags at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal regarding flag icons in infoboxes. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of Vancouver's Sḵwx̱wú7mesh name

Specifically about this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vancouver&oldid=669701041 . I feel that we should be re-adding the section that was removed in this edit, seeing as there are a lot of sources other than Tumblr - say, for example, the road signs on the Sea to Sky highway. http://skookumpete.com/squamish.jpg and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Bilingual_road_sign_in_squamish_language_1.jpg are examples of this. There's really no good reason to not include one of the local indigenous names for the city in the article, seeing as the area went under that name for centuries, if not millennia, before anyone called it Vancouver. 50.68.50.161 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This could be added to the article Nicknames of Vancouver but it will need a reliable source. While I don't discount the authenticity of those signs, they do not imply official status and potentially cycle close to original research. Mkdw^talk 20:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Latitude incorrect on map

The correct coordinates for Vancouver are 49.246292° N, 123.116226° W. I can not edit as the page is locked.

Thank you 162.156.79.135 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that confirms these coordinates? Mkdw^talk 15:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.latlong.net/place/vancouver-bc-canada-2279.html

This website is reliable. Thank you. Right now the coords are showing Vancouver further east than it is on the map. 162.156.79.135 (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing the field so it was longm=1 put it in Burnaby and longm=11 put the marker in UBC. You can't use anymore digits in the box than that. Mkdw^talk 18:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it uses the DMS long and lat which according to your source is correct. Mkdw^talk 18:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to move the little red dot on the picture of the map? It is showing the location of Vancouver inland and to the east. The red dot should be on the south west coast of BC. Thanks for you help -this is my first experience using Wikipedia. 162.156.79.135 (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the main Canada location map was resulting in the pin in the wrong location. I switched it to use the Western Canada location map for now, which places the pushpin in the right location. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 162.156.79.135 (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Geology

The well known extreme Cascadia subduction zone risk of a mega-earthquake (9+ possible) and associated tsunami needs to be covered. Vancouver is ill-prepared for this and its high population, high-rise glass buildings and low-lying coastal make this an important issue. The proximity to Mt Baker is also a factor that is neglected in terms of environment threats. DavidCampbell99 (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on Vancouver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131127111609/http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/heritage/casestudies/970Burr.htm to http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/heritage/casestudies/970Burr.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111125152652/http://vancouver.ca/erc/pdf/verc_report.pdf to http://vancouver.ca/erc/pdf/verc_report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150703235829/http://www.irpp.org/choices/archive/vol15no7.pdf to http://www.irpp.org/choices/archive/vol15no7.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090929083016/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/09/25/bc-gay-couples-divorce-canada-marriage.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/09/25/bc-gay-couples-divorce-canada-marriage.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060813174549/http://www.rbc.com:80/economics/market/pdf/house.pdf to http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/house.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110728024337/http://www.bivinteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2357&Itemid=46 to http://www.bivinteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2357&Itemid=46
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090613000122/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/09/21/bc-pivot-housing.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/09/21/bc-pivot-housing.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120807010711/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002692 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002692
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917205114/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/canadavotes/ridings/ to http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/ridings/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120419062930/http://vancouver.ca/publications/pdf/COVannualreport2005.pdf to http://vancouver.ca/publications/pdf/COVannualreport2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080430133223/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/01/12/bc_crime20060112.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/01/12/bc_crime20060112.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090505214307/http://www.army.gc.ca:80/lfwa/what_is_lfwa.asp to http://www.army.gc.ca/lfwa/what_is_lfwa.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090506110111/http://www.army.gc.ca:80/lfwa/units_city.asp to http://www.army.gc.ca/lfwa/units_city.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706184233/http://www.bcyuk.legion.ca/node/745 to http://www.bcyuk.legion.ca/node/745
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110416105557/http://www.fisabc.ca:80/About-FISA/History to http://www.fisabc.ca/About-FISA/History
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060827080236/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/music/soundandfury.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/soundandfury.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930033715/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1SEC842192 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1SEC842192
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228195513/http://www.vancouver.com:80/movies/hollywood_north/vancouver_film_industry_overview/index.htm to http://www.vancouver.com/movies/hollywood_north/vancouver_film_industry_overview/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130204043130/http://investincanada.gc.ca/eng/publications/british-columbia-profile.aspx to http://investincanada.gc.ca/eng/publications/british-columbia-profile.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605031124/http://www.canadasoccer.com/news/viewArtical.asp?Press_ID=2610 to http://www.canadasoccer.com/news/viewArtical.asp?Press_ID=2610
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090827064945/http://www.welcome.city.yokohama.jp:80/eng/tourism/mame/a3000.html to http://www.welcome.city.yokohama.jp/eng/tourism/mame/a3000.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Terminal City

