Talk:The Georgia Straight

message: This "paper" is the worst piece of trash to have ever come out of a printing press. ThVa (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on "ThVa" - if you are going to fling insults around at least have the decency to say who you are! I notice "you" don't even have a "User page". Are you afraid to put your name to what you say? As far as I am concerned, the Georgia Strait has been one of the most important and honest sources of real news in Canada since the 1960s. I always look forward to seeing the latest issues whenever I visit Vancouver and, although it is now largely ads - the editors still insist on having several really insightful articles each issue. In my opinion it contains the best investigative journalism in B.C., if not Canada. John Hill (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trash

message: It's disappointing to see someone's 300 words reverted by a couple of mouse clicks in an "under the radar" minor edit. I thought that's what  or  were for.
I restored the text, not because it was great, but because it was relevant, and I used it as the starting point for my expansion. Bookandcoffee 23:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Exploding Boy revert

message: There was confusion in the "History" about the pun of the name of the paper.  One person didn't know the difference between strait and straight.  At the end, the better logic prevailed.  However, it still wasn't right.  The maps at the time called the water "Georgia Strait", so the pun was better.  I heard the government even changed the name to the Strait of Georgia to spoil the pun and thus defeat their hippie detractors!  Absurd, eh? Korky Day 09:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had always assumed that (apart from being a pun) the "straight" in the newspaper's name referred to "straight talking" rather than "straight" as in "not hip". I could be wrong, but are we sure the explanation in the article is accurate? I note it doesn't cite a reference so it could just be someone else's assumption! Barnabypage (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These discussions about the paper's name have been going on since soon after the paper appeared (and probably before) and have contributed to the on-going mystique of the Straight. If anybody is "serious" about trying to figure out the "true story" why not contact Dan McLeod, the founder and still owner-editor who lives and works in Vancouver? Yours, John Hill (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would constitute banned original research, of course. :) But I might do it out of interest - I'll let you know if I find anything out. Barnabypage (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's true. I was there - but I'm not a reliable source. Santamoly (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Undermining the pun

message: There's no chronicling under History of the online presence of the Straight... I think it's important to mention, because it has some fundamental differences between the print version... not all online articles are in the printed version are they? At least the reader comments under the articles aren't and that's a huge contribution to the experience of reading the articles... Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research the facts about it's online presence; I'm just putting this out there in case someone already knows and can fill it in. -Pietro 24.84.229.90 (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Online presence/version?

message: To: Hobbes Goodyear. I don't agree with your reasoning for 'removed unnecessary and possibly non-WP:NPOV sentence from the lead'. I have simply added to the discussion about the circulation data of the Georgia Straight because I think it's important to know that they haven't published  updated info. I think my addition is neutral in its point of view and not unnecessary information. I think that sentence should be put back. 
Editwiki12 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, I have no connection to them; I have never even been to Canada. I imagine this article is on my watch list because they publish music reviews (my main editing interests being music, AfD discussions, and anti-vandalism.) Given your concerns, I've added current Alexa figures for their website, which seem reasonably in line with the stated printed distribution. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: recent edit by Hobbes Goodyear 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion