Talk:Vancouver/Archive 5

message: The talk page has been archived in Archive 4. Langara College 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Is there a source for the claim that Simon Fraser was held captive by First Nations people?  Absent this, I will remove the assertion.  Fishhead64 08:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the Greater Vancouver Book. Bobanny 09:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taken captive by natives?

message: I removed the line claiming Vancouver has one of the largest gay communities in North America as it is simply untrue. There are dozens of cities in North America (Canada, United States and Mexico) with larger gay communities than Vancouver. I feel once again this is an example of Vancouver thinking too much of itself. My opinion after living in Vancouver is that it is a mediocrity of a city. I replaced
the line with a statement that Vancouver's gay community is visible as there is a two-block stretch
on Davie Street that is quite gay-ish, though depressing and shabby. Acapulco, Key West, Chelsea, The Castro or Ste. Catherine Est  it is NOT.
You know, you could have been nice about it instead of using it as an opportunity to express your dislike of Vancouver. Zazaban 01:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the largest gay communities ...NOPE =

message: Is there any reason why this talk page needs to fall under :Category:Wikipedia? Agent 86 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to do with the template  Mkdwtalk 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, it should be removed. This is the only non-wikipedia article in that category, and the nominations page is currently suspended. There seems to be far too much overcategorization of Vancouver project related matters. Agent 86 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: The article has been semi-protected due to recent increases in vandalism to the article. Mkdwtalk 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I just looked at the last 50 edits and must be missing something....are you sure it's not Hollywood North that should be being protected? ;-)Skookum1 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The article was locked due to a string of vandalism long before it was featured. Langara College 05:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protected

message: I've removed Vancouver from Featured article review per WP:FAR instructions regarding 3-month wait on recent promotions.  The FAR is archived here:  Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vancouver.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since none of the locals was interested in expanding the "origins of the city" section and everyone inexplicably seemed satisfied with the former status quo, I was bold and expanded it into a proper "history" section by myself. The source is  in case someone feels the need to correct some details. Thanks for your non-cooperation (slightly sarcastic, I know). Greetings from Europe. --Voyager 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voyager, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you have to consider that the article Vancouver was not written yesterday. It's undergone a peer review, a featured article candidacy, and several archived discussions and finally an unjustified WP:FAR. In the WP:FAR many of the editors as well as WP:FAR regulars explicitly came to a concensus about no need to further expand the origins of the city due to the existence of the article History of Vancouver. Furthermore, in the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vancouver it was mentioned as one of the most common objections that the article was too long, especially the history section. It's the whole purpose why the History of Vancouver was greatly expanded. By changing the section name and adding a considerable amount of non-notable material against the general concensus is in opposition to what Wikipedia is. I've reverting your edits and moving your added material to the correct article: History of Vancouver. Mkdwtalk 11:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Effects of World War II - non-notable? Internment of thousands of Japanese Canadians - non-notable? The oldest television station in Western Canada - non-notable? Incorporation of GVRD - non-notable? Founding of Greenpeace - non-notable? You do seem to have a very strange view indeed. Where exactly does "notable history" end and "non-notable history" begin? The so-called "general consensus" you are referring to was more or less your very own opinion which nobody dared to contradict. I wish you lots of fun and satisfaction with this crippled article because I won't bother you any longer. I will concentrate my efforts on improving the German version instead where it's much less likely I'll have to deal with such stubborn people. Best wishes. --Voyager 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your actions weren't based on missing "notable" information Voyager, but on an abstract idea of a "proper" history section. I dunno, the date the mall opened and the bridge was built didn't seem to add a whole lot to the article without any context. Also, leaving the dirty work to the locals, like troubling with citations, wikifying the date, and making sure additions are consistent with the rest of the article - I don't think would fly on any FA article. Bobanny 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not convinced reverting the changes was the right way to handle this. Voyager has a point about the history section, and it's worth considering rather than just dismissing outright. Additionally, just because the article has had a peer review (etc.) certainly doesn't mean there's not room for improvement. (The lead section is certainly evidence of that, given that it is a bit of a mish-mash of information.) Despite all the hard work that has gone into the article, it is important that we don't get too "close" to it. --Ckatzchatspy 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there's room for improvement, and I attempted to engage with Voyager on his points, only to be told the effort I put into my comments would've been better spent making the changes he wanted. Recalling that citations were a deal-breaker in the FAC process, and one of the toughest critics there raked us over the coals for a lack of narrative structure (ironically the same one who rewrote the intro in its present mish-mash), it seems more collaboration than Voyager was interested in would be appropriate for moving it forward rather than sideways or even backwards. Bobanny 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAR nomination removed

