Talk:Vancouver/Archive 3

message: Would someone write an article about the city's Four Pillars drug strategy and link it to the Vancouver, Downtown Eastside, and Commercial Drive Wikipedia pages? It's a big issue in Vancouver. --Corvus 15:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Four Pillars

message: religion stats are in two sections. Having it in lifestyle makes more sense to me, but the one under ethnicity is a bit better. Move it maybe? gorffy 03:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that some people might object to referring to religion as a "lifestyle."  As mentioned below, the section needs work.  Perhaps we would retitle it "Ethnicity and religion."  Sunray 15:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: The article claims "Vancouver has North America's second largest port after New York." Is this true? That means it would have to outrank the famously large ports of both San Francisco/Oakland and Los Angeles, as well as any ports on the US east coast (Boston, Houston, etc).
*If you read the article  it says that Vancouver is the second largest port on the WESTCOAST behind LA. - anonymous
*When you talk about the Port of Vancouver, you include Deltaport and all the terminals around Vancouver Harbour. Port of Vancouver is the largest in Canada and competes with the major ports of North America. "The Port of Vancouver is large by world standards. In North America, the Port of Vancouver ranks number one in total foreign exports. On the West Coast of North America, the Port of Vancouver ranks number one in total cargo volume. In Canada, it ranks number one in total cargo handled and number one in total container throughput. "
::Prior to a huge dockstrike in the early 1970s, the Port of Vancouver was the largest/busiest port on the west coast of North America, exceeding in volume the combined tonnage of ALL OTHER PORTS combined (Prince Rupert, Seattle-Tacoma, Portland, San Fran/the Bay Area, LA and San Diego (this may have excluded military shipping, I'm not sure).  During the dock strike there were over a hundred - hundreds? - of freighters stuck in English Bay; like a floating city; and the word was out that the rediversion of traffic to other terminals would wind up being permanent, and sure 'nuff the Port, though busy, never regained its former pre-eminence.Skookum1 17:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Biggest Port? 

message: Quote entirety of dubious neighbourhood:
Dickens, a small community in East Vancouver that stradles Kingsway between Fraser and Knight Streets. The area is culturally diverse and is known for a cuisine that is equally varied, excellent and inexpensive (especially Vietnamese and Chinese).
Dickens?  When did that name get coined?  I've never heard it and I've lived in Vancouver all my life.  We had family at 13th and Clark, basically the same neighbourhood, and I knew and know people up on the south side of Kingsway there, too.  Dickens?  Is that because of the elementary school somewhere around there, i.e. Sir Charles Dickens?  But I've never heard the name applied to the neighbourhood around there.  More like part of Grandview toward Knight, sort of Mount Pleasant around Kingsway and Fraser.  Citation please.....
---
I live in this neighbourhood (at Kingsway and Windsor). I've seen a few sources that call the area "Dickens". It's probably named after Dickens School. That being said, it's a pretty poor name, IMHO.
I've also seen "Saigon", which, while apt, is neither descriptive or in good taste.
According to the City, the neighbourhood is called "Kensington-Cedar Cottage",   with the area north of Kingsway as "Cedar Cottage" and the area south of Kingsway as "Kensington". This is reflected in the provincial electoral district of Vancouver-Kensington and the Cedar Cottage Public House at Clark and Kingsway.
I hope that clarifies things. --m. 18:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kensington-Cedar Cottage is two neighbourhoods: Kensington and Cedar Cottage. Usgnus 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, where did the name come from? Newspapers make up dubious names for things all the time, so those two references aren't necessarily reliable in this. Something about the history of the name, or some evidence of common usage would be ideal. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dickens"??

message: I re-edited the latest emendation of the story of this word, putting in the ACTUAL history of the term instead of the fabricated one popular with people who toss the word "racism" around just a little bit too casually.  Rewriting history to suit one's own particular ethnic prejudices is a common fault of the "new Canadians" and it gets really tiresome.  Hongcouver was invented by Chinese, but somehow white people are the ones guilty of it.  Figure that one out.  I already have: if something is uncomfortable, disavow it, condemn it, revise the history surrounding it.  Hongcouver (which never was in wide use, and only became a big deal because of the NatGeog's use of it) is no more racist than the OTHER Chinese-invented names for Vancouver (New China City, for instance), which are widely perceived in the non-Chinese community/ies as aggressive and arrogant.  Curiously enough, the same people who bleat about Hongcouver and other "racist" issues themselves can be heard using the derogatory Chinese words for other ethnic groups; Gwai Lo, Hak gwai and worse.  But that's OK, because "only white people can be racist".......  Right, sure, OK, whatever you say.....
Either a simple account of this name, without a judgemental statement like "racist moniker", is given, or it should be omitted entirely and consigned to the dustbin of history.
Here's a little factoid: surveys have shown that the Canadians LEAST likely to have "racist attitudes" are of European origin; all other groups had much higher racist attitudes towards other groups, including negative and hostile feelings towards whites as a group.Skookum1 01:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinese people calling prosecution racist because it targeted the actual perpetrators (who happened to mostly be Chinese)?  Convoluted and outrageous in my opinion.  Is there an article on this?  If not, there should be (NPOV, of course).  --Cromwellt|Talk 22:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Sounds like the white man really has it rough in Vancouver - all those Chinese trying to bribe him and everything. Guess that's what happens when he leaves his white ghetto in ShaughnessyBobanny 17:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hongcouver again

message: "European" should be given its appropriate ethnic background, or Chinese, "other Asian" and Filipino are combined into "Asian" and other continentally-defined groups are given fair coverage.  German, Italian and Ukrainian especially should be represented/listed, as well as the "invisible minorities" of the new immigrants from Eastern European and South America and elsewhere, who ethnic-colour politicks define simply as "European", which is really a euphemism for "white" which has little context in Vancouver's longstanding multiethnic diversity.  If I can find the breakdown, Scots, Welsh and Irish should be separate from English.Skookum1 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic breakdown revision underway

message: This is rep'd from its own origin, but it appears to list Vancouver suburbs as separate, which in provincial terms isn't quite right as they're really part of Greater Vancouver (North VAncouver, Maple Ridge, Richmond, etc.); as a result of listing things by population ranking only a lot of important regional centres have been completely omitted (Cranbrook, Trail-Castlegar-Nelson, Williams Lake, etc.)
Added April 18th 2006: This article is on Vancouver NOT the Fraser Valley and beyond. The GVRD goes as far as Langley, mabye Chilliwack, but Cranbrook? and Castlegar? Castlegar is usually considered part of the Kootenays or the Okanagan.
Also a mention should be made of the City of Vancouvers neighbourhood, even if it's just a list.
Many other articles on city have in depth descriptions of each district, Vancouver should have at least the names of each neighbourhood.
:There is a description of many of Vancouver's neighbourhoods at the end of the Architecture section (see List of interesting places in Vancouver.  Sunray 06:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List/table of cities in BC

message: I moved a dozen or so pictures that were spread throughout the article in a <gallery> under Vancouver#Interesting_places. Some two more dozen clog the page. Some images are at the right place and serve a purpose, some just litter the article. If those pictures are not removed altogether from the Vancouver page, I suggest to group them in the photo gallery, eventualy move that at the end of the page. Qyd 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo gallery 

message: How come the history section ends with the fire, around the turn of the century?  I'm sure something happened between 1900 and now.  --Andrew Eisenberg 00:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes a while to write this stuff; that wasn't my contribution although I emended it; but the deal is "garbage in, garbage out" so anyone can create the skeleton of the next century; but even that's a lot of work and you have to know your stuff.Skookum1 06:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dominion Building has a nice photo for the early 20th century section. Usgnus 22:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of History? 

