Talk:Stanley Park

message: Just curious, does anyone know what the first and second-largest are? Central Park in NYC is 200 acres smaller according to its wiki article, and the urban park in Tacoma (the only other one under the urban park entry doesn't have a size listed. - Dharmabum420 09:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I researched this a bit and there seems to be conflicting measurements or definitions of "urban park". I've put my findings in the Urban park article and Talk:Urban park. --Ds13 17:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forest Park (Portland) is listed as 5,000 acres.--Anchoress 02:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't find a reference to that one. But I added that it's the 3rd largest city-owned in North America (which I'm guessing by the qualifier that Forest Park is not city-owned), and the third largest urban park in Canada after Markham and Regina.Bobanny 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third-largest urban park 

message: What type of buffalo does the park have? I'm working on Disambiguation and want to get the right link up, or I might just put a general link for bison up... ~~ user:missvain 12:57, 5 June 2006
:You mean "did the park have" The zoo closed in 1997. I don't know the answer, but I would just change it to bison from buffalo. -- Usgnus 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were never part of the zoo; rather up in the miniature train enclosure, like the wolves, I think.  I know the petting zoo is closed; haven't taken the train in years but I imagine if victims-in-captivity are now banned in the park the buffalo/bison are gone too.  From what I remember they were Wood Buffalo - a common name in Canada for the Woodland Bison (once common in the Cariboo and Chilcotin, by the way, but long hunted out and otherwise squeezed out by cattle ranch range needs, as with the mustangs of the Chilcotin).Skookum1 07:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that buffalo is not found in North America; rather only bison. I doubt it was buffalo in the zoo. --Kmsiever 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Technically, you're right, but don't tell all the people living a lie in Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump... --Ds13 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffalo - What type? 

message: Checking to see where it was; I thought it was over by Brockton Point, in behind the Totem Poles, but according to the Pauline Johnson article it's near Siwash Rock (which would be fitting; see my comments on Talk:Siwash Rock).  So I went by the Parks Board website, but lo and behold not much in the way of a map or list of monuments and such; only the main "attractions".  So the Nisei memorial, the Pauline Johnson monument, the Harding memorial, the Princess Sophie memorial (I think that's it; a certain shipping disaster), the Empress of Japan figurehead, Lumberman's Arch and more are not listed on either Wiki or the VPB site.  Weird.  Not even Beaver Lake is listed (OK, not quite a lake anymore but it used to have rowboats on it, doncha know?).  The history of the ring road - the first paved road in British Columbia by the way, and paved for bicycle use, not cars, using the crushed material of the ancient shell midden of Qwhy-qwhy (Lumberman's Arch area), in the early 1890s - that's worth mentioning; I'll get the cites (in Alan Morley's book I think; if not then in Major Matthews)- and the building of Hawaiian/Mexican style palapa canopies as rain shelters around it, especially at Prospect Point; not to mention Lumberman's Arch....geez, this listing has made me realize how incomplete the article is....hmmmmm.....Skookum1 07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded about the Pauline Johnson memorial at the Siwash Rock page, but apparently she's by the restaurant at Ferguson Point, (formerly the Teahouse, but now called something else). She requested to be buried within sight of Siwash, so even though she's a fair distance, it's still within view. (She also requested that no memorial be erected in her honour!) I haven't seen the monument, but have read that it's pretty obscured in an area taken over by raccoons. As for your other comments, I begun working on this, partly as a result of finding the same thing you did - the Park Board has diddly listing what's all in the park. I've begun a list, and hope to get it fairly complete at some point, ideally with a sentence explaining said attraction. I'm trying to expand this one to, with the view that Stanley Park could be a good featured candidate eventually, but in a narrative structue that couldn't possibly be comprehensive on all the crap that's in the park, ..er.., I mean, important historical artifacts.Bobanny 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She's is just south of Third Beach, and a tad north of Ferguson up in the trees beside the road. A tad obscure but still quite noticeable. Last time I was there, someone had recently places fresh flowers. I should snap a pic of it next time I'm there. --Keefer4 09:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Came looking for Pauline Johnson monument location, but... 