message: The discussion above is truely amazing... There is no need for any flag in the twin-cities section. Cities are twinned with cities, not with countries. What additional information do you think is presented by displaying the little flag next to the city and country name? For a more humorous reflection on this, but still making a good point, take a look at WP:FLAGS.
Mais oui! and Mkdw — you both need to stop the reverts on this article, and the mud-slinging at WP:3RR. If you continue you'll both end up blocked for disruption. Discuss here and leave the article alone (or it'll get protected) until consensus is achieved.
Thanks/wangi 14:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another good point. Getting rid of the flags completely would help to resolve the issue, although there is also the wording which some may object to. I do think the flags look quite pretty tho, personally.... Badgerpatrol 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support removing the flags altogether. I'd also like to mention, as the one who made an issue of this, that a low intensity conflict has been able to go on for a long time on many articles simply because it's off most people's radar. Bobanny 17:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also support removing them, if it's the only way to remove this ridiculous situation where one country i.e. the UK is an exception. Not the sign of a proper encyclopedia IMO. Lofty 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Esthetically, the flags do look nice - but I'd also support removing them until things calm down and we get some feedback from the RfC. The text could easily be written as"The City of Vancouver was one of the first cities in Canada to enter into an international twinning arrangement. There are has created special arrangements for cultural, social and economic benefits with Odessa (1944), Yokohama (1965), Edinburgh (1978), Guangzhou (1985), and Los Angeles (1986)."(Names of nations could be dropped since the pages are linked.) --Ckatzchatspy 17:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Support removal of flags - Anything to end this discussion. Flags are for the symbol minded anyway. =) - TheMightyQuill 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW the Edinburgh page doesn't display the Scots flag, although it does say Edinburgh (pronounced /ˈɛdɪnb(ə)rə/; Scottish Gaelic: Dùn Èideann) is the capital of Scotland and its second-largest city. (bold emphasis mine)  But the Scotland article displays the Scots flag and the Scots coat-of-arms, not the Union Jack.  Seems like the Scots have decided the issue for themselves, at least on their own page.....Skookum1 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whose tub is being thumped, or whose ox is being gored, for that matter.  I'm of Scottish ancestry, and I could not possibly care less since Scotland is a full and equal partner in the United Kingdom - and in fact pretty much took over England when their king succeeded to the English throne.  I'm just interested in maintaining consistency across articles. Fishhead64 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and I'd say the consistency to be maintained is the one expressed by Scotland's own page....Skookum1 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mais oui, Astrotrain and myself (and all from Ed I think)... Although we're all on this article's watch list due to earlier edits (well, I know I am!). Ckatz made a good point above, these cities don't even need a city tagged onto their description - they are all well know cities. Ta/wangi 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the flags per Wangi's proposal and Ckatz's specification. Only support was expressed for the proposal, from both camps, and no objections. Everyone seems thoroughly exasperated by this debate, old hatreds have been reinforced - ahh, the smell of consensus. Thanks evwybuddy ... Bobanny 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes...consensus: where nobody wins, and nobody's happy....one of the ironies that always struck me about it (I was in eco-peace type politics in the early '80s...) was that it was usually "caused" by the stubbornness of someone with a radical opinion who needed pacifying or nothing else could get done....sound familiar?  It's one of the reasons I dropped out of fringe politics (which is still plagued by it, years later....)Skookum1 07:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No need for any flag

message: I see that Vancouver is to be featured on Feb. 7 (Weds.).  I suggest as many of as possible remain vigilant that day for any editorial "amendments" which may be made as a result of the article's higher profile.  Cheers! Fishhead64 01:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He means it is being featured on the main page. Everyone be on your guard. _dk 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... the "Featured article" version has a stronger lead than the actual article. We should consider reworking Vancouver accordingly. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 05:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to be stronger because the obligatory pronunciation and other details have been cut out, so it's more concise. Not sure we could emulate that, though as a reader, I agree it's nicer that way. Bobanny 05:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the IPA - that doesn't bother me. Whoever wrote it, though, has managed (through trimming and rearranging) to weed out several of the things that have been bothering me. The real article's lead is a bit muddled and could use a similar cleanup. (I've been meaning to look at it for a few weeks now, but you know how it is...) --Ckatzchatspy 05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You've got my support. Bobanny 10:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woot~! nice to see my fair city up on the main page, keep up the good work ^^ LG-犬夜叉 09:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article

message: Isn't stargate filmed in Vancouver? That's worth mentioning Tourskin.
:There's a whole category of Vancouver television series and while I don't find any of them particularly worth bragging about, Vancouver's film & TV industry isn't particularly well linked in this article, although it is mentioned in the introduction. Perhaps a link to List of filming locations in and around Vancouver? - TheMightyQuill 02:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stargate 

message: I didn't see any mention of the extreme damage to Stanley park by the two recent winter storms.
Shenme 16:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try as we may, can't get everything in there. It's mentioned in the Stanley Park article, and IMO, is too much a current event to include here. Bobanny 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm damage not mentioned? 

message: I edited the comments which portrayed the Westside as more conservative than it actually is, I think.  All its MPs represent the Liberal Party of Canada (well, except Emerson, of course, but he's a special case). Most (but not all) of its MLAs represent the provincial Liberal Party, which is a defacto coalition of moderates. Fishhead64 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Governance