Does this term really refer to Vancouver? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a long held nickname - see the name of the roller derby league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.213.73 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Vancouver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070718061334/http://home.istar.ca:80/~bthom/LONGTERM-FIN.htm to http://home.istar.ca/~bthom/LONGTERM-FIN.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091125034053/http://www.gastown.org:80/history/index.html to http://www.gastown.org/history/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604141209/http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/07/30/bc-090730-heat-record.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/07/30/bc-090730-heat-record.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111125151335/http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/winners/categorydata_e.html?SelectedCategory=4 to http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/winners/categorydata_e.html?SelectedCategory=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060813174549/http://www.rbc.com:80/economics/market/pdf/house.pdf to http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/house.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vancouver. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140410173607/http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=5933042&Data=Count&SearchText=Vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=5915025&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=Vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Visible%20minority&Custom= to http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=5933042&Data=Count&SearchText=Vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=5915025&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=Vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Visible%20minority&Custom=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Only passing reference to real estate prices

Vancouver is in the grips of an accelerating real estate speculative bubble[1]. When factoring in average wages, it is the third least affordable city in the world[2]. This should be added to the article IMHO.

[1] Yes, there’s a housing bubble. No, Ottawa has no clue what to do [2] Vancouver ranks third most unaffordable housing market in study, worse than New York and London

Topher67 (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

look at a map yourself & check sources

Vancouver is not on the border. I live south of Vancouver & still in BC. Also Edmondton & Calgary have more people according to linked article List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population.--JimWae (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Vancouver"

I have corrected the pronunciation so that it now shows /vænˈkuːvər/ as the only pronunciation of this city's name. This is consistent with the already-included audio file.

The article previously gave two pronunciations, either /væŋˈkuːvər/ or /vænˈkuːvər/ (in that order). To the best of my personal experience living in Canada and interacting with Canadians, only the /n/ pronunciation is normally heard. If anyone can find a reliable source to cite here, that would obviously be desirable, but unfortunately such sources are not widely available for pronunciation issues like this.

Note that these two pronunciations are easy to distinguish: the /æŋk/ cluster in North American English routinely incorporates a y-glide — /æʲŋk/ — that is not present when a Canadian says /vænˈkuːvər/, and the sequence /æn.k/ (which doesn't have the y-glide) normally occurs only at a morpheme boundary — e.g., in a Dutch name starting with "van" (and the city's namesake, George Vancouver, was indeed of Dutch ancestry). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you look through the talk page history before your bold edit? I recommend you review Talk:Vancouver/Archive 9#Pronunciation. Hwy43 (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"the /æŋk/ cluster in North American English routinely incorporates a y-glide — /æʲŋk/ — that is not present when a Canadian says /vænˈkuːvər/" — perhaps not present among the general Canadian populace, but I assure you that Vancouverites very frequently pronounce it /æʲŋk/ with the glide (I have been living here since birth). At the very least, I believe this local pronunciation merits a side mention. EDIT: A recording of the local pronunciation can be found on Wiktionary. And although not a definitive source, you can listen to our mayor pronounce Vancouver here and here (slow down the videos to half speed). 50.67.28.250 (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted my earlier change just now. FWIW, I tried to find a pronunciation in an encyclopedia or dictionary published in Canada, but I was unsuccessful (the reference works at my nearby university library didn't show a pronunciation for this word). I'll continue looking. If anyone has access to works such as the Canadian Oxford Dictionary or the Gage Canadian Dictionary and can report here on what (if anything) they say about the pronunciation of Vancouver, this might be useful as a RS to add to the article, though at this point I would not propose to change the text to list only one pronunciation on this basis alone. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edit for "Architecture" section ...