message: I moved this to its own page, partly because it's not technically part of the park, but also because there's other stuff to be added when I get a chance. For now, it's only a stub, but need not take up room here.Bobanny 19:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure the smallpox quarantine was the 1880s?  It's stuck in my mind as the 1890s, or maybe that's in connection with a quarantine in Victoria in that decade.  One thing that piqued my interest is that in a Central Canadian-written column a while ago there was particular date mentioned when Montreal became "the last major North American city to suffer a smallpox outbreak", and it was an 1890s date and I'd just read the stuff on smallpox in BC during the same period; but I guess from a Central Canadian perspective Victoria's still not a major city, and Vancouver wasn't until at least the 1960s (?).  Aside from the 1880s-1890s issue (and I think it can be pinned down to exact dates/years) wasn't Deadman's Island also used for quarantine for the Spanish influenza outbreak here?  Not that quarantine helped once the epidemic was already on the loose, just that health authorities tried to do something.Skookum1 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the official park board history book, written mostly from the minute books it seems (by Mike Steele, who did a couple other SP histories/guidebooks) and it says 1888 to 1890 for the quarantine "Pest House." I don't recall reading anything about a quarantine during the influence epidemic. That was 1918 I believe, and at that time, Theodore Ludgate had control of the island, having leased it from the feds for a saw mill. He cleared it, but went broke and his lease expired in 1924.  Bobanny 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadman's Island

message: I just did a bunch of editing and thought I should explain myself a little and comment. 
*First, I removed this:
The 111 Pegasus Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron paraded in the park around the time of the first world war.
Without any context, it adds nothing to the article, IMO. The park was used for defense in both world wars, and something along those lines would probably be a good fit with this, but a line about why this squadron is significant needs to accompany it. (just checked the article and apparently it wasn't created til 1939. Bobanny 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: I've been following news updates on the damage to Stanley Park, and just thought I'd mention how wildly they differ. Numbers I've seen for trees knocked down or damaged are: unknown as of yet, hundreds, as many as a thousand, thousands, 3 thousand, and 20% of the trees in the forest. This last one, if we use the figure on the park board's website that estimates a total one million trees in the forest, would mean that 200,000 trees were destroyed. Nothing I've seen indicates that any systematic attempt has been made to estimate an actual number, or even that park staff have even got to all areas of the forest. These numbers come from guesses more than estimates, from aerial views and just browsing around at the damage by staff and/or journalists. (this is all from CanWest publications and the CBC website). Also, information coming from park staff may sound authoritative, especially from people who have worked there for years, but news accounts also mention how emotionally distraught they are, probably both because of the time and energy they've spent nurturing the forest and because so much of the planting and upkeep they've done for years has been erased. I haven't been to the park yet myself, but comparing to the old newspaper reports from the 1934/5 storms and the 1962 typhoon, this seems comparable. It was basically a logging camp after Typhoon Freda, and they sold all the wood to help pay for the clean-up. If you've walked through the forest, especially around the miniature railway, you can see how many jumbo trees were lost then. The media coverage this time, however, seems closer to the 1930s. The Province whipped up as much hysteria as possible, but it was the depression and the big concern then was finding the money to clean it up before it could became a major fire hazard. The goal of that campaign was to generate the political will from higher levels of government to finance the clean-up. Anyway, just thought I'd share, and make a note that even the #s used in this article should be taken with a grain of salt even though they are properly cited and come from seemingly credible sources. Bobanny 10:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment on recent storm damage 

