Talk:Vancouver (disambiguation)

message: Is there any reason this page should not either be the actual location of the article on, or a redirect to, Vancouver, British Columbia with a small disambiguation block at the top? Every link to this page is about the city in BC; it seems to be the natural direct link. --Brion
:After the long lo-o-o-ong debate on naming conventions this subject leaves me gun-shy.  Speaking as the one that's moving everything to Vancouver, British Columbia, I did consider your possibility.  The Vancouver, Washington article does exist and it does have links of its own.  With a population of 144,000 it's likely bigger than all eight Torontos and five Montreals in the United States put together, but it's the only Vancouver in the United States.  Personally, for deciding whether one city should be considered dominant I apply the test of asking myself whether the residents in the very much larger city can reasonably be expected to know about the smaller one.  The people here in greater Vancouver, BC are well aware of the one in Washington.  The two are a six hour drive apart, and both are certainly known along the I-5 corridor of Washington.  That's my 2 cents on this one.  Eclecticology 21:08 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)
::On a certain level that does seem reasonable. However, here in Sacramento, California (further down the I-5 corridor) very few people are aware of the Vancouver in Washington. This is probably the case in most other areas far from the Pacific Northwest of the US. --mav
:::I'm with Mav on this one. The real test is not whether the people who live in one city know about the others, but about whether people who are somewhere else entirely know about it and are going to have reason to link to it. I'm a few more hours down the I-5 from Mav, and I was only peripherally aware that there was a Vancouver in Washington. The very few memories I have of it ever being mentioned are as a curiosity ('oh, hey, apparently there's a city called "Vancouver" in Washington, too'). And at only 144,000, it's just a small town from where I sit. :) --Brion
:Vancouver, Washington has great advantages for people who live there.  It is in effect a suburb of Portland, OR.  They can live in Washington, which has no state income tax, and shop in Oregon, which has no sales tax.  As for the size, I don't expect that there are more than 20 Canadian cities that are bigger than 144,000, so it's really a question of perspective.  All the Vancouver links have been changed to where they belong. You can have your separate disambiguation page for now, but I still think it's pretty useless.  This isn't quite Paris.  Eclecticology 23:30 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)
You are right - this page should be moved to Vancouver (disambiguation) then Vancouver should become a redirect to Vancouver, British Columbia with a disambiguation block at the top. --mav
Page moved. --mav
:Woop! Thanks. --Brion
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old discussions

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose. The 2010 Winter Olympics city is clearly the most well-known. --Usgnus 04:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wiki standard only applies to the United States. Even then, Chicago has its own article, while Chicago, Illinois is a redirect. _dk 23:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus in Canada, there's Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Saskatoon, and Lloydminster. Then of course, internationally, Marseille, Manchester, Busan, Christchurch, Munich, Boma, etc. --Usgnus 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Calgary, Winnipeg, and even Flin Flon have active move requests too. All of them are leaning towards "support". --Arch26 06:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I removed several entries, such as the entire list of sports teams from Vancouver, since they are not serving any readers here on the dab page -- readers looking for a Vancouver sports team are unlikely to enter just "Vancouver" in the search box, and that list is hand;ed well by Vancouver#Sports and recreation and Sports in Vancouver. If needed, a "See also" entry for Sports in Vancouver could be added instead. See WP:MOSDAB for disambiguation page style guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style improvements 

message: What is the problem with modeling the Vancouver disambiguation after the Portland page? They represent comparable situations: Vancouver, WA and Portland, ME are the original cities with those names in North America, but newer cities have grown more prominent. Both cities should be given prominence on a disambiguation page. What's the problem with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pretty clear. The first sentence explains what the undabbed bluelink refers to. Following that are all the other, secondary uses of the name. In the case of Portland (where the search term leads first to a dab page), there are three primary entries with somewhat equal claims of usage. That's not the case for Vancouver - all the available evidence points to a single, globally-recognized primary usage. All the other usages are subsidiary and are equally represented on the dab page linked from the Vancouver article. 128.208, you seem to be conducting this crusade alone - perhaps you might review WP:Consensus to better understand how things work here. Franamax (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Further to this, the top-of-page text conforms correctly with the requirements of the disambiguation page guideline. Pages with "(disambiguation)" as part of their title reflect a subject with a "primary topic"; in this case, the primary topic is the Canadian city. Per the style guide directive:"Since it is unlikely that this primary meaning is what readers are looking for if they have reached the disambiguation page, it should not be mixed in with the other links."--Ckatzchatspy 02:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed at least, that now you're making a real argument. Franamax (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting Vancouver, BC as the sole Vancouver on this page 

message: I'm conducting a new survey since the last was done 3 years ago (an editors lifetime on Wikipedia) at 2009 Vancouver Vs. Vancouver, Washington Survey. Your input would be most appreciated. Mkdwtalk 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This talk page is full of discussions about the location of this disambiguation page.  All of them amount to a debate about whether there is a primary topic for "vancouver", or if there is in fact no primary topic and the disambiguation page should be at the page name Vancouver.  For what it's worth, this is being discussed more generally on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Precedent?.  Compared to other examples there, the page view ratio of Vancouver (disambiguation) vs Vancouver supports the argument that the article now at the page name Vancouver is the primary topic.  For September 2010 the page views ratio was 1519/173135 = 0.9%.  That is low.  69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary topic