With the recent completion of the Trump Tower, perhaps somebody could edit this section and add a reference to its place as the second-tallest building in Vancouver now. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradross63 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Vancouver. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227013354/http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/history/acquisitions/retail/woodwards.asp to http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/history/acquisitions/retail/woodwards.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911062907/http://www.britishcolumbia.name/facts.htm to http://www.britishcolumbia.name/facts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609134613/http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=882&lang=e&dCode=0&StationName=VANCOUVER&SearchType=Contains&province=ALL&provBut=&month1=0&month2=12 to http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=882&lang=e&dCode=0&StationName=VANCOUVER&SearchType=Contains&province=ALL&provBut=&month1=0&month2=12
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511224616/http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=888&lang=e&dCode=0&StationName=VANCOUVER&SearchType=Contains&province=ALL&provBut=&month1=0&month2=12 to http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=888&lang=e&dCode=0&StationName=VANCOUVER&SearchType=Contains&province=ALL&provBut=&month1=0&month2=12
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512003233/http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=820&lang=e&dCode=0&StationName=VANCOUVER&SearchType=Contains&province=ALL&provBut=&month1=0&month2=12 to http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=820&lang=e&dCode=0&StationName=VANCOUVER&SearchType=Contains&province=ALL&provBut=&month1=0&month2=12
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311082733/http://www.rebgv.org/news-statistics/metro-vancouver-home-buyers-set-record-pace-february to http://www.rebgv.org/news-statistics/metro-vancouver-home-buyers-set-record-pace-february
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091227122715/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=245b1dc8-1b43-46cb-bd84-6e78ab8a5afb&k=54140 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=245b1dc8-1b43-46cb-bd84-6e78ab8a5afb&k=54140
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604123009/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ad56af4e-0f14-4717-9603-5fe5a0713e4c&k=51576 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ad56af4e-0f14-4717-9603-5fe5a0713e4c&k=51576
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728104509/http://memorybc.ca/townley-matheson-and-partners%3Bisaar to http://memorybc.ca/townley-matheson-and-partners%3Bisaar
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110115171531/http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo27y-eng.htm to http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo27y-eng.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721180032/http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/features/newhongkong/story.html?id=011b7438-172c-4126-ba42-2c85828bd6ce to http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/features/newhongkong/story.html?id=011b7438-172c-4126-ba42-2c85828bd6ce
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=5933042&Data=Count&SearchText=Vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1Lang%3DE&Geo1=CSD&Code1=5915025&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=Vancouver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Visible%20minority&Custom=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210012845/http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/about/factsandstats.aspx to http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/about/factsandstats.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211153956/http://e-flux.com/shows/view/2452 to http://www.e-flux.com/shows/view/2452
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100301041038/http://www.bctitans.ca/index.php/about/presidents-message to http://www.bctitans.ca/index.php/about/presidents-message
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101184300/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=0a120960-f84f-4be8-a965-320e1ae147d1 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=0a120960-f84f-4be8-a965-320e1ae147d1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717113427/http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=eee5654b-03e0-4dc3-8e3c-c116ee68a15c&k=82271&p=2 to http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=eee5654b-03e0-4dc3-8e3c-c116ee68a15c&k=82271&p=2

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) 14:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vancouver. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.6717000.com/newsArticle-1945.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111105042253/http://1canada.ca/?p=1159 to http://1canada.ca/?p=1159

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) 16:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vancouver. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://webcat.vsb.bc.ca/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=R479024780Y42.20910&profile=ls&menu=tab8&ts=1479024780558
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120613192726/http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/10221148/light-rail-vs-trolley-bus to http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/10221148/light-rail-vs-trolley-bus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125152439/http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/plans/2010_10_year_plan/Appendices/appendix%20d/Toms%202010%2010%20Year%20Plan%20for%20Workshops%20Jun%2009%20v2.ashx to http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/plans/2010_10_year_plan/Appendices/appendix%20d/Toms%202010%2010%20Year%20Plan%20for%20Workshops%20Jun%2009%20v2.ashx

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) 07:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Skyline Pic

I am just saying that we have used this skyline pic at the top for the longest time and it should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert368 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I made a new one with the permission of tourism vancouver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert368 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Albert368: Hello, I’m notifying you that I have reverted your uploaded image of Vancouver’s skyline back to a previous version. Their file is a duplicate of File:Vancouver photo montage.jpg, which was already released under a free licence. As a reminder, there is no reason to update the skyline picture (in this case, a montage) with a non-free licenced image. Tinh1000000 (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Vancouver ranks third in film production

The article leaves readers that Vancouver is the top film producing industry in North America. The city of Vancouver has always fallen behind New York and Los Angeles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornell ASU (talk • contribs) 23:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

GDP

First of all, the source for the GDP figure in this article's infobox is dead and the archive doesn't work because it's an interactive map. Also, why is the GDP on the Economy of Vancouver article using a more recent 2017 source that's different from the 2014 one on the main page? YVRtv (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"unceded territory"

This is not a fact suitable for inclusion. The book cited is not a legitimate source of information about land claims. No Court in Canada, nor the Parliament, etc. has accepted this claim. It's the same as if the Freemen on the Land declared their homes "unceded territory." It's that illegitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A34:D600:886C:7D01:6A3:CE99 (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Unceded" means there isn't a treaty - which there isn't for this area of land (and most of BC), whereas the numbered treaties, for example, cover most of Western Canada.Here the City of Vancouver recognizes that it is on unceded land:https://globalnews.ca/news/1416321/city-of-vancouver-formally-declares-city-is-on-unceded-aborginal-territory/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.134.118 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The "unceded" concept certainly needs unpacking and contextualization if it's to be included here but you're incorrect.

A) The nature of indigenous rights to land is inherently supported by archeological evidence of continuous use stretching back centuries at a minimum. Here, around the Burrard inlet, findings like the Marpole settlement, burial mounds, clam gardens etc. support this. Also few to no treaties were signed in B.C. and the ones that were (like the Douglas Treaties of the 1850s) were obviously crafted by governments in bad faith and often accepted under coercion or false premises.

B)The legitimacy of the claims is not dependent solely on Canada's official recognition of these claims, much like Jair Bolsonaro's non-recognition of indigenous peoples or their land rights in Brazil does not affect the recognition of those people or their rights from the perspective of more impartial observers at the global level.

C) Comparison to "Freemen on the Land" is inappropriate. The rights to self-determination of nations/peoples with millennia long continuity and histories of highly developed economies/politics/cultures are not in the same category as the purported rights of individual nation-state citizens who decide they don't believe in laws (e.g. wanting to own a society-built car and drive on society-built roads but not follow society-dictated speed limits?? hmm)

--Skogsdyr (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

unceded is easily verifiable and part of habitual land acknowledgements. It is easy to check that no treaties apply to the land on which Vancouver stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.134.118 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone with an account edit this fact in?

From June 7 through July 5 it does not get completely dark at night, getting no darker than astronomical twilight. Or is this minimal amount of twilight insignificant due to it being indiscernable from night to all but astronomers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.207.61 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2019

Put the {pp} template on there. Mr. Juicyfun ^{(Obliterator time!)} 18:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Vancouver Titans (OWL)

The Vancouver Titans venue needs to be updated to Rogers Arena. ThisIsAPug (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Halkomelem Name of Vancouver

I propose adding the Halkomelem/Musqueam name for Vancouver either within the indigenous name subtitle (akin to the Seattle and Hialeah pages), within the etymology page (akin to the Calgary page), or within the body of the article (akin to the Minneapolis page). The Halkomelem people have referred to the area where Vancouver resides in currently as Lhq’á:lets, which means "wide on the bottom/end" referring to the placement of the city at the mouth of the Fraser River. If there are alternate methods of including this information, I would greatly appreciate being informed of such. Ornithoptera (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Montage

Hello, I have noticed that a couple of the images in the montage are from nearly two decades ago now, and I find it more suitable to update the images to ones that were taken within the last decade. Here is my suggestion:

From top, left to right: Yaletown, Robson Square, Millennium Gate in Vancouver's Chinatown, University of British Columbia, Lions Gate Bridge, totem poles in Stanley Park.

--Ikon21 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think the Millennium Gate picture is too dark, and The Lions Gate bridge photo doesn't bring out the bridge clearly enough. Just personal preferences. Curiocurio (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Changed the Lion's Gate Bridge image. As for the chinatown gate, it was already included in the montage. --Ikon21 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That's great! Curiocurio (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Montages are a bad idea. They typically show things that only locals know, with no explanation of their significance, and with images too small to help the reader learn anything. (NOTE: I have said this in several other city articles. Not singling out Vancouver.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting getting rid of montages altogether and replacing it with a single image or something? Montages provide the readers with a glimpse of the city's most famous sights and if an image from the montage were to catch somebody's eye, then they can go over to the caption and click on the article about the subject and learn more. --Ikon21 (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Get rid of montages all together. The article has plenty of other photos to catch a reader's attention. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ikon21: "Did I check the Talk page?" No I hadn't, and didn't even know a discussion had been started, and now I can see why... because you waited a whole TWO DAYS for discussion on the montage before changing it. Classy. That's like TransLink level of consultation. sigh —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding of this, let's not start an edit war. Please keep the conversation a bit less in shambles. Look at San Francisco, see how they handled the inclusion of a montage. Actually, there is no reason to have a montage as this article has multiple pictures of various landmarks scattered, so audience may not be generally inclined to bother about these landmarks as would-be-tourists do. But there needs to be a consensus on how to deal with this, especially on which image to replace the montage with, like replacing the montage with an image of downtown Vancouver. Lemonreader (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lemonreader: @HiLo48:, I have made a bold edit and a formal proposal below to switch to a single image. Input on this would be appreciated. TrailBlzr (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Change visible minority to ethnic minority

Discriminatory and inaccurate use of the term visible minority. This should be changed to the term Ethnic minority. White should also be changed to European, since White is a colonial term and ethnicity that does not represent non-Anglo Saxon Europeans. White is also a term that is used as both in the context of race, people can appear racially white and not be from Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.114.195.73 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Statistics Canada as the source is not discriminatory and thus the term is accurate. StatCan uses the term "visible minority" and changing it to something else would be wrong. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Hwy43 because StatsCan uses this across the whole of Canada and the readers of this article are often foreigners and expect consistent use of language when looking at cities in the same country TheKevlar 00:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"Unceded" in the lead

Hi everyone, FYI as Magnolia677 pointed out, there is a discussion at the Canadian Wikipedians noticeboard regarding the use of "unceded" in the lead section of articles about Canadian cities. I have just commented there regarding Vancouver. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Vancouver, as in most of BC, it is uncontroversial to characterize the land as unceded. Status of First Nations treaties in British Columbia provides some context; the BC Treaty Commission's FAQ provides some more. Cobblet (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

If the entire province is "unceded", this information would be more appropriate on the provincial article, instead of added to individual articles about places in the province. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn't the case that the entire province is unceded; more importantly, different groups have claims in different areas. Claims specific to a location should be discussed in that location's article. Cobblet (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is a land claim notable in the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think unceded is appropriate in the lead as politicians and many local institutions make opening acknowledgements. The sources could be improved though, as the Smithsonian Magazine reference isn't "scholarly" and gives an elementary error in the first sentence. Curiocurio (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That's true, my bad. I found the source on Google Scholar and made the hasty assumption that it was therefore scholarly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Land claims are a notable current issue at the local level, especially in BC, and reflect an important aspect of local history. I've provided a better reference. Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There was rough consensus at Canadian Wikipedians' notice board not to include "unceded" in the lead. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That consensus applied only to communities where the use of the term "unceded" does not reflect NPOV. In Vancouver and most of BC, it does. Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree - I read that conversation carefully and there was a pretty even split between editors who felt it should be included in the lead and those who felt it shouldn't be. Furthermore policy isn't made by this kind of noticeboard discussion anyway. Policy is that each article cover aspects of the topic of that article with due weight. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Unceded should be left in because inside the municipality most Federal government media releases start with "... traditional unceded territory... " TheKevlar 00:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not follow what municipalities and government agencies do. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It is noteworthy regardless of what some Wikipedians claim. This is a question: Are we here to judge or record history? TheKevlar 20:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)