message: What is the current thinking on whether the Vancouver entry should have anything on the city's news media. Some information I added was removed based on the argument that there is already a list of Vancouver media outlets. But this list doesn't give a very good overview of the city's media scene (for example, pointing out that The Vancouver Sun is a more influential media outlet than The Ubyssey) or differentiate news radio stations from music stations. It also provides no comment on the unusually high level of media concentration in the city. For now I've added my overview to the media list page, but I don't know whether anyone thinks whether at least a short summary of the city's media is worthwhile. I obviously do.Muckraker
:I agree that your media entry should not be deleted, however, I do believe that it does not fully belong on this page. Based on the fact that we are trying to cut down the size of this article by using sub-articles, I will start a new article, Media in Vancouver.  This article can obviously co-exist with the List of Vancouver media outlets. Canuck89 08:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Section 

message: I have archived all the topics that are at least 3 months old. Canuck89 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Vancouver/Archive2|Archive 2]]

message: I have created a new Government and politics of Vancouver page.  It needs quite a bit of editing.  In addition, I have listed all the MLAs and MPs from the city on that page.  Does that mean that we can remove those listings from the main page template?  They look quite out of place right now. Canuck89 05:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Canuck 89! I agree that the listings of MLAs and MPs can be removed from the Vancouver article. Sunray 06:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Government and Politics

message: This is a good article.  However there has been discussion, above, on its increasing size; what might be called "wiki bloat."  If everyone just continually adds their nuggets to the article it gets more and more unreadable.  Our common objective here is to create the best encyclopedia in the world.  Part of that involves having succinct well-written articles.  It would be great if we could all keep that in mind, and those of us with editing skills work at improving the readibility of the article.  How to improve readability?  Shorter words, shorter sentences, well-organized content.  Let's work at making this an example for Wikipedians of what a truly great city article looks like.  Want to help out?  Take a look at the "To do" list above.  Discussion and suggestions are welcome.  Sunray 03:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In preparation for deletion, I reorganized all the sections. Things were getting unwieldy. Usgnus 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! The new headings are much simpler and clearer for readers. Sunray 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I archived the commented-out old infobox and saved 2K. :-) Usgnus 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of article

message: Hi. I think that the first image of the city should be above the flag and coat of arms of the city, inside the template.   This is the same format used by most major cities. eg. Dallas, Seattle, Boston. In addition, we need to use a picture that isn't 95% sky and water. Canuck89 15:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the  to add an optional photo. Then I moved the first photo on the Vancouver article to the infobox. Now someone else can replace the photo. Usgnus 18:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed it to :Image:Vancouver ib.jpg. Check out :commons:Vancouver for a broader choice of images. Kaveh 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: much better Usgnus 18:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: commons:Category:Vancouver is also useful. Usgnus 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Image

message: I have reverted the removed edits pertaining to the Greater Vancouver Alliance for Culture & Arts that were recently added in by another user. I feel that it is important to include this information in the Vancouver article or some other relevant Vancouver article. Vancouver is one of the few cities in the world (with Toronto, New York, London) that have a day-of half-price ticket oulet. Also, I feel that the the Alliance and Tourism Vancouver play a vital role in/for Vancouver. Perhaps their mention is worthy of their own article so that they are not presented in full within the Vancouver article. 
Thoughts? Luke 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the only edit by  so far, and the high number of external links  in the edit, and the placement of a link at the top of the External Links section (before even the official city page link), is what triggered my "spam" red flag. I, personally, have never heard of these organisations. Some digging does indicate that they have connections to Tourism Vancouver and they are possibly government-supported initiatives. However, since Wikipedia is not for promotion, I think these don't deserve the prominence of having their own devoted section of the article. At best they deserve an in-line mention in the Arts and culture section. Certainly the link doesn't belong at the top of the list, and I've moved that at least. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true that Wikipedia is not for promotion and I totally agree. I too agree that they are taking up more than they did/do deserve in the article. I just feel that they are quite important in Vancouver and an in-line mention would be ok. Cause right now, it is reading more of a promotion rather than an encyclopedic article. Luke 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that it is spam, and even if it is isn't, it certainly isn't notable enough to be included in the main Vancouver article! Canuck89 04:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greater Vancouver Alliance for Culture & Arts

message: I think Kwantlen, Capilano, etc. should stay because they serve Vancouverites. Many Vancouver residents attend them, as well as UBC and the Burnaby campuses of SFU and BCIT. Usgnus 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that they should be removed.  They are not really notable enough to be included in the main Vancouver article.  Personally, I like the paragraph in its current state. Canuck89 04:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they shouldn't be included. This is an article on Vancouver and these facilities are located in North Vancouver and Surrey/Langley, respectively. There are other colleges and universities in the GVRD and FVRD that would have equal claim if we include Capilano and Kwantlan, e.g. Douglas College, Trinity Western University and University College of the Fraser Valley.  We have been working at shortening the article, not expanding it.  Sunray 17:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that Ckatz has done a good a job with the section. I like it the way it is now. The reason why UBC and SFU should be included even thought they are not part of Vancouver "proper" is because they are actually significant, and would be recognized by readers from outside British Columbia and even Canada. Canuck89 15:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why we would include Trinity Western (Langley) and not Kwantlen (Langley/Surrey) and UCFV (Abbotsford).  Sunray 23:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: TWU is a university, and the others are community colleges. --Ckatz 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not community colleges.  Kwantlen and UCFV are both degree granting institutions.  The point being that we get into endless hair splitting unless we have a clear groundrule as to what gets included.  TWU is in Langley, not Vancouver.  I can see no justification for including it.  Sunray 06:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: :Quote: With the high rain and temperate weather that Vancouver experiences it has become a haven for marijuana growers. Vancouver in the past twenty years has become a mecca for pot smokers around the world. Change has been driven by many individuals including Marc Emery, a pot activist he has opened several pot smoking friendly shops in Vancouver and recently the city was recognized as the best pot spot in the world to smoke pot, beating out other cities including the famed Amsterdam.
:Well, I'm been a pot smoker for thirty years and some and even I'm not that fuzzy-headed.  The "high rain and temperate weather" had nothing to do with why pot growing took hold here.  The reason for that was manifold: cheap hydro rates; large, spacious houses with good basements; overheated rents and mortgages that encouraged people to look for premium incomes in order to survive financially, the entrenched presence of the city's gang element, the then-porous border etc.  The relatively common practice in recent decades of homebuyers paying cash (not cheque) also made it easier to obtain property to do the business in, and it's unknown how much of the construction boom in BC has been financed by pot money, but as with retail and the service sectors there's little doubt that SOMEONE has had the money to buy all those condos and monster houses.... But mostly the boom in pot growing in BC had a LOT to do with Reagan-era persecutions of Oregon and northern California pot growers, who sent their varietals and clones northwards for protection from the Agent Orange squads; and they had all the marketing connections that turned BC's mom and pop producers into "major commerce".
:And a section on the counterculture should have something to do with other countercultural agendas than pot; avant garde movements "then and now", the Bicycle People and what-not.  When I saw "counter culture" (sic) I thought the section was going to have something to do with Kits and Gastown in the late '60s, and the Dadaists and punk movements and so on; the section needs a rewrite, and another title.Skookum1 19:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically speaking, shouldn't the marijuana-as-industry subject be under "Crime"? Protests and attitudes aside, it is an illegal industry, and thus it should be in the appropriate section. There already is a comment about local attitudes towards drugs under "Lifestyles". This material doesn't need to be under "Arts and Culture"; as Skookum1's comments illustrated, there is far more to the Vancouver scene than just drug politics. Ckatz 20:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "counterculture" section is just annoying

