Talk:Capital Regional District

message: I suggest that the article Greater Victoria, British Columbia be merged with, and redirected to this one.  Quite frankly, the conflations of these two pages and the Victoria, British Columbia page are a mess.  Any objections if I go ahead and fix things? Fishhead64 07:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victoria, Greater Victoria, and the CRD 

message: (cc'd to Talk:Victoria, British Columbia and Talk:Greater Victoria)
1. Establish as definitively as possible what is considered Greater Victoria. 
2. Then decide whether its article is necessary or whether its theme duplicates much of what is in its component parts/CRD articles. I haven't done a thorough enough analysis yet. If anyone has any cites or thoughts, feel free to share them. 
3. If it's established that the Greater Victoria article is close enough to the Capital Regional District article by geographic theme-- beyond noting the Gulf Island differences &etc-- then I wouldn't hesitate to suggest a merge. This would create an article in the vein of Greater Vancouver Regional District which, one might note, mentions the term 'Greater Vancouver' prominently. A merge does not mean that the material within the Greater Victoria is gone, but that non-duplicate material would be incorporated, into the CRD article. An automatic REDIRECT would be created, thus allowing the term 'Greater Victoria' to forward to 'Captial Regional District'. Also, for added emphasis, an explanatory note within the final article would state the differences.
4. If it's established that the Greater Victoria article isn't primarily duplication that could be included in the CRD in the same manner as Greater Vancouver is forwarded/included in Greater Vancouver Regional District, then it should be kept on its own merits.
5. This whole thing will probably take many days and weeks. That's just the nature of the beast. 
:My first impression is that Greater Victoria is mostly a list, that could be merged with the differences noted.Keefer | Talk 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My own feeling is that the CRD and Greater Victoria are sufficiently different to warrant distinct articles - the exclusion of the Gulf Islands and Sooke and east being the key issue.  Your point on the GVRD is noted, but also note the existence of a parallel article to Greater Victoria, namely Lower Mainland. Fishhead64 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not why I dropped by, but considering the discussion above, the new subcats to Vancouver Island's cat get tangled in the same way; I'll have to read close to see the consensus on what's in Greater Victoria vs what's in the CRD...."Saanich Peninsula" is a subcat of "Greater Victoria" for example; suppose a Western Communities cat also applies.  Also been puzzling on a name for the "Juan de Fuca region", unless that'll do.....and would that include Sooke?Skookum1 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional material

message: This may already be linked, but the CRD natural areas atlas and its sisters on the same page look interesting; the maps are copyrighted but there could be lots of information to help articles with....Skookum1 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CRD online Atlas

message: Capital F, British Columbia, Capital G, British Columbia and Juan de Fuca Electoral Area have no reason to exist as separate articles and should be merged here.Skookum1 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: F, G and and San Juan EAs - merge