Talk:North Vancouver

message: Note:  I intentionally did not make this a disambiguation page, as I believe it should be a general page to refer to the area that includes both the City and the District of North Vancouver. -- Webgeer 18:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that a disambiguation page would be appropriate here. With geographical disambiguation, we are generally discussing similarly named locations that have nothing else in common. (For example, one could make the case for disambiguating "Deep Cove" since there is a Deep Cove in the District of North Vancouver and a Deep Cove on Vancouver Island. Same name, no commonality.) In the case of the "North Vans", we're describing two distinct and independent municipalities that are, in some ways, interdependent. Different councils, bylaws, taxes, but sharing many services such as police and recreation facilities. As well, the two municipalities are adjacent, and (in the minds of many non-North Shore residents) they are one and the same. (Even Canada Post doesn't differentiate - letters are addressed to "North Vancouver" - and you'll rarely see businesses advertise as being in the District or the City.) I would disagree that the article can cause confusion. If anything, it will help to illustrate the differences between the two, while acknowledging their shared features. Nevertheless, your concerns should be addressed, so I have rewritten the header at the top of the page to better clarify the page, and to provide easy access to the specific municipal pages. I hope this helps. Cheers! --Ckatz 07:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason that I think it is important for it not to be a disambiguation page is that we need a general page we can link to when we say someone was born, grew-up in, etc...  In most cases linking to either the city of the district would be somewhat arbitrary and difficult to determine. But if it linked to the disambiguation page that would cause other problems and confusion.   -- Webgeer 18:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've reverted the following material which was added by an anonymous editor (IP 24.80.196.98). It's certainly nothing against the editor, the anonymity, or the content - just that I don't think it belongs in this particular article. The new text is an expansion of what is already touched on in the preceding paragraph, and as such too specific for an article that is meant to be more of an overview of the combined North Vancouvers.
I've also left a note on the IP talk page, and I'll put a copy of the text on the talk page for the CNV article. I'd move it directly into the CNV article, but there isn't such a section yet on that page. Plus, the text could use a bit of a rewrite and some verification to make it sound more formal and neutral. --Ckatz 06:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In recent years, Lower Lonsdale has undergone a significant transformation; its old warehouses and abandoned shipyards giving way to high-end real estate, a myriad of top-rated restaurants and cafes, and other amenities that have made it one of the most popular neighbourhoods to reside in within the Greater Vancouver Regional District."
"surrounded by the District of North Vancouver on three sides"  triangles can be surrounded on three sides. Other things can not. The writer means  bordered. this entry is unsigned so SineBot can have something to do  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of detail re: the City 

message: I always appreciate the effort put into articles like this and after I read the discussion I appreciate that effort even more. 
But a couple of comments: 
As a resident of North Vancouver (sic) I feel that I can speak for many residents in saying that the the issue of two municipalities hardly deserves the prominent mention it has at the head of this article. Perhaps occasionally in conversation--usually only because of some fine distinction--will someone ask whether we are in "The District" or "The City", but rarely. Will someone put this issue out of sight at the bottom of the article. It's only important to politicians.
:I strongly agree with this comment. The political division is a local subplot of interest to only a relative few. In a larger article it might warrant a minor section somewhere near the bottom of the page but in a small article like this it  merits only a sentence if at all. To have it dominate the page is strange.
:Missing is a history of the area as well as an description of commerce, ethnicity, and so on. As noted, I appreciate the considerable effort that has gone into what there is but it could do with some redistribution.
:--174.7.56.10 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  False start?