message: Does anyone else find the section on crime misleading? Our violent crime rate is "moderate"? I know that crime happens but this statement seems to exaggerate the situation. Hu Gadarn 22:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence in question is: "Vancouver's overall violent-crime rate is moderate but its property-crime rate ... is particularly high; ranking among the highest rates of property crime for major cities in all of North America."  That the violent-crime rate is moderate is a bit of a weasel phrase so I've tagged it for a cite.  The latter part of that sentence dealing with property crime has such a cite. --Ds13 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime 

message: For me, Vancouveritis is a POV and this article stinks of it, but there's not much you can do about it because so many people have bought into the feel-good, self-stroking Vancouverite "religion" that there'll always be somebody to make the claim that it's a fun city (when it ain't), that it has beautiful weather (when it decides to) and that people are friendly (but only if you're from somewhere else and/or you're useful to them).
:Vancouver is considered to be a relaxed city, particularly by North American standards. There is a lively cultural scene, many diversions,...
I'm sorry, I must be living in a different city.  Relaxed?  Well, it all depends on what you mean by "relaxed", same as that "laid-back" term I hear Easterners inflict on us so much without thinking that someone who doesn't return your phone call or email isn't exactly laid-back so much as disrespectful and kinda rude.  Laid back has nothing to do with it; laid back is someone easy to deal with, easy to get along with; Vancouverites typically AREN'T.  On the attack, passive-aggressive when not actually overtly sociopathic/critical/contrary, hostile to extroverted behaviour, insistent on morgue-like peace-and-quiet around their million-dollar homes (or half-million-dollar condos, including those on the edge of the club district), boastful and braggartly about how this is "the best place in the world" and "why would you ever want to live anywhere else" and all that hogwash.  Nauseating after the millionth time, in the fortieth year, y'know, especially when you hear it used to excuse some horrendous local cultural/social failing/bad habit (like, y'know, never looking someone in the eye and treating anyone who's friendly as if they should either be arrested or in the lunatic asylum).
So, a "relaxed" city is more like "sedate and kinda dull" and "not likely to let its hair down", as well as "heavily regulated to prevent large public gatherings" and the general repressive atmosphere caused by the way the city and province license drinking establishments (don't even get me started on the live music bylaws).  This city could be called "relaxed" if people were comfortable talking with strangers, if they didn't have to worry about the freak turning right from the left-hand turn lane, if the cost of housing weren't over 60% of the average income and so on.
As for "lively cultural scene" - ack.  Did someone pull that from a government tourism brochure?Skookum1 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ohmigod; POV opinion about "social fabric"

message: I don't think so, but I haven't applied to delist or review it yet; we need to review it ourselves first, and tidy it up; it's not tidy, and it's tangential like crazy, as the above discussion gets into.  Needs a lot more work before it's a "Good Article", never mind a featured one; and it should NOT be included in the CD version in its present state IMO.Skookum1 15:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a lot more work. -- Usgnus 15:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Good article" status?

message: Vancouveritis in its most innocent phase - a sure sign of contamination of the gee-whiz mentality that winds up bitterizing after a while:
:Although it may not be the largest city in Canada, it is often thought of as the best. Vancouver is the best for living, partying and a great place for vacations.
Partying?  Partying?  Gimme a break.  The "cool" crowd in Vancouver think what they know a party is.  This city has no night life worth the name, no live music scene on a par even with Portland's or Spokane's, no vibrancy on the street or in the clubs, and it's dull, dull, dull despite the amazing scenery.  Well, when you can see the scenery, and believe me after 40 years it's old hat.  A great place for vacations?  What is this, a tourism brochure?  "best for living" is an echo of the popular slogan, coopted by the BC govt by paying big bucks to one of the communications-consultant types who gets paid lots of money for doing so: "The Best Place On Earth To Live".  Almost as noxious as "Super, Natural British Columbia" (which one of Miniwac's buddies got the adscam payment for, while "The Best Place On Earth" - they did actually pay for the slogan - was one of Campbell's pal-companies.
Anyway, it's just amazing the sop that people put up here as though they thought it was real and/or important.  I gotta repeat - partying?  PARTYING???  Ever been to London?  New Orleans?  New York?  Paris?  Ibiza?  Ios??  RIO???????  Vancouver doesn't know how to party, is afraid to party, and rolls up the sidewalks when other cities are just getting started; but it sure does know how to blow smoke up its own ass, don't it?Skookum1 06:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, it was simple vandalism. :-) -- Usgnus 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Such POV /re what a good party is or isn't does not belong in any city's encyclopedia entry.  Not even New Orleans' or Ibiza's.  And to each their own, anyways...  Each generation brings a new type of partying to the table and sometimes it's not even possible for people in, say, their 40s to know how/why/what/where the good parties are happening, even in their own city.  --Ds13 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilarious Bumpf

message: Um, the following is not quite right, and maybe is more a listing of Parks Board concession stand names than actual beaches:
:English Bay (First Beach), Jericho, Kitsilano Beach, Locarno, Second Beach (Stanley Park), Spanish Bank East, Spanish Bank Extension, Spanish Bank West, Sunset, and Third Beach (Stanley Park).
Might as well put them in sequence: 
:Spanish Banks, Locarno Beach, Jericho Beach, Kitsilano Beach, Sunset Beach, English Bay Beach, Second Beach, Third Beach.  
English Bay Beach is/was of course "First Beach" but I don't think that name has been current since, oh, 1890 or so.  Speaking of which the original pre-real estate development name of Kitsilano Beach was Greer's Beach.  There's no need to breakdown Spanish Banks into East and West, and Locarno and Jericho should have beach names (otherwise they're neighbourhood names).   And while I realize the UEL isn't part of the City of Vancouver, I'd expect what else is on it to be included in Vancouver-page listings (for lack ofanywhere else), so Wreck Beach, Tower Beach and Acadia Beach should head the list - if the UEL is in the purview of the Vancouver page, that is.Skookum1 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Beaches

message: This metro area ought to be amalgamated into city. It proved realy effective in Ottawa (formerly Ottawa, Kanata, Orleans, Barhaven, Nepean, Goulbourn..etc), and in Gatineau (formlerly Hull, Gatineau, Aylmer...etc). •USER•ADAM THE ATOM•TALK• 19:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vancouver 

message: I see the Millionaires on there; but wasn't there a big-time baseball team in the interwar decades, minor league anyway?  Can't remember waht they were called; woulda expected to see them here.  Or not?Skookum1 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional minor-league baseball in the 1920s?  No?

message: The view of Chinatown is actually of Skid Road, taken from Chinatown looking north; that's a Hastings bus mid-frame, and most of what's in the shot is part of DERA/Gastown.  The foggy view of Stanley Park is Third Beach with Siwash Rock, and could maybe be used to help illustrate Siwash Rock (in addition to a close-up).  The panorama that opens the Skyline section is also used on the Coal Harbour page, which it doesn't illustrate well (an aerial might, if the right one could be found; or at best/least a map, maybe an old one).Skookum1 12:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About new pix

message: The Birks Building, for one, but the list is long of interesting subjects/topics which do and should be part of any civic history pages anyway: the Orillia, the Grosvenor and Devonshire and Alcazar and Ritz, names that were part of the identity of Vancouver; even the Cave's interior design - something more than a movie set version of a cave - is a bit of architectural history.  Pictures exist of all these and more; the old gas tanks next to the old Georgia Viaduct, for example, or the architecture of the A-B Pier in Coal Harbour.  I'd say the Rowing Club, if it's not already listed, should be, not as a architectural marvel, but as an icon of the early city (originally moored over about where Cordova and Hornby is today, but on the water at the foot of the bluff that used to be there.  There's a couple of other things I had in mind when I started writing this; I'll come back when I think of them, later sometime.
Just suggesting that these bits of architectural legacy should be considered in the historical sense; there were also temporary buildings, including more modern ones such as the Expo Theatre but also some of the original efforts at big PNE buildings, which were Spanish-Italianite belltower-cupolas (four) surrounding a conservatory dome; evocative of the California connection that's more evident in Seattle it was unstable and had to be taken down, to be replaced by about where the Gardens and ShowMart is (or were or whatever; I haven't kept track of changes to the PNE grounds as I haven't been for years.  
Another, probably already mentioned, was the second CPR station, at the foot of Granville rather than Seymour, and more like the Chateau Laurier (whereas the Hotel Vancouver is a knock off of the Hotel York design, as also with the new station resembling, at a prop scale, whatever the big station is in Toronto (Union?); and of course the loss of the old Main Street Market (iron/steel?, grillwork and glass), the Great Northern Station; there was no Eastern parallel to the 2nd Hotel Vancouver, which I think could only have happened on the Pacific coast, a mix of Californian and Italianate and a whiff of the Raj.  Other than one of the older of Montreal's grand hotels maybe, but I couldn't say which one; and I don't know what the old Queen E looked like.  But the 2nd Hotel Van's design has always struck me as very imperial - Pacific and Orient, and apparently there were traces of every bit of Empire throughout the place's decor, from African art to Chinese porcelain and Indian brass, and of course the famous goldplate and marble sinks throughout.  None of the other lost hotels were as grand, but they were stories in themselves - the Ritz especially, and the Castle (where the new row of shops is south of the Vancouver block, underneath FS.  The Grosvenor was more upclass, the Alcazar a bit discreet, and not quite seedy.  They're all gone, and more; at some point I'm going to write a beer parlour article....
I suppose the old bridges are covered in the respected bridge articles (?); the Fraser Street might need a historical entry, but I'm also thinking of things like the old Lulu Island Railway bridge and terminal at the head of Granville Street (Drake or thereabouts, and then over a trestle above False Creek.  And as a by the way; is New Westminster's architectural heritage covered in the same detail as VAncouver's has been (nothing modern, I know, but the historical buildings I think are worth a writeup; I'm just not familiar enough with them to do it).  'Sall for now; but just suggesting article ideas/direction for thought/inclusion.  Skookum1 03:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Architecture - Lost and Demolished Buildings

message: Every city has unofficial names. Vancouver is hardly unique. Having a section just invites anyone to throw in her or his pet name for the city. --Usgnus 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And their wrong definitions/histories of how such names - the better-known ones - came to be established.  Hollywood North isn't really a nickname, nor is Hongcouver: they're epithets that got media circulation and get used now and then as "interesting" or in brandnames (HN does anyway); Gastown is only a district; when it meant the city the city was much smaller; Terminal City is a sobriquet, Big Smoke is an actual historical nickname, still in use for "us" in the Interior but long since coopted as part of Torontonian identity (or rather Toronto's excuse for an identity, since they didn't like being Hogtown); same with the co-option of Hollywood North, to help them and their mock Wall of Fame look like the real thing; here it was a reference to the workaday world of the filmbiz, nothing more (and not to the city as such).  And the trendiness of "VanCity", "V.C." and "the Couve" seem to make it to the top of the list in grand sophomoric style.  So yeah, plus all the dross that gets added in, and the bad definitions; I vote to ditch the whole section as a pain in the ass to keep tidy.Skookum1 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what's to define a "narrow interest group"; this would disqualify Terminal City, definitely a historical sobriquet but now known only to the "narrow interest group" composed of pre-expansion Vancouverites?  Big Smoke? - also archaic, other than its continuing use in the Interior.  But both valid, historically real, and not trendy/chic.  Rainburg and Raincouver I can do without every bit as much as Vancity, VC and the Couve; but historical nicknames/sobriquets, without or with a "narrow interest group", are entirely valid.  If anything is, that is.Skookum1 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Terminal City" should be included if we can verify via reliable sources that, in its day, it was known beyond just a narrow interest group.  Likewise, the "Vancity" nickname should be included if we can do likewise. Whether the name was used in the distant past or bleeding-edge present should be mentioned because it's useful and interesting, but it doesn't need to be an exclusion criteria.   --Ds13 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if we keep a few well-known nicknames, we don't need a whole subsection for them. --Usgnus 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that.  Other cities' articles have put the nickname(s) in the right side summary table.  See:  New York, Seattle, San Francisco. --Ds13 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason to remove the section is that the article is too long. --Usgnus 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove unofficial names section completely? 

message: As if there was a polite answer to that....I noted someone got rid of this reviled adjectival phrase in the last edit, and no doubt it'll come up again and again.  Funny part is I wiki-searched "world-class city" and it took me to "Global city".  And guess who's not even discussed, despite pretensions of being "world-class" and thinking other people even notice (as the Global city article shows, they don't/haven't.  In the long run, I want to start a petition to get the papers and politicians from using this phrase in every other paragraph they spew, especially when they're trying to justify something really noxious they want to shove down our throats, because we have to do it because we're now world-class and all that.  Sigh.  Anyway, just a note to keep it out of BC pages, Vancouver pages, and any repetition of the "Best Place On Earth" ad theme, paraphrased or otherwise, should be shot down for the pollyannaish sell job that it is.Skookum1 18:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was David Duchovny, and it wasn't even that he complained about the rain; he simply said that his wife didn't like it here because she didn't like so much rain, and she preferred the sunshine in L.A.  So they vilified him, basically running him out of town, simply because he relayed a message that they can't stand hearing.  I'm born and raised here, but I'm speaking my mind totally without shame, and imagine sooner or later the hack media will pick up on it and trying and attack me, too; tbat is, if I make a name for myself, which probably means I'll have to do that somewhere else (if not simply on-line) because there's a glass ceiling for creative professionals and performers and writers and such here; you have to be a success somewhere else before people will kiss up to you; in the meantime they shit down their noses at you, as if they had a right to judge; which of course they don't, but they sure like to pretend that they know something you don't.  Rambling on this because I just got out of a protracted and sangria-fueled conversation about this with two French-from-France and another artist-voyageur-intellectual (he's a prof, by the way) about all this; while the rest of the party froze us out, thereby fulfilling exactly what it was we were saying (about them).  It was very refreshing to talk about people in front of them, the same way they so often do about other people here; a taste of their own medicine, except in our case it was castor oil, in their case it was pretentious saccharine and cotton-batten.  Despite being from here I've broken my shell and refuse to be crammed back into it; the world-class and "best place on earth" and standard "why would you want to live anywhere else?" nostrum that people trot out as some kind of "why don't you just give up on your dreams and sell out like the rest of us?" incantation.  Pondering doing a "Vancouveritis" or "Vancouverisms" page in my sandboxes; people's stories about "the Vancouver frosting", the big fat chill, the cold shoulder and the shunning look, the shadow of Clifford Olson and disappearing children that's in everyone's eyes when you talk to them; the fear that all the unknown is dangerous.  But boy, isn't this a world-class town, huh?  Yeah, a world-class psycho ward, with lots of rain, residential areas that might as well be cemeteries, and a night-life with more in common with Ft MacMurray than with Greenwich Village or Montmartre; or even Van Nuys Boulevard or Venice.  World-class my ass....and I think the more of us speak up about this, the sooner we might stop hearing it; and as a policy, I suggest that certain key phrases be entirely avoided and replaced/removed when they appear; with "world-class" at the head of the class.Skookum1 09:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To world-class or not to world-class?

message: Postscript to previous section: speaking of which, there's no mention of NoFunCouver here (a word that's in a lot more current use than the noxious HongCouver; No Fun City is something people might look up; and it's common across classes and groups, and not age-specific like "VanCity", which apparently is now in vogue (to my ears it sounds tacky); the other day I heard someone refer to the whole agglomeration as "Metro" (capital-M), as if they were talking about Toronto.  Re-branding the place is constantly going on, as each layer arrives and translates its own world-view to the place; but No Fun City is something you have to have lived here for a while to appreciate the sense of; same with NoFunCouver.  Strikes me that might make a very POV sort of article, or a good bloodbath anyway; the pros and cons and the whys and the wherefores; should get all the Vancouver loyalists all heated up about denying it, and the rest of us weighing on why it's so true....I hope someone has done a piece on the band "No Fun"; if not I'll see what I can do (Vancouver's early and post-punk/new wave scene was barely listed on the music section/page previously; hard to credit NOT mentioning the Pointed Sticks (now listed) or the Young Canadians....ah well, Wiki is always growing; it's amazing what doesn't get put in, though; vs what does, e.g. Hongcouver, which none of us use and a lot of us resent (on both sides of the debate), vs NoFunCouver, which is in a lot more current use and has a lot more substance/reason behind it; it's more relevant but funnily enough it never showed up on the nicknames list....Skookum1 09:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NoFunCouver]]/No Fun City 

message: These claims (30,000 people/sq.km and third highest in North America) should be properly cited, especially since the claim about density just jumped from 20,000 to 30,000 in the space of one edit. I've tried a quick search, but information seems somewhat sparse. Here are a few links if anyone wants to follow up on this: City of Vancouver CityFacts, "Living First" in Downtown Vancouver, Debate at the "Cascadia Scorecard", and Demographia. --Ckatz 08:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources requested for population density in "Social fabric" section

message: I just happened to look up the disambig pages for each of these terms after seeing someone's fix to the West End neighbourhood article or section; part of the reason is that there's a West End in New Westminster (basically everything SW of 12th St.) which is a historic name as well as a neighbourhood definition by the city and in community organization; but growing up in Vancouver we always had the term East End, which isn't synonymous with the East Side either.  To me, the East End is the older part of the East Side - Commercial/Victoria, maybe up as far as Kingsway (at most) and as far as Nanaimo; this was, literally the East End of the city, just as the West End was the end in that direction; and it should be understood that the context here is the English/UK sense of an "end"; the outer part of somewhere, often taken/become over time to be a neighbourhood or street name; when London's West End was named/built up, it was a long ways out from The City; likewise Vancouver's West End, which emerged when the core of the city's social life was in the 100blks E and W of Hastings and Cordova Streets.  So, similarly, in that temporal context, the East End was the newly-developing/settling area away from the downtown/city, on the hillside overlooking it from the east; namely the Commercial Drive area (then Park Drive), which was the first built-up area.  Had me confused a couple of times in recent years because the usage has blurred and some younger friends, having said they were in the East End, meant they were "down on Hastings" i.e. the Downtown Eastside and not farther out towards Nanaimo or Commercial; similarly when someone says they're going to the East Side, that can mean the DERA zone but theoretically it means everything out to Boundary; whereas the East End doesn't, not in its old sense anyway.  Because the East End isn't an official city neighbourhood, but definitely a historic entity/name, I'm wondering what to do with it mention-wise...suffice to point at Little Italy, so-called, and say that's it; but it's not just the Drive; it's the whole area between Grandview Hwy, Clark, Nanaimo and the harbour....Skookum1 07:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: East End vs West End

message: They may seem like information sites, but really they're information-gathering and hit-generating sites to sell ads with; having them here increased Global's hit-rate and so its site's profitability and "credibility"; there are other events, restaurant and more sites (e.g. www.georgiastraight.com) which are more deserving, and less of a cash-cow for their media masters; there's another one - www.morevancouver.com which I have my doubts about but which has a reasonable amoung of actual writing on it, instead of "click here and it'll make us more money" targets; most of its text is probably cribbed from other sources anyway.  But in general a lot of these sites are just exploitive; and Global's is already so well-positioned in google searches - why replicate it here?Skookum1 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for tackling the external links. The section is pretty unwieldy. --Usgnus 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the IP address trace on www.canada.com leads back to their own servers, they should get a stiff note in one of their papers about using Wikipedia for advertising, and they should desist.  I think confronting a lot of these commercial sites publicly about abusing Wikipedia might be a good thing...Skookum1 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global's and other adlink removed 

message: Pls see User talk:Agent 86#RE: another category of stub needed and User talk:Agent 86#Stubs Skookum1 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC Stubs 

message: I'd put the "Peruvian" in my original write-through of that, as I'd meant to find what else it's called in English - Peruvian pine?  It's not on the Pehuen/monkey puzzle page and when I first created it that was a redlink; I'd meant to come back and put it in but forgot to do so; it turns up in the local print media now and then, although usually "we" just call it a monkey puzzle tree.  Also, I've seen a number of not-very-healthy century plants kicking around and other subtropical exotics (I know what they are because my aunt in Englewood CA had one in her front yard and explained them to us).  I'm not even sure the Douglas maple is native here - I gave away my old Trees of Canada to a Serbian immigrant friend who wanted to learn all the names of plants and trees here, so I can't check.  Perhaps a good list of what are native plants here, and what are not, might be revealing.  I'm scratching my head to think what other "bizarre" exotics I've noticed but maybe this section's already full enough (?).Skookum1 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI The Monkey Puzzle tree is a Chilean Pine (Araucaria araucana). The Pacific Rhododendron, (Rhododendron macrophyllum) is native to BC. As is the azalea. The Douglas Maple is a native species. As for bizarre exotic species there are people cultivating bananas in the Lower Mainland. Zedcaster 07:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Y'know, that's almost valid local folklore; I remember it from kid-hood.  I wonder if it's also known in Cali and the PacNW....?Skookum1 06:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkey puzzle and other flora 

message: Hmm.  That's a good one.  Thing is, Scotland actually IS a country, albeit a constituent one of the United Kingdom, unlike California or Melbourne's home state of Victoria, Oz.  That one has me scratching my head, for sure, since my empathies are with respecting Scottish identity; and in fact one reason for the sister-city ties is Vancouver's VERY old ties to Edinburgh and Scotland; although apparnetly more to Glasgow than E-burgh, to be sure (apparently 'til WWI Vancouver's skyline was, like old Glasgow's, festooned with iron-spike railings on a lot of building tops; melted down for bullets, y'see, and lost forever; I'll dig up a pic of some examples).  My sentiments are with the Scottish flag, even though I'm not a Scot; maybe just a rebel....Skookum1 00:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd prefer the UK flag because most maps show that UK is a country while Scotland is almost a "state" of the UK (same thing for England). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's how I usually test whether a "country" is one or not -- ask, "Does the 'country' in question have a president (or prime minister, or equivalent)?" If the answer is no, then I wouldn't count it as a country. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By that standard, Scotland is a "country". Any devolved parliament or governing body is going to have some sort of Head of government. The First Minister of the Scottish Parliament is a "Prime Minister". Agent 86 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Q - So what about Tony Blair? He's a prime minister, is he not? (Forgive my ignorance, but I forgot if he's PM of England or the entire UK.) If he's PM of the UK, then I'd have to say the UK is the country here. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And also, does one usually get a UK passport or an English/Scottish/etc one? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it just happens that it is now illegal to display St. George's Cross, in flag or escutcheon, in England, unless part of an existing blazon or logo.  In other words, displays of English nationalism are now officially banned, as complained to me by a friend from England who was working with me last fall; not sure if the same applies to St. Andrew's Cross (Scotland).  Point is, the UK is now a specifically de-nationalized state, in the same way that Canada has been re-branded in the Age of Multiculturalism; the national symbols are now representive of the new myth of diversity, and are to be divested of their old "national" links (in our case, the maple leaf and such, in England's and Scotland's, their national flags).  The passports are only another symptom of that; I wonder - does a UK passport still say "British subject" or is someone now a "citizen of the UK"?Skookum1 05:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Myth of diversity." Skookum take a look around. Or are you too high up there on your soap box telling us all how it is? Sunray 05:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I am, as a matter of fact.  Forced diversity - official multiculturalism - is not a success nor is everyone solidly behind it; and it has a rather unfortunate history in times past (the Ottoman Sultanate and Austria-Hungary were both officially multicultural, despite Canada's ongoing brag about it being the first).  And diversity is a "myth" in the sense that it's become a public icon with a whole mythology built around it that's at odds with reality and experience; and also a kind of sanctimony of the very kind you have invoked in accusing me of being "too high up there on (my) soapbox".  It's a sacred cow, and woe betide the Canadian who dares speak out against it (publicly).  It's been my experience that many "immigrants" (a loosely used term) also have strong reservations, despite the cheerleading and budget-sucking from the "immigrant organizations" who feed on multicuturalism.  But that it's come down to stupidities like banning the existence of an English ethnicity - my friend Dennis couldn't even put "English" on his census form, although everything else under the sun was listed - is a demonstration of the shallowness and questionable motives behind de-nationalization.  Sure, money doesn't have a colour, and neither does citizenship; but community should be community, not a fractured array of competing and quite often hostile ethnicities, which is what Canada (and especially Vancouver) is becoming; you can claim I'm speaking  to the dark side, but I'm only a messenger here; you can believe the official myth - and its heavily-budgeted and very loud, repetitive SOAPBOXING - if you want; don't expect everyone else to eat the same doo-doo.Skookum1 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Picking up on the Tony Blair statement, he is the PM of the UK (which includes Scotland). That wasn't the point. The point was that the criterion given was whether or not the "country" had a PM (or equivalent). The answer for Scotland is yes. The other factors you then listed are additional valid criteria, beyond the one originally given. Frankly, I agree with you that Scotland is not a "country" in the nation-state sense of the word, but has many country-like characteristics. However, I don't care which flag is used, I just thought it bore mentioning that Scotland does, in fact, have a PM, so that consideration could be given to a broader scope of factors. Agent 86 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish flag vs UK flag on Edinburgh listing 

message: This was taken out:
:Most earlier immigrant groups are fully assimilated or intermarried with other groups, although a new generation of East Europeans form a distinct linguistic and social community.
with the following comemnt:
:no reason eastern europeans should be singled out as distinct anymore than any other group)
I disagree, although the wording of the excerpted bit could use some work; maybe just "Europeans" could be used, but in modern-speak that's become a euphemism/synonym for white; maybe "recent European immigrants".  Point is that there are "invisible minorities" in the city, which are not addressed by other discussions of "multiculturalism" here and are often snubbed in minority-politics discussion, such as Global's forum on increasing multicultural sensitivity in the local media held a few months ago; one woman stood up and asked why members of the new-European communities were not invited, and only "visible" minorities were; she was not answered, and given dirty looks by the representatives of the groups who were invited.  You could almost smell the "all white people are the same" attitude from the other representatives, but the fact of the matter is that the many new-immigrant Poles, Russians, Yugoslavs, Romanians and others are cohesive communities in the same way that the various South Asian and Asian and African groups are; despite the presence of old-stock families from those same origins who are assimilated; the point is the city's multiethnic strata aren't just about visible minorities, which is the pretense of the remaining/original text, which I'd tried to augment/enhance.  OK, could have had better wording.  And thinking of this, I have to concede that the Italians are somewhat in the same category, although there's a lot of overlap and interchange between old-stock Italian Canadians and the new arrivals, so "Eastern European" isn't quite right.  But the Germans, Dutch, French-from-France-or-Belgium, Scandinavians and even the Finns aren't so readily stand-apart as the new immigrant groups.  I train every day with a bunch of Serbian kids; their English is perfect and they are culturally assimilated; but their primary identity/loyalties are Serbian, as are their parents.  The Greeks are a distinct community; but not an "invisible minority" in quite the same way as even the Italians, IMO, and certainly not as much as the Eastern Europeans.  In general, I think the obsession of the "religion/doctrine of multiculturalism" with visible minorities ONLY is conceited and hypocritical, and it's time this page addressed the diversity of the so-called "European" population (which includes me, and I was born here, and don't consider myself a "European" no matter what some other labelling agenda wants to brand me).Skookum1 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to Demographics by IP user 204.244.175.6 

message: Earlier today, A Flame! added the following text to the "Social fabric" section:
"Some experts believe that while the astronomical increases in house prices are legitimately backed by the price of land in this region, the corresponding increase in condo prices is likely attributed to a real estate bubble. Despite a strong resistence to remove land for developing from the ALR (Agricultural Land Reserve), the farming industry, near suburbs such as Richmond, is weakening as crop yeilds barely recover the cost of the land itself. It is said by many that the only profitable crop for such expensive farmland is marijuana."
I've placed  tags on the first two sentences, and removed the third sentence (regarding marijuana and farmland). A Flame! added a link to the Richmond Review website as verification. The link, however, was only to the homepage, and I was unable to find anything on their site relating to this subject. (The closest reference was from an interview with a candidate for the Marijuana Party back in January.) There's also a page on the Victoria Times-Colonist site that reproduces text from the Richmond News, saying "it has been suggested the only crop that would make farming viable is marijuana." However, there is no attribution for the statement, no trace of it on the News' website, and no indication of whether it is a news article, an op-ed piece, or a letter. Has anyone else heard of this claim? A statement like this should probably have a good source to back it up before it goes back into the article. Any thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social fabric revisited 

message: I removed it because the citation is in the main article Economy of Vancouver and in the Port of Vancouver article itself. --Usgnus 18:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of citation in Economy section 

message: I removed this sentence from the rankings section:
 However, Montreal and Toronto both score extremely high as well,
 and people have often said that the only reason both Montreal and 
 Toronto come after Vancouver is because of their weather.
It reads heresay and POV.  Frankly, I believe that it was written by someone with strong ties to Montreal or Toronto.
I would be happy to keep it in the main article if someone can find a reference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew Eisenberg (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 August 2006.
:As with my comments on Talk:Climate of Vancouver, comparisons to Eastern Canada are irrelevant when discussing Vancouver; this is not a national pissing contest.  Vancouver's cultural connections are historically and still today with Sydney, Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, Edinburgh et al.  Judging Vancouver on how it compares to TO or Mtl is, speaking as someone born here and increasingly irritated with the national maple-sucking mythology, utterly boring.Skookum1 23:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed undocumented sentence 

message: The following was added to the Arts and culture section by 64.3.25.114:
Could someone put in good art galleries of Vancouver?  Especially artist-run spaces?
--Usgnus 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Galleries

message: I know what you're saying about Yaletown, but as a residential neighbourhood, such as it was, it was wtihin a few blocks' walk of the Yale Hotel (hence the name, not because the residents were from Yale); everything below Homer, at least, is "instant", especially in the last ten years (there was a slow evolution of the Mainland-Hamilton area in the pre and post Expo years, admittedly); the use of Yaletown to also describe the Stadium-Library district has always struck me as odd, also.  As for Coal Harbour, the old meaning of that as a neighbourhood (i.e. on land) was from the Bayshore to the Harbour Ferries docks; and maybe a bit back up from the Bayshore (foot of Nicola, maybe, instead of Cardero, but that referred only to the small marine areas in that area; the rest eastwards was CPR and the various commercial docks; which might be referred to as being on Coal Harbour, but I wouldn't have considered that area to be Coal Harbour if someone told me to, say, meet them down there; I automatically would have thought of the little marinas and drydocks and marine shops between Cardero and Denman, which of course aren't there anymore.  But that whole new Coal Harbour area from Cardero to Burrard/Thurlow, c'mon, that's totally "instant"; the W. Hastings part of that was simply called West Hastings, or when that ran out, you had West Pender; businesses along Pender between Jervis or wherever it is Hastings runs out and the Cardero crowfoot intersection were on, simply, West Pender.  And when that was the mansions of the rich, it was the original Blueblood Alley (as was what is now the whole banking district north of Melville and west of Burrard, in fact, before they capitalized on the value of their residential realty and moved farther west, or to Shaughnessy and Point Grey as those areas became more accessible/easier to commute from.Skookum1 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying. In the context of the paragraph, however, I think I preserved the sentiment while making it more accurate. --Usgnus 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to Usgnus re instant neighbourhoods 

message: Although there might be some resource on the internet to back up this claim, I decided to Be Bold and move it here.
 In the past, Vancouver's weather was generally cooler, and in winter snow was far more common, with snowfalls averaging between 3-6 cm on average, with the occasional larger dumps. Overall, the average temperature has increased approximately 4-6 °C over the past 15 years.-- Selmo (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced statment 

message: I really would have liked to award the GA to this article.  It's very close to GA quality and could move up to FA in a few months.  Specific things that hold it back are as follows:
*Uneven citations - several sections such as History have no line citations at all.
*Excessive redlinks - please create stub articles for most of the redlinks on this page.
*Choppy paragraphs - "Economy" and "Transportation" read like outlines (and are also unsourced).
Please keep working and resubmit. Durova 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA nomination with invitation to renominate 

message: It does not make sense to say something about the U.S. military in that sentence. It is out of context. Other countries can have nuclear weapons too. --Usgnus 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still doesn't make sense. Why single out the U.S. military? What about all the other foreign military ships that visit? --Usgnus 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear weapons free zone 

message: The history section needs a complete rewrite. After searching the internet for about 15 minutes, I could not find any reliable sources that back up any of the claims. When I have some free time, I'll look at some books from the library, and will begin rewriting the section. -- Selmo (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing I found so far is The Greater Vancouver Book: An Urban Encyclopedia (Unknown Binding)  The Greater Vancouver Book: An Urban Encyclopedia (Unknown Binding). The book is also available for [http: //www.discovervancouver.com/GVB/index.asp online reading]. I do have Horizons: Canada Moves West book, which is the primary source of the provincial education system's Socials Studies 10 source. -- Selmo (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Selmo, I agree it could use some work. I own a fairly significant collection of history books on Vancouver, and although I usually skim the early history sections (pre-20th century), nothing here sounds new to me. Chuck Davis' "history of Metropolitan Vancouver is a decent online source, and by now is probably more extensive than his Greater Vancouver Book. Anyways, I can do some fact-checking when I have time, and maybe we can stick in some citations for the history section. The "History of Vancouver" article definately needs work. Good start, but only covers the first bit. I've been planning to do up to 1940 or so, maybe starting with the interwar years. Also, the citation section that is there needs to be cleaned up so it's clearly bulleted. There's my 2 cents. Let me know if there's something specific you want a source for.Bobanny 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of history section 

message: Does anyone know how to get rid of all that white space? Some white space is fine, but now it looks like a big glacier drifted onto the article. Also, I agree that more variety in the photos would be good. The ones there are good pics, but the only human is our fearless leader, smilin' sam. In my opinion, there should ideally be a collection of photos, that if taken together, would convey the essence of Vancouver, or maybe more realistically be varied enough to reflect a diversity and various dimensions of the city. This isn't meant as a criticism of what's there now, just thoughts on improving the article's appearance. I'll try and remember to take my camera with me next time I go out and about.Bobanny 17:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good photo also.  Not for representing Chinatown (it's not so good at that), but for representing a "mountains framed by building corridors" view that is common in Vancouver. --Ds13 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Upload them to Wiki Commons if you want others to check them out.Bobanny 03:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting/photos

message: To the person who restored the City Hall photo: it wasn't removed, just moved to the architecture section. cheersBobanny 02:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: City Hall photo

message: Not to be preachy, but I just want to encourage people to be bold on this article. If something doesn't seem right in the content, you have the power to remove it. Just try and be clear on your reason why, and don't be offended if others disagree with your decision. Whatever gets changed or taken out can always be put back in, reworded and put back in, or given a citation and put back in. Personally I think this is a better way to go in many cases than sticking 'citation needed' all over the place, because people are going to see this article and think that its an unreliable source of information and look elsewhere (though there is a time to use tags).
I did some googling and found references pretty easily for the skyline bit, but didn't find anything to confirm that VGH is indeed the 23rd tallest hospital in the universe. I just deleted it for that reason, but also because it's kind of a boring factoid. But if someone disagrees and has a citation, stick it back in, by all means. 
As for photos, I think 'be bold' should apply here as well, though I think people might be more subjective and opionated when it comes to photography. Someone mentioned that there's too much sky and water in the photos generally, and I agree, so maybe remove one of those if adding more. People picture were also requested; I stuck in some happy shoppers, but more would be welcome in my opinion. So if you think you have some good pictures Orcasman, stick some in. Same with that mountain view. There's also a bunch of other Vancouver-related articles that can use good or better photos: skytrain stations, neighbourhoods, etc., so don't feel they all have to go into the main article. You can look on the photos page to see if it's used anywhere else as well (the snowcapped mountain viewis still on the general Chinatown page, and I also stuck it on the North Shore Mountains article, and the Stadium-Chinatown skytrainarticle). Too many photos would be a bad thing, but it seems appropriate for Van since scenery is probably our biggest claim to fame. Use your judgment about what should go where. I noticed the Science World article has a gorgeous photo, but it's from another website, so could be replaced as per Wiki conventions.Bobanny 21:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Be Bold

message: I made some changes to the crime section and thought I should explain why. First, turns out Saskatoon, Regina, and Abbotsford have higher crime rates than Vancouver. Stats Can doesn't count those as major cities because they are under 500k (pop). What was there before was not technically incorrect, but it was misleading because there are 3 cities with higher rates than Van. I also added that crime rates generally are dropping, making it sound less alarming than it did. I also removed the bit about drug addicts in the DTES being a reason why property crime rates are so high; I think that's more of a stereotype than anything meaningful. According to  this, Strathcona is not exceptional. The worst crime neighbourhood is the Downtown Business District, which I think it's fair to say that it can be attributed to all those businesses there.Bobanny 08:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime

message: This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
:1. Well written? Fail
:2. Factually accurate? Fail
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? OK
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Pass
Additional comments :
* The current mayor is Sam Sullivan. is unnecessary in the lead section and if kept, the word current should be changed.
* Here currently only four are left., currently should be changed too.
* At least give a citation for such a fact as Vancouver is internationally renowned for its beautiful scenery.
* This should be cited too, Vancouver is considered to be a relaxed city, particularly by North American standards.
* Social fabric doesn't let the reader know what to expect in the section also, that section tends to have non-notable trivial information that isn't necessary except in travel guides (what WP tries not to be).
* thus visitors are advised to conceal all items left in their car, and to use auto-theft protection devices. is unencyclopedic-like.
* Paragraphs shouldn't start with Vancouver is home to people of many ethnic backgrounds and religions. , also, that paragraph isn't written in an informative way.
* Demographics should be better cited.
* The city of Vancouver has developed a reputation as a tolerant city that is open to social experimentation and alternative lifestyles as well as being willing to explore alternative drug policies. is original research.
* Many other parts of the article needs removal of certain pov/OR-borderline material or just sourcing the would be good.
I see that lots of work was done on this article but even though it is broad enough and seems good, these aforementioned bullet-pointed requests should be taken care of before the GA status is awarded. Good luck and if any question arises, feel free to request assistance, Lincher 02:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: I took out the hongcouver section because its trivial, and no more significant than any other nickname (hollywood north, nofuncouver, terminal city, etc.) I also get the sense from the discussion here and at Hongcouver that others feel the same way and that the only reason it was kept is that the term was the subject of a debate. But if others feel it must be included, here it is for your cutting and pasting pleasure:
:The influx of Hong Kong immigrants in the 1980s led to the popularization of a brag invented by new-immigrant Chinese youths from Hong Kong, who dubbed the city "Hongcouver".  It was largely a media phenomenon and was never in wide usage among Vancouverites (who preferred their own name for their city), although it may have become current in other cities and areas of BC for a short time because of the media coverage.Usage of the term Hongcouver in media
::The only thing I object to in the removal is that there is no longer a link to the Hongcouver article at all.  As long as the article exists in WP, it should be linked to.  If for no other reason but to keep the dialog going about whether the nickname deserves an entire article.  So I've stuck a link in the See also section. --Ds13 18:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion tag has been removed from the Hongcouver article, which has become far overblown from the original context of that phrase; some have tried to build the article into a discussion of Asianized Vancouver as though that were appropriate content for an article on the nickname Hongcouver, which it's not; the article transposes on the word a whole range of meanings/context that better fit under History of Chinese immigration to Canada and Chinatown (Vancouver) articles; and actually the Chinatown (Vancouver) article has become similarly diluted because of x-refs to Golden Village, which has its own article; and in general Chinatown articles as a whole (the main article and by-city ones like Chinatown-Vancouver) have become mapping projects for the new-Chinese malls, suburban enclaves and blurbs for food and supermarket chains; nothing to do with what "Chinatown" means in North American English, or is supposed to; similarly Canadian Chinese cuisine has redefined itself to be about what great authentic cuisine is available in Canada now, while being disparaging towards the Chinese-and-Western cuisine that is the original meaning and context.  But back to the Hongcouver article - it doesn't deserve to exist, and what slim reason it has to be a separate article has been overlain with a whole host of secondary discussions of how Asiafied Vancouver is, and a history of the HK-takeover influx; that is not the meaning of Hongcouver, nor the appropriate context.  Nofuncouver by comparison deserves a whole article, but it would be original research (as is much of Hongcouver), and also about something that's not ethnic-specific and also was really only a flash-in-the-pan, except what ethnic whiners have chosen to make of it since.Skookum1 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem hongcouver had been nominated for deletion. You suggested on the talk page, Skookum, but I don't think it happened. So I just nominated it. Five days before the Lords of Wiki make their call, so go here to get in on the action: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HongCouver..   Bobanny 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hongcouver

message: This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
:1. Well written? Pass
:2. Factually accurate? Fail
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Pass
Additional comments :
* Bilingual street signs can be seen at these centres of ethnic concentration. needs to state which languages (French, English or Chinese, English?).
* Vancouver is considered to be a relaxed city, particularly by North American standards. There is a lively cultural scene, many diversions, and year-round access to outdoor activities such as hiking, cycling, boating, and skiing. Some have called it a "city of neighbourhoods", each with a distinct character and ethnic mix. should be cited and be more specific, and removing all the visitor guide topics (like outdoor stuff).
* Police have, however, been involved in raids on storefront businesses that openly sold marijuana (such as the Da Kine Cafe) and have aggressive programs to shut down hydroponic marijuana growing operations (nicknamed "grow-ops") in residential areas. needs to be cited.
* Every year Vancouver holds one of the country's largest Gay Pride Parades, which attracts as many as hundreds of thousands of spectators. should have more accurate figures and be cited.
* Paragraph starting with Although Vancouver has more high-rises needs more citations.
* There are still uses of words like recently, current that should be cleared from the text.
* Some quotes aren't cited.
Here is another review and it especially focuses on having more citations for ambiguous details and to emphasize that no any original research issues (if there are) will be removed. Lincher 18:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lincher says above that it needed to say which languages the street signs were in, not that it needed a citation. But I guess the photo solves the dispute.Bobanny 04:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: The reason I put that Van Horne "probably" named Vancouver is that the original source is an anecdote in which CPR Land Commissioner LA Hamilton was taking Van Horne for a canoe ride in the harbour and Van Horne proclaimed that Granville wouldn't do for a name for this place, which was destined to become a great city, because nobody would know where it refers to. Everyone, however, knew about George Vancouver's explorations, says Van Horne to Hamilton, therefore that ought to be the name. Both Alan Morley (Vancouver:Milltown to Metropolis) and Eric Nicol (Vancouver) think the story is contrived, that maybe Van Horne suggested it to Hamilton, but it wasn't an original idea in a moment of inspiration. Morley claims that it was used as early as August 1884 in a Portland newspaper to refer to the western terminus of the CPR (p. 85). Chuck Davis (History of Metropolitan Vancouver website and the Greater Vancouver Book) buys the story hook line and sinker. I'm guessing the anecdote was told by LA Hamilton to Major Mathews, who loved this romantic notion of visionaries laying the groundwork for a great city of destiny (they corresponded in 1940 - see . My point is that I think your source is wrong, Selmo. You wrote "officially named," so perhaps there was some kind of official ceremony that Van Horne made the declaration, but Morley, Nicol, and Chuck Davis don't mention that. Whoever signed the incorporation papers are the ones who officially (ie, legally) gave it the name Vancouver (which has since been noted that it was confusing name choice with nearby Van.Isle and Van.,Washington). Probably it was LA Hamilton, David Oppenheimer and that gang, but I don't have evidence so I'm not going to start an editing war over this :) Bobanny 22:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Vancouver 

message: The reason I put the Robson St. photo in the article (Image:Robson Oct 06.jpg) was to get some people in there, as the photos are mostly of architecture and scenery (as it was pointed out in the to do list as the top of this page). Now we have the mayor and the founding fathers so it's not as bad, but it's still a little lacking in humans (i.e., non-politicians). Anyway, I don't want to clutter the article unnecessarily with photos, and I'm certainly not stuck on the Robson one - I just wanted to point this out to see if others have an opinion. Maybe we should try and come up with a consensus on what the ideal proportions might be (# of beach shots, skyline, etc.) not just for now, but to guide the ongoing evolution of the article and give it some stability in appearance.Bobanny 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Bobanny.  I was the one that replaced your photo.  My thoughts....  I like your photo.  I agree 100% that more people are needed in the photos.  Beaches, streets, parks, performance, business, anything.  Ideally, I also think the photos should be distinctly Vancouver — depicting something other cities don't have. I replaced yours because I felt the Punjabi Market sign was a better fit for the demographics section.  Perhaps there's one too many ocean/sky/mountain shots in there that could be bumped in favour of your street entertainer shot?  --Ds13 00:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right there's nothing distinctly Vancouver about the Robson photo, which should be an important consideration. I initially chose it because it's a cross section of people (m/f, young/not so young, white, asian, etc.) and that's sort of what demographics is about, but main page images should be more identifiably "vancouver." Maybe a Punjabi Market photo with some people in it and a street sign, perhaps? Overall, the photo mix right now seems pretty good to me, and I don't think that would be an impediment to getting GA or whatever status. I'll just keep my eyes open, or maybe take some more myself (though it feels weird taking pictures of strangers). Bobanny 00:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Maybe a Punjabi Market photo with some people in it and a street sign, perhaps?"  I thik that's a great idea.  Multiple goals achieved.  The composition of the current sign shot is very good, in my opinion. But combining both a large and readable street sign and a bunch of people in the same shot might be impossible.  But hey, nice weather for trying, right?... ;)  --Ds13 00:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: This article now meets the requirements of a GA. Thanks to the many who have given a hand in rewriting and de-poving this article. Lincher 11:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA promotion