Talk:Uplands, Greater Victoria

message: The artice states that there is a Golf Course in Uplands, when in fact, Uplands Golf Course is outside of the Uplands Development, as it is on the West side of Cadboro Bay Road. The boundary of Uplands is generally considered to be anything East of Cadboro Bay Road, North of Dorset Road and South of the Junction of Beach Drive and Cadboro Bay Road.
The author also states two by-laws exsist (one dealing with hanging laundry, the other with keeping your yard neat and tidy), Uplands does not have it's own by-laws as it is not a recognized jurisdiction. All by-laws applicable to the area are under the Municipality of Oak Bay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.15.97 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uplands - incorrect information 

message: Only because this is a legitimate actual neighbourhood and its planning history is notable, I haven't trrimmed it of a lot of buzzword-type dsecriptions as with James Island and Bear Mountain; I'll be back to look more closely at this, but at present it still reads like promotional materail; in no small part because out of all Oak Bay's neithbouhoods only it and Willows Beach haev writeups, as if only they mattered.  I wish realtors would use their p.r. budgets by actually buying ads instead of paying staff to complose poorly-guided free Wikipedia items....Skookum1 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles and content which are clearly advertising/commercial are deleted right away, same as copyvio.  This is all about WP:MOS and WP:What Wikipedia is Not.  Broadmead etc was CLEARLY commercial promotional in nature and had no redeeeming qualities; if it had any it would have remained; Ten Mile Point, to me, should be merrged to Cadboro Bay, unless it's officiall a neighbourhood of Saanich, which I doubt; spewy content about beautiful setting and stuff applies to anywhere in British Columbia, and Ten Mile Point is no more breathtaking than anuy othjer part of Saanich's coastline, never mind BC's.  Overblown hype is overblow hype; Ten Mile Point is mostly notable, Wiki-wise, for being where STeve Nash and Nelly Furtrdo maintain BC digs; and no I didn't just visit Victoria and take a look around; I've lived in the bloody place, more than once, and though I don't live there now it doesn't matter; the perrson who deleted Broadmead-Sunnymead was from somewhere else in the Wikiverse, doesn't matter where; I posted my reason for a deletion, and a cruising admin agreed and applied Wiki rules.  That's the way it works, whether you like it or not.  All articles get vetted for content, and what there is has to be presetned in a certain way.  NOT like a sales pitch....Skookum1 (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd also stress that both this article and Ten Mile Point cite no sources at all, which means they also violate WP:V and WP:RS — and as a consequence, under current Wikipedia rules they're both deletable in their current form. I'm not going to nuke them right now, because I'm not familiar enough with the topics to know how salvageable the articles are or aren't, but Skookum1 is wholly correct that Wikipedia has certain rules about the writing tone and presentation of our articles. They are uncomfortably close to developer marketing materials in some spots, and that's not appropriate. Our articles need to maintain a neutral point-of-view which is supported by verifiable and reliable sources about the topic, and need to be written in an encyclopedic tone. 207, please read up on our policies and style guidelines, because while I sympathize with the fact that you worked hard on these and feel like your work is being attacked, Wikipedia content is evaluated according to its conformance with Wikipedia policy, not according to notions that we necessarily have to keep everything just because someone took the time to add it. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: YOu just don't get it; Bearcat's also tried to explain it to you; Wiki articles are not governed by those who live there, or "those who know best" (ahem).  My "own" articles have been extesively written and decfonstructed and remade and wikified, the parameterrs invovled are standard content/format issues necessary to the maintenance of Wiki's overall quality and reliability.  And there are rules about what is and is not allowed.  No, I'm not a Wiki dog- Wiki god's are admins, and they're the ones who do the deletions and the final calls on what's advertising and what's not, what's within the guidelines.  I suggest you read them before you do too much more complaining; I've told you eslewhere you don't ahve a right to "own" these ar4ticles and the fact is they were not written according to the way things have to be; otherwise everybody would poast anythign, right?  So pelase read up onWP:MOS and the links Bearcat has placed eslewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: De=advertorialize

message: Perhaps the section “The Songhees continue to…but they did start to notice the bones.”  would be better placed on a Wikipedia page       
on the Douglas Treaties, or land claims, as it refers to the Douglas Treaties that apply to more areas than Uplands.   
Also, this section mentions “Victoria’s historic neighbourhoods.”  Uplands was developed relatively later compared to other parts of greater Victoria, so it is not clear the author is referring to Uplands, or more generally to greater Victoria.
This section does not have a citation. One of Wikipedia’s core content policies is that statements need to be verifiable, based on reliable published sources.
--Sunsonn (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Douglas Treaties