message: Bobbany and Skokum - I believe my latest version is shorter, more precise, and more up to the point. It is not important to point out data that Stanley Park is 16th in the place. That's simply not true. I mean, the agency selected ugly Mexican park to be #1 in the world, and that park doesn't even have 1/3 of features and beauty of Stanley Park. The agency has discredited itself and we should not quote it. How can one put ugly, dirty, Mexican park on #1 place and Stanley Park on the 16th place? It's ridicolous. I strongly oppose information from discredited agencies to be included into Stanley Park article. I've been in Mexico and seen the ugly dirty park they selected as "#1 Park in the World", and it can't even be compared with our Stanley Park. Don't include that info, as by doing that - you are only insulting the most beautiful park in the Universe (Stanley Park!). Bosniak 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, if you have issues with the ranking thing, you don't have to revert all the other changes that have been made. Be specific: what's unnecessary detail of those changes? Spacing the photos better? Copyediting? Which historical details that have been added do you think are irrelevant? Or do you really give a shit? As for the ranking, it's not a pissing contest or a beauty pageant. That group has specific criteria that isn't about how pretty the park is, and the wikilink and footnote are both there so people can see what their agenda and criteria are and decide if it's a valuable ranking. I'm not hung up on that link, and wasn't the one that put it there. But out of respect to others' efforts, there should at least be a valid reason for removing it, and what you've expressed has nothing to do with it's inclusion. There's nothing more boring than a park article that says it's the biggest and prettiest in the universe. This isn't a tourism website. And yes, I realize the 3 revert rule is 24 hours, which is why I said to think about the spirit of the rule as the important thing. You haven't engaged in good faith with myself or others on this article, and I will continue to treat such thoughtless reversions as acts of vandalism and bad faith. If I am wrong on this, then address the points raised by myself and others rather than authoritatively asserting your personal judgements as if that decides Wikipedia content.  Bobanny 07:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bobanny and Skokum, Stanley Park is #1, not #16

message: While writing my new additions, it occurred to me that there are a couple of other things in the park worth separate articles on (below), but quickly to suggest here that Stanley Park Causeway is as much a vanished-structure article, or at least a lengthy one; it used to be a trestle, with the streetcar right over, I think, to a loop where the big oak came down during the windstorm; the use of the term for the road to the Lions Gate only came into use once that got built, of course; but as a material object and term it has a long history, and sort of falls into the Bridges of Vancouver category, no?Skookum1 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Stanley Park Causeway]]

message: There were a couple of other things that occurred to me here....hmmmm - oh yeah, apparently all the flowering cherry that's all over Vancouver was a 1920s or 1910s donation to the city from the government of Japan, also a lot of the Japanese maple (cite is in Morley, maybe Matthews, possibly MacDonald's Visual History also).  That seems worthy of an article although I'm not sure what to call it.  As for the rock garden and Nisei garden, perhaps the rose garden and certain other "landscaping objects" need their own histories/descriptions (Ceperley Park used to be a gravel isthmus between the shore of the West End and the shore of Stanley Park, and had "wash" over it at high tide...), as also things like the rowing club and yacht clubs.  Is Brockton Oval an article?  It should be.Skookum1 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there's a List of attractions and monuments in Stanley Park that I created so that this article wouldn't become too unwieldy. A good source for the park's contents (though not perfect, especially on history) is this national historic site research document. Also I added refs for the rockery. The Courier had a big article on it last summer, long before the storm exposed it. It's a good rag, and all online, for local stuff, and regularly has local history-based articles. Bobanny 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other than rock garden and Nisei garden...

message: :No other contact was recorded for decades, until around the time of the Crimean War when British admirals arranged with Squamish Chief Joe Capilano that in the case of an invasion, the British would defend the south shore of Burrard Inlet and the Squamish would defend the north.[9] According to Capilano’s daughter, the British gave him and his men 60 muskets, which were the first guns owned by natives on the BC coast. Although the attack anticipated by the British never came, the guns were used by the Squamish to repel an attack by an Indigenous raid from the north. Stanley Park was not attacked but this was the beginning of it being considered a strategic military location by the British.[10]
This seems very wrong to me; perhaps the first guns in the Gulf of Georgia, but guns were already traded on the Coast elsewhere in the time of the marine fur trade (1780s-1790s); it may be that the Cowichan-area peoples were not supplied with guns from Fort Victoria but it seems unlikely, though still possible (for the fort's security); but on the BC Coast isn't quite right, despite Capilano's daughter's testimony.  "An indigenous raid from the North" would be better specified - Euclataws (Laich-kwil-tach probably, but maybe Haida or even Tongass Tlingits or whomever.  Also, the beginning of it being considered a strategic military location dates back to Captain Vancouver, who noted the coal seams on what were then the bluffs flanking what was named by him Coal Harbour (even though those bluffs were not on the Stanley Park peninsula itself - then a near-island of course); its status as a military reserve can be dated to 1860 or 1859 when Point Grey, Point Atkinson, Cates Park and areas around Port Moody were similarly designated under the colony's new land law.Skookum1 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that bit from an old newspaper article by Andrew Paull that I found and thought it was interesting/significant because it predates the standard written accounts of local military history. The Crimean War was from 1853-1856; the Coal Harbour/coal seam discovery was by Captain Richards in his 1858-9 surveys. His original map (1859) has a "Proposed Govern't Reserve 170 acres," but that was downtown, to the west of Main St. Three government reserves show up on a map from 1863 (and on later maps) that include Stanley Park (of the maps in Hayes, "Historical Atlas of Vancouver"). As for the other details, first guns, etc., you may be right, but note the passage is attributed to Capilano's daughter rather than stated as an encyclopedic fact (and the article didn't mention who the invaders were). I think it can stand as is pending further research/coroboration with that disclaimer. bobanny 19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hudson's Bay Company definitely traded guns before 1853. They traded with all the Sto:lo who were living in desperate fear of the Laich-kwil-tach (as Skookum said) who had received guns from ship-based traders from Boston. The 60 muskets might be correct, but they weren't the first on the coast. I'll remove that bit. - TheMightyQuill 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not the first.  The Nuu-chah-nulth with Maquinna also had guns.  They traded some of them with the 'Namgis. OldManRivers 18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Any reason "Indigenous" has a capital "I"? Is that a typo or has it a political reason? --Vancouver robin 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it to lower case. bobanny 05:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guns for the [[Skwxwu7mesh]]

message: I am slightly amused but also disturbed to see the Squamish language word "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" used as if it were an English language word.  "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" uses characters from a non-English alphabet.  Its alphabet was developed using modified characters from the Roman alphabet in order to create an alphabet for the Squamish language.  The use of "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh", and other non-English words, in the body of an English-language sentence is nonsense and completely illogical.  When we want to refer to Russia, should we write Россуя ?  Or for Dubai, do we write دبيّ‎ ?  When we want to mention Beijing, should we write 北京 ?  Of course not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdrinkwater (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is addressed on the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh discussion page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.117.206 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sḵwx̱wú7mesh means Squamish 

message: In regards to the military history section. Here are the sources
^ Moogk, Peter N. (1978), Vancouver Defended. A History of the Men and Arms of the Lower Mainland Defences, 1859 - 1949., Vancouver: Antonson Publishing, 
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/ahqr-rqga/ahq001.pdf
http://www.northamericanforts.com/Canada/bc.html#van
I was going to add them to the referances, but that shows up as a list ad I didn't want to muck up someones elses work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinPark (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military History of Stanley Park WWI & WWII 

message: Is it just me or does the following sentence: "There are approximately 200 kilometres (120 mi) of trails and roads in the park, which are patrolled by the Vancouver Police Department's equine mounted squad.[7]" lead one to make the conclusions that: a) the park is only patrolled by the equine mounted squad; and/or b) the equine mounted squad is a constant presence in the park? And is this fact even important enough to warrant inclusion in the article's introduction, which presumably outlines the most important things about the park? Do people think a re-wording would be appropriate? MsBatfish (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, wouldn't a city park normally be patrolled by the city police? What's notable about this?
Not sure who to address this to since they didn't sign their question. I am not sure exactly what you are asking. Are you asking why the statement "...patrolled by the Vancouver Police Department's equine mounted squad" is there in the first place? I am assuming that the editor who wrote that must have thought that it was notable because they are equine mounted police (cops on horses) as opposed to regular police (in cars, on foot, or riding bicycles).
Anyone else have any help with my question? If no one responds I guess I'll go ahead and attempt to re-write it or remove it. Thanks MsBatfish (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction: mounted police? 

message: This is a montage and the full-size/largest image would need to be downloaded and cropped, but these are very nice old pictures of the Pavilion when it was first built..Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  old photos of the Pavilion from the British Library collection 

message: Re this: "Despite the growing number of homes, the Stanley Park peninsula was designated as a military reserve in the early 1860s in a survey conducted by the Royal Engineers." There's a story and a half behind that, and the survey was in question was 1860 and it was one of the first, or was the first, undertaken after the passage of the Lands Act that year.  In Vancouver: From Milltown to Metropolis by Alan Morley (Terry Morley?) there's a passage about it.  Two in fact.  Maybe in Matthews somewhere too, come to think of it.  The Chief of the Burrards confronted the survey crew when they were in the Westridge-Capitol Hill area or so, telling them to clear off, whoever it was that was in charge of the survey crew was a high colonial official, don't think it was Trutch, maybe Burnaby, can't remember, turned around and emancipated the chief's slaves, thereby bankrupting and humiliating him.  That's the one story.  The other is that in laying out all the lots of what is now most of the GVRD, key points of land were indeed chosen as "prime" - namely Point Grey/UEL, Point Atkinson/Lighthouse Park, Stanley Park/Burrard Peninsula, Cates Park, Belcarra Park, Burnaby Mountain Park, but they were originally military reserves, they were pre-empted in the name of the military officials presiding over the survey, mostly RE but also including Rear-Admiral Baynes.  There was no newspaper in Victoria yet, but when word reached the Island colonies' capital there was a lot of angry chatter about the "military clique" taking the best land for itself....even the lands system in BC was born in scandal, y'see.  Under pressure from Victoria society, and the Governor "who was not impressed", those lands were given over to military reserve.....and that's why they became military reserve, and while yes they were military strategic for sure consider that those "private" pre-emptors could have made tidy sums leasing "their" land to the RN or other arms of the military.....I don't have Morley's book or Matthews' either....there must be some academic writing about it somewhere, maybe older stuff, not sure....most land history in BC is snakey...in this case involving the whole military elite, some of whom were also colonial cabinet ministers.Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's way to boiled-down a wording....especially because the name Vancouver wasn't applied to the city until 18 years after the formation of Canada, and 14 years after BC joined it.  Coming up with a passage about why military positions were needed I'll have to consider; New Westminster itself was chosen as a military position, a replacement for the very vulnerable original Fort Langley (at Derby not at the current site; once the RE were in town nearly everything had a military side to it, such is the nature of Empire.Skookum1 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine now. I just re-read the article and there is something already in there about the US threat. FYI I added a map today showing the location of the WW2 forts, which is kind of interesting.rhild (talk) 19:34 August 2013 (PST)
For more on this topic, take a look at: http://vanarchive.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/history-of-squatting-in-vancouver/. Rhild (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re RE survey - two surveys 

message: I had some feedback that the gallery was not appropriate for a Good Article, so I have removed it and am placing it here for now. (There are so many great pictures also available on Wikicommons, including all these ones shot by a professional photographer in 1912: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rosetti_Studios_Stanley_Park_Collection). Anyway, just keeping the pictures here so we have some record of what was on the page.Rhild (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these pictures are now on the list of attractions and monuments page.Rhild (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Gallery 

message: "Just west of the Nine O’Clock Gun there is a plaque commemorating these communities." (Dont know if this is true. Because I've never seen it and there was no citation. Rhild (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Line in Monuments 

message: Pictures"
*It would be preferable for the infobox pic to show the whole of the park (as opposed to a beach that shows mostly water and no park).  An aerial photo would be the best.
*Overall, I think there's a good balance of pics (not too many, but enough to give a good idea of the entirety of the park).
*However, some large pics (i.e. [File:City of Vancouver Canadian Pacific town site 1887.jpg]) can be scaled down.  400px is a bit too big.
*By reducing the size of the map, you could shift Lord Stanley's pic up to the top of the "Opening and dedication" section.  That way, there might be enough space to fit a pic of the 9 O'Clock Gun below.
Lead
*"…and which is almost entirely surrounded by waters of the Pacific Ocean." – reword to "and is almost entirely surrounded by the Pacific Ocean"
*"became a military reserve in the mid-1800s, when British Columbia was colonized" – change to "became a military reserve in the mid-1800s after BC was colonized"
*"Shortly after, when the city was established in 1886, the land was turned into Vancouver's first park." – reword to "The land was converted into Vancouver's first park shortly after the establishment of the city in 1886"
*"Designated a national historic site in 1988" – should be capitalized and wikilinked to National Historic Site of Canada, since this is a formal title.
*"as densely forested as it was in the late 1800s" – add "back", so "as it was back in the late 1800s"
*"are as many as hundreds of years old"
*"century old" – hyphen needed
*"which can draw up to thousands of residents and visitors" – should be "which can draw up to a thousand residents and visitors"
More comments to come. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - I have addressed your comments and did another round of edits to simplify the language throughout. I tried to cut down the word count because I think it was suffering from wordiness; therefore, where you have asked to insert words, I carefully evaluated the suggestion to see if it could be said with fewer words. If it could, I chose to chop. I am a tech writer, and fewer words is always our preference. P.S. I am not going to have time to add anymore pics after today, unless there is a burning need for one. I changed some of the pics from the last time you read it because I felt they weren't quite right, but I am happy with where we are now (thanks in part to your comments!). Any more edits? Cheers, Rhild (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on article 

message: A move will need a discussion and community consensus. The fact that the park is a major landmark, recently ranked as one of the top parks in the world, would seemingly allow it to fall well within WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when it comes to disambiguation. I think a discussion should be had and not be unilaterally moved without consensus. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Stanley Park (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stanley Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930171025/http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/parks/stanley/nature.htm to http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/parks/stanley/nature.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed that the photograph of the batteries in Stanley Park from 1914 were mislabelled as being placed at Ferguson Point. The guns during the First World War were placed at Siwash Point, the picnic area that used to be above Siwash Rock. The original source information for  the photograph from the City of Vancouver Archives is mislabelled. It contradicts the information in Peter Moogk's book, Vancouver Defended, and Park Board correspondence and minutes from the City Archives that describe the guns as being located at the picnic grounds above Siwash Rock.
I was going to contact the archives to verify the mislabelled photo before making any changes. Thoughts? --Skheraj (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I contacted the City of Vancouver Archives and presented the information that shows the guns were placed on Siwash Point near Siwash Rock. They updated their catalog entries for the photographs. I will now correct the captions in this article. Here is the link to the updated page for the photo on the city archives website:
http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/royal-canadian-naval-volunteer-reserve-at-gun-emplacement-near-ferguson-point 
--Skheraj (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Guns During First World War 

message: 113.22.154.210 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main photo: how was such an ugly, unrepresentative photo of the park even found? 

message: Many articles related to Stanley Park could benefit from a locator map of the park.  Might you be willing to create one? If not, no problem, you've just been so helpful with creating maps in the past. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: no probs - I'll make on in about 6 hours. If there's anything more I should know before I start, leave notes here :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's version 1. Happy to change it if needsbe. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is perfect, thank you so much! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion