Talk:Hollywood North/Archive 3

message: This is a vote for all. A disambig. link is a great idea and contributes to Wikipedia's clickability. However, what that disambig links to is another question. We'll vote:
* I think its most likely that a reader will be searching for a Hollywood related name than the district of North Hollywood, California. I think the Disambig should link to Hollywood (disambiguation) as per the article Hollywood. Doing so will not only give the reader a wider selection, but also Hollywood (disambiguation) as a link to North Hollywood, California. Mkdwtalk 10:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig Vote

message: "In 2000, cuts to Toronto's film and television subsidies meant that the nickname of "Hollywood North" was still primarily associated with Vancouver" appears in the "Toronto" section.  The source actually only says that the venture has declined but it only implies a decline in the use of the term and does not note it directly.  Although it is a logical step, I'm concerned that is a bit of WP:OR.  I won't remove it for now because it is probably worth noting the decline but it should be rewritten to maintain consistency with the source.  And yes, I am aware that it was likely placed by a Canadian (without having checked).  --JGGardiner 09:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your questioning of the Toronto section and the Hollywood North association with Vancouver. I have at various times rewritten that to remove those comments and have stated previously that almost NONE of the cited sources that particular editor wrote were verifiable (none even mentioned use of the term, let alone any definitions and particularly that one you mentioned). They were very twisted interpretations of the sources cited. But every time I tried to get rid of it, it keeps popping back up. It doesn't really give you guys credibility if you keep deleting my work yet you allow these blatantly incorrect statements and sources cited which say NOTHING about what that editor is trying to claim. My theory is that if all the Canadian cities are trying to claim the term that either all of them be listed or none of them be listed. Toronto can be listed, but they can't claim ownership of the name by these sources (or by any other source(s) considering the widespread use and misuse of the vague term "Hollywood North.") Which BTW, appears to just be a way for a few Canadian writers to "jazz up" an article and not necessarily to "define" a region or claim "exclusivity." Donteatyellowsnow
*If you're trying to rewrite the article to advance a theory, then I suggest you're introducing opinion and original research into the article. Agent 86 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I didn't intend to say that either city was not associated with HN; I was just suggesting that the specific article did not link the decline of the industry in Toronto to the decline of the use of the term.  I think the use of the term for both cities is very well documented.  --JGGardiner 08:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Agent 86's. "Theory" was just used as a figure of speech, not as a hypothesis and it was used by me in regard to the order of the article (not the content). There is no "theory" being proposed, as this is a vague article anyway. - Donteatyellowsnow 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More source issues

message: The source that is cited for this is the arts and culture page for Toronto and does not say any of this: "Toronto is the third-largest television production centre in North America,[31] just behind Vancouver and Los Angeles; the city ranks second as an exporter of televison programming in North America.[32]" ^ Toronto Facts. City of Toronto. Retrieved on 2007-01-14. I think this should be deleted. Or re-sourced. - Donteatyellowsnow
:Also #31 is from an advertising page called "What makes Canada cool" and is not a reliable source. (31. What Makes Canada Cool. Canadacool.com. Retrieved on 2006-12-24.) - Donteatyellowsnow
:: *I'm changing these to better reflect what the sources said: 
::original: In addition to being a productions centre, Toronto is the home to the Toronto International Film Festival, considered the premiere film festival in North America and second to the Cannes festival.[35] It attracts numerous high-profile actors and film makers form around the globe to premiere their Films in Toronto and is generally considered the point to which the Oscar races begin.[36]
::ACTUALLY, that #35 source (^ Tobias, Scott. "Film Festival Guide", BBC NEWS, May, 2005. Retrieved on 2007-02-08) says nothing about Toronto "being second to Cannes" and in fact lists it much further down the list anyway. And as far as "Toronto generally being considered the point to which the Oscar races begin" that is NOT what Roger Ebert's article said nor inferred. It says that Toronto is "a SHOWCASE" for movie studios hoping to get Academy Awards. Obviously any film festival is, but that goes for Sundance, Cannes, Berlin and all the many other higher profile festivals. Ebert does not say the words that this is the point to where the "Oscar races begin" - Donteatyellowsnow
:::I have a problem with this statement and what the source actually says (or more likely doesn't say). 
:::"In 2000, cuts to Toronto's film and television subsidies meant that the nickname of "Hollywood North" was still primarily associated with Vancouver"
:::ref name="TIME"  "Mounting a movie banquet" publisher Time Magazine accessdate=2007-01-13
:::For one thing the source never discusses the term "Hollywood North" as being associated with Vancouver, nor that this is what ended with the subsidies. The source talks about the "VISION", aka the FANTASY or scheme of making the Toronto FILM FESTIVAL into "Hollywood North" and how that fell apart:
:::"The festival's founding coincided with a push by the national government to make Canada a prime movie-making nation, not just a farm team for Hollywood... That ambitious scheme was not to be realized; the government cut its subsidies after a few years, and the vision of Toronto as Hollywood North was quickly occluded." - Donteatyellowsnow
::::(cur) (last)  re: Ckatz: (Please do not remove valid references - the "Globe and Mail" is a well-established newspaper) 
::::I wasn't doubting that the Glob and Mail is well-established, however, that more information is needed for this source. Where did the editor get this reference and what is the Internet link? Also in what context is "Hollywood North" used? Need a quote if possible. Wiki requires that sources be verifiable to all and that you cite secondary sources (sources where this source was obtained from). - Donteatyellowsnow
::::And re: (cur) (last)  00:44, 10 February 2007 Ckatz (Talk | contribs) (rv. - why is this "useless"? (to use the editor's words)) 
::::your other comment about that "source". HA! Did you even READ that source. For one thing it is JAPANESE and for another thing it slags the Canadian film industry bragging that Japanese don't like Canadian films and that they only bought one Canadian film in that entire year of that report. And again, I believe that it is useless information about the location of a film office. It is nonsense at best, irrelevant at a minimum and most likely is blatant advertising. I really question why you would want that source quoted. But if you do, perhaps we should put that little nugget about how much Japanese dislike Canadian films (as that seems more relevant to that particular source) - Donteatyellowsnow
:::::I think that it is worth noting an office or other attempts to woo productions north.  The basis for the usage of HN is really how these locations entice Hollywood bring there film work there.  This seems like a fairly extraordinary effort and deserves mention.  I don't think it is terribly important however.  --JGGardiner 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Toronto

message: I've introduced a reference indicating "Hollywood North" as a nickname for Vancouver. In the interests of furthering this article along I thought I might present the quote on this page: "The idea that British Columbia's feature film industry is a dis-placed cinema is written into the nicknaming of Vancouver, the proviince's centre of film production, as 'Hollywood North' or 'Brollywood.'" [Mike Gasher. Hollywood North: The Feature Film Industry in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2002. p. 8.] Victoriagirl 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck is "Brollywood"? Never heard that one before. Bobanny 20:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have... couldn't tell you when or where, but it's not new, or uncommon. --Ckatzchatspy 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here we go... from the Tourism Vancouver website:"Take advantage of Vancouver's reputation as Hollywood North (sometimes called Brollywood North during the November rainy season.) These are some of Western Canada's best places for celebrity watching. After a hard day on the set, the movie crews and stars come to eat and relax, see and be seen." --Ckatzchatspy 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: hmmm...still not sure I quite get it. So you're saying the "Brolly" part is a play on "brelly," as in "sh@*t, it's starting to rain and I left my brelly at home"? At first I thought the "br" might be taken from British Columbia, or that maybe it was some allusion to "Bollywood." I definately like the sea of umbrellas image better though. And while I'm here: as much as I'm not a fan of Duchovny, who here doesn't complain about the rain in Vancouver? Bobanny 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, can't say I've ever seen it spelled as "brelly" - I've always known the umbrella slang to be "brolly". --Ckatzchatspy 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to admit that I felt stupid for a minute when I didn't get it.  When you have to stretch it that much, it isn't really clever.  =)  Although it makes one realize that Vancouver's popularity as a shooting location is all the more remarkable, especially when one remembers that clear weather is much of what got the real Hollywood going in the first place.  --JGGardiner 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard someone say "brolly" today for the first time, or at least it was the first time I was paying attention. Bobanny 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vancouver's nickname

message: I just want to remind of everyone to mind the civility of their comments.  I know that some editors feel that they’ve moved past the point of AGF in this discussion, and I can understand that.  However, it is important that everyone maintain their civility even in those circumstances.  
And please evaluate each edit on its own merit.  Even a problematic editor or one not acting in good faith can make some good edits.  So stick to the content not the contributors.  I realize that this article has been a challenge for everyone but the best thing for the article is if everyone can maintain the community standards of the project.  
I know that it is easy and I too have had to watch what I say and I edit a few posts before I’ve submitted them.  When things are heated it is important to look at one’s own actions and make sure that they appropriate.  And please remember that it is not acceptable to act badly towards an editor because they did the same to you first.  It will take some conscious effort on the part of everyone involved, myself included, but I'd like to see this discussion turned around.  Thanks everyone.  --JGGardiner 22:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here! (and thank you for that) Victoriagirl 22:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on civility

message: Just to throw the cat among the pigeons, I was on a Seymour Street bus last night (not often downtown) and happened to notice the Hollywood North nightclub, which is upstairs in one of the only buildlings on the east side of Seymour between Robson and Smithe (the rest is parking lot or garage).  It's not big deal on the Vancouver night life circuit (such as it is), but still in business.  I say "still" because I remember it from the Expo summer (1986) when it was one of three clubs on Seymour dubbed "the Playpen", this particular one being "Playpen Central" (the Luv Affair, now extinct, was Playpen South, Systems - now The Drink - was Playpen North.  I'll leave the reputation of this particular club aside but bringing it to mention its existence; and that its name was on that sign in at least 1986 (I saw it every day), and in those times in Vancouver if you did say Hollywood North you'd have to tell by context if it was the nightclub or the film industry association that was being made; but usually the former, in fact, although by the end of the next year the momentum on the latter side was on the roll.  I should note that AFAIK the club wasn't named as a part of any attempt to ride the film industry's bandwagon, but had been arrived at independently; maybe even it's at fault in getting The Province to notice the name and hype it; although, again, the term was growing within the industry before the newspapers got wind of it - and who knows, maybe the presence of the club name helped move that along or even spawn it.  I guess the way to prove the vintage of the club's name and sign is in city business license records (or BC liquor license records?).Skookum1 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hollywood North Nightclub, vintage 1986

message: Just saw WilyD's latest attempts to keep this page encyclopedic, and DEYS rapid-fire attempts to turn it back into an editorial on those mean ol' Canadians making life hard for the California film industry.  DEYS' latest funny is his allegation in an edit comment that Americans aren't allowed to edit this page (which doesn't explain why he still can and does, huh?) and that his version of the article is "correct".  This nuttiness has gone on long enough; I don't see what's going to be useful here - a mediation, an arbitration, or what?  What I do think is that if DEYS pulls another sequence of edits like this morning, and takes that third step and violates the 3RR rule, then it's high time to try and get a block on this SPA.  But in the meantime, it's fun picking apart his wildly paranoiac rationalizations and pretentious "correct definitions" which nobody else uses or has even heard.  Whatever (Hi, yellowsnow! how's the watered-down beer?); the weird part here is I tried to pull a revert on one but WilyD beat me to it.....Skookum1 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: they're all film-topic articles, though, aren't they?  Still an SPA, therefore....Skookum1 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked - primarily anyways, but I don't think he's what the guideline had in mind.  He's clearly a good editor who focuses on an area he knows who lets his emotions get the better of him in a couple of articles that really get his goat. WilyD 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't wish to contradict you, but a thorough review of DEYS' edit history will more than adequately demonstrate the true nature of his/her editing style. --Ckatzchatspy 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that his dicking around with articles because I've edited them in the past was probably not the best way to advance his point. WilyD 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at his edit history I see that he put a 3RR tag on your user page, even though you only edited the article three times, the same as him.  --JGGardiner 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's alright.  Whatever you might guess are his motives, warning me before I might break 3RR is a very reasonable thing to do.  WilyD 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His edit summary said that you had already "broken" 3RR.  But in the spirit of AGF, I'll assume that was a typo.  In any event, since everybody is so concerned about edit-warring, I look forward to a quite day here tomorrow.  =)  --JGGardiner 05:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, standard protocol is to get consensus on the talk page before making potentially provocative changes. Like all those other articles subjected to numerous inappropriate edits, it's justifiable to just revert changes without consensus, especially when they violate NPOV and attribution policies, which only takes a nano-second. I just copyedited the article, and it looks pretty good now - definitely well-referenced and it's informative. It doesn't seem to be subjected to inappropriate edits nearly as much as some other articles on my watchlist. As an aside, I thought about DYES a little while back, wondering whether Dweezil Zappa performed "Don't Eat the Yellow Snow" when he brought his Zappa Plays Zappa tour to Vancouver. Bobanny 20:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe dweezil should sue for copyright violation because DEYS "stole" his title? ;-)_Skookum1 20:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely local reference: isn't D.E.Y.S. the acronym for Downtown Eastside Youth Services; I was looking at it and also saw D.E.Y.A.S., the needle-exchange folks.  Just accidental/anecdotal but I was wondering why that acronym looked familiar (given that I seem to recall being the one who first coined it for our eater-of-white-snow-only).Skookum1 01:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DEYS => WP/ANI

message: :Image:MikeGasherHWN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MikeGasherHWN.jpg

message: Upon reading your entry on "Hollywood North", I would like to point out that San Francisco is not referred to as Hollywood North in entertainment circles here in California. Although I cannot cite a source, George Lucas foray into setting up his production studio in the Bay Area caused him to coin the term "his Hollywood North", a term which is attributed to the nickname as used for Vancouver, Canada. In fact, Toronto has laid claim to the name after it has been used and in existence for quite some time. I wanted to make some contributions to your entry but having read the discussion, the impression appears that you may not allow for any additional contribution to the subject and any efforts to add or edit will only be reverted.
Secondly, I would like to add that the use "two to three days drive" in regards to the proximity of "Hollywood" to "Los Angeles" is trivial and should not be included. It is common practice in this industry to have things shipped, parceled out or flown. In many regards, equipment are rented at filming location (which is why Vancouver and Toronto are attractive for production). 
The use of the term "Hollywood North" is highly debatable but the history behind the terminology should be included for historical purposes with an addendum to point out the dispute. 
Inclusion of San Francisco should be rethought over as being "Hollywood North" since it is rarely, if ever, attributed as such and any such mention in the past was coincidental. Being in this industry here in California, we never refer to SF as being as such. However, the term is and has been attributed to the production centers in Vancouver. In addition, the City of Santa Barabara pens itself as Hollywood North due to the International Film Festival held there as well as a history in silent film making at the turn of the century. 
Just my opinion and thoughts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeroDoe (talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm personally in favour of these changes and had suggested them earlier, but due to other opinions I refrained from doing so. I was never able to find any notable sources that mentioned San Fran as Hollywood North where as several books have been written about Vancouver, Toronto, and Canada as a whole as being 'Hollywood North'. Mkdwtalk 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the confusion regarding the usage of "Hollywood North" is the media and marketing boards persistent determination for inclusion into their own dialogue. It should be noted that any usage here in California is due to the media's knowledge of the term that is unknown to the average reader in the United States. It has also been argued that the City of Toronto uses the term in its claim to be recognized as the Hollywood of the North but what is not mentioned is that of the production dollars spent in the entertainment industry, much of that cost also lies with the production cost of locally produced materials for CBC and CTV. Hollywood North refers in effect, to American produced film and television productions and NOT to locally produced materials. If in fact the inclusion of recognizing San Francisco as being described as "Hollywood North", then it does a great disservice to the readers of Wikipedia with ill-informed and unsubstantiated facts. When I was in Vancouver for the production of Runaway (no pun intended), I was highly amused by the "Hollywood North" moniker and if I recall, and from what I understood at the time, it was termed as such by the Tourism industry as a marketing tool. I cannot confirm this as I am just relying on memory. I would like to point out that in some instances when there is a film production in a city that is north of Los Angeles, some media types, whether local or national, there has always been some reference to that location being referred to as Hollywood North due to past productions in the same area. In addition, the industry here in California generally recognizes "Hollywood North" to be universally known as referring to Vancouver as the production location. Not to refute DEYS claims, but if in fact San Francisco is known as "Hollywood North", it is not wide-spread. For as long as I've been in this industry, we don't make that connection.  KeroDoetalk 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of that.  I brought up the point about domestic production, specifically CTF money, on the related runaway production article.  It has been a while since I looked at this article but just reviewing it now, I really don't think that any inclusion of the locations other than Vancouver and Toronto is needed.  In fact, I think that any inclusion would be a definite case improper weighting.  I'd support some trimming to the article.  I think that only one editor was ever in favour of inclusion anyway.  --JGGardiner 22:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to remove. 

message: The sections on Vancouver and Toronto contradict each other. In the Vancouver section it says: "Vancouver is North America's third-largest film centre,[23][24] just after Los Angeles and New York.[25][26][27] It is second to Los Angeles in television production in the world.[28]". On the other hand, the Toronto section claims: "Toronto ranks third in film and television production in North America[38] and ranks second as an exporter of television programming in North America.[39]. To me, these sentences have practically the same meaning. That's the problem of having to many references, it gives the illusion of accuracy but nobody cares whether the figures are actually correct or not. --Voyager (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Greetings. It was pointed out to me that the Internet Movie Database is not a good reliable source to use here on wikipedia. I would like to add a couple of sentences to the Canada section of this article that makes references to Hamilton, Onrario. What I would like to know is I have two sources that I would like to use for citations. One from the local Hamilton Spectator newspaper and the other from the Hamilton Film Office. Would these 2 sources be reliable ones to use here for citations in this article? Thanks. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB's problems lie in the fact that some of the information is user-submitted, which gives us problems for verifiability. As for the citations, the Spectator is a legitimate journalistic enterprise, so it should be good - just be sure to assess the stories to see if they are objective writing or "boosterism". (I'm presuming you are referring to a news article rather than an editorial.) As for the film office, it is best to assess on a case-by-case basis as they have a vested interest in promoting the area. If they are saying "project X shot here" or "we had X million in productions last year" - that would be appropriate. If they are saying "Hamilton is the new Hollywood North" - that wouldn't work. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 04:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Thanks for that very helpful response. Is the Canada-section of this article the appropriate location to add that information to? Nhl4hamilton (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources for citations 

message: Greetings. I've had some time to think over Ckatz idea of creating a seperate article titled List of Canadian Film Centres and I think it's a great idea.  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Canadian Film Centres 

message: :Image:Hollywood North Movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hollywood North Movie.jpg

message: Despite the ambiguities, the general consensus is that the term "Hollywood North" is now attributed to multiple major film centers that is NOT Hollywood itself. I've been reading discussions debating in regards to where Hollywood North is attributed to and the origins of the term, I still find most of what I'm reading not being able to fully get the facts correct. Although it is claimed that the first appearance of the term was Mike Gasher's book, it is not. During the early 80's, Vancouver was starting to see a lot of Hollywood Runaway productions being filmed there. As an aspiring screenwriter, I took a lot of interest in the developing industry in Vancouver. The first time I saw the term "Hollywood North" first appeared in a new publication called Reel West and this is before Gasher's book was published and released. Out of curiosity, I purchased his book when it was first released with the thought that Gasher was "borrowing" the terminology or describing the Industry as it has now become to be known. Sadly, I cannot find any of these publications amongst my huge horde of stowed boxes but I do recall this clearly. In my opinion, Hollywood North was a media coinage and was directly referring to the burgeoning film industry in Vancouver. Having worked on the movie set of Runaway in 1984(no pun intended), those in the business here in California were already familiar with the term. I also recall at one point how the industry here was concerned about losing productions to Vancouver that Variety magazine then first used the term for their article. Again, I cannot directly cite this. Although Wikipedia allows inclusion only for verifiable information, I thought I would post this information and see if you can do your own research.
Finally, to include whatever city which has seen movie productions there is NOT a reason for inclusion. The use of the term is heavily used by the media as a way of describing the industry. When the movie For Keeps was filmed partly in Manitoba and the Press used the term, does that mean Winnipeg can also lay claim to being known as Hollywood North? It is a common term and its present use should not be a basis for including every film center on the wikipedia pages reflecting it as such. Hamilton, Santa Barbara and San Francisco, IMO, does not warrant inclusion on these pages. Since 1979, I have known Hollywood North to be Vancouver and Vancouver alone. Any other city using it is just hijacking the term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeroDoe (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; there's a discussion/argument about this farther up this page; the only one I can see as viable, because it's hijacked the term so much, is Toronto.  The disputer was a Californian who was adamant about those other usages; so long as they're cited (technically there should be three cites for each, not just a one-time use in one local paper).  The meanings in Vancouver and Toronto are different, too - in Vancouver it refers to the industry as an organism, and to the "branch-plant" relationship to the Real Hollywood; in Toronto it's being used for that city's promotional self-image and its star system, right down to the Walk of Fame on Bloor or Yonge Streets or wherever it is; a knock-off of the Real Hollywood, while Vancouver's industry is an extension of the Real Hollywood, not a cocked-up Canadian imitation of the glitz and glamour; it's a working term in Vancouver, in Toronto it's hype.  But very citable.Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollywood North terminology. 

message: :Vancouver is 1,725 kilometres (1,072 miles) from Hollywood, a three hour airplane flight[32] or a two to three day drive.
LOL.  Three days including traffic jams from Bakersfield I guess.  Usually do-able in two days with a break around Eugene or Medford, admittedly with hard-ball driving (Eugene's a good 8-9 hrs from Vancouver, not including border-crossing times or Seattle traffic).  We used to reckon on it taking about 22 hours or so to reach LA....driving at "Canadian speeds" though maybe.  "Two to three days" I guess isn't too much; I winced at the three days, more like 2.5, at least via I-5 if not 101, with stop at Medford/Ashland and Stockton/Modesto....Skookum1 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Driving time from Lotusland to La-la Land

message: Montreal has never, or perhaps very rarely, been associated with the term Hollywood North; there were no citations for this usage in ref to that city present, nor are many likely to be found; the Frenc-language industry in particular does not affect the term; this is not about which Canadian cities have film productions, it's about places where the term Hollywood North has been used for.  The Just for Laughs festival, for example, has nothing to do with film/TV anyway (other than it's taped and broadcast).  Winnipeg and Halifax, however, have been associated with the Hollywood North idea, more along the lines of the Vancouver context than the Toronto one; Winnipeg more than Halifax, I think; I'm in Hali so will ask my industry contacts if they feel the term applies to them, but it's not hyped as such at all so I didn't even try to include it in the article.  The blurbs about one-time usages in California in the lede continue to stick out as out-of-place and WP:Undue weight; Sundance is just Sundance, if there's a mention of it as Hollywood North that must be more to do with the transplanted glitz during the festival than with the workaday context in Vancouver which is the origin and primary usage of the term.Skookum1 (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The same goes for the Santa Barbra Film Festival and Sundance Film Festival. For example one of the 'references' was "Entertainment Tonight" entertainment news show reference to Sundance as "Hollywood North" January 25th, 2007 show" - hardly a citation. Even if this citation was acceptable, the fact that it was used by a single source does not make it the primary topic and would be so obscure that it should be left out. I also propose a removal of the San Francisco and George Lucas farms comment as it is likely the term was incorrectly applied to those places by the media, who we know all so well to get usage of terms wrong all the time. Mkdwtalk 13:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: removed Montreal section

message: Please see here.Skookum1 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the purpose of this thread? Are you canvassing?   Will Beback  talk   00:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the attack again, huh?  The purpose of this thread is to alert editors of this page, who sweated long and hard over citing it, to the existence of a debate as to whether it was a legitimate term or not.  You should stay with the merits of that other article, if any, rather than drag other articles into it which have nothing to do with it, simply because I've edited them....Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Attack? Why is it you always use combat-related terms to describe discussions? Anyway, you're the one who dragged this here. I was just using this article as an example for why well-sourced names, like "Hollywood North", should be allowed in Wikipedia. Is there any harm in that?   Will Beback  talk   08:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pffft - you're comparing a well-sourced term (Hollywood North) to one that ISN'T and CAN'T BE.Skookum1 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really an issue for this talk page.   Will Beback  talk   21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: re the term being compared to something it shouldn't be compared to

message: Haliwood is the local term in Halifax for its film industry; fairly citable, just noting it here for later article-creation use.  Trailer Park Boys, LEXX, Paul Kimball's UFO/ghost shows etc etc etc.Skookum1 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Haliwood]]

message: the cite from a Philadelphia paper says only "Toronto could easily claim the title of Hollywood North," while the article conflates this to "Since 1985, Toronto has associated itself with the nickname 'Hollywood North'".  Sayiing some where could claim something and using that to "prove" that that city's rebranding effort dates back to 1985 is entirely spurious; I should remove the whole phrase because as a concept Hollywood North did not even become current until after that date, and only in reference to Vancouver (ever since when Toronto's been retooling its meaning, including puffy press making conflated claims exactly like this one).Skookum1 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added several newspaper sources referring to the term Hollywood North to the article. They all date from the late 1970's.Brodey (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Toronto 1985 claim

message: As far as the spam-based removal of the FILMPORT item  re Toronto, from Hollywood North Report (an independent magazine), why was that reference considered spam and the one from PORTAL itself left intact, along with the press-release/spam-like quality of that whole bit of content, which is only there to promote Toronto's film industry and has nothing to do with Hollywood North as a concept/name?  This article isn't about Toronto's film industry, it's about the term Hollywood NorthSkookum1 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that we ever decided what the subject of the article is exactly.  It probably should be about the production of non-domestic film and television in Canada.  Or perhaps just Vancouver.  But the whole thing before was so difficult that it was just never worked out.  Runaway production, which was a content fork from here, is in even worse shape.  Every once in a while I think I should fix it but I get depressed about it before I can even start.  I guess I should make it a stub at least. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to make time to look through the history of Runaway production. There was a version at one point that was somewhat referenced and neutral, but the problem with that article (and what spilled in here also) was a particular user from the States who had a hate-on for Canadian film production and who was using the article as a very one-sided opinion piece. --Ckatzchatspy 20:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: FILMPORT "spam" article from ''Hollywood North Report'' - when other spam left in??

message: Can someone explain why there are several books being mentioned in the article section of the article? None of these books link to their own pages and it is unclear what role they serve in the article aside from promotion of those books? If those books have had an impact or play a prominent role in relation to vancouver film it should be noted somehow. I have not seen other articles reffering to other books similar to its subject just for the sake of it. Brodey (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed references to the various vancouver film books in the article. Can it please be explained how a book that came out in 2002 is so important to the idea of hollywood north (a term coined at least 20 years before said books publication) in canada, that it should be featured in the opening paragraph? All these references appear to serve as nothing but promotion for these various books. No other articles contain seemingly random listing of books. In the article for airplane there is no "you can check these other books out section". Unless reason can be given they will be removed.  Brodey (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored; this has had consensus for quite some time, and you have not established a suitable rationale for removing them. Furthermore, they do appear relevant to the topic. Please allow discussion to continue. --Ckatzchatspy 06:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, we need to avoid a tug-of-war back and forth between Vancouver and Toronto editors. It's not a PR competition, nor do I want to see a return to the situation we had a few years ago with the aggressively pro-US/anti-Canada "yellow snow" guy. --Ckatzchatspy 06:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A request for review has been placed in Wikipedia:Third opinion, hopefully they will be able to determing the worthiness of the inclusion of said books. Brodey (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we'll need to make sure we check our respective preferences at the editing door (so to speak). It's not OK to strip out references to Vancouver while building up ones for Toronto. --Ckatzchatspy 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I also think a "Further reading" section is a good idea. It will highlight the books and in a way that does not have to be part of the article body. WP:FURTHER is the relevant link to the guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has a lot of history. A lot. Several edit wars and disputes occurred, meditations, etc. etc. I suppose the most blunt reason why these third party publications are included is because of the dispute as to where the term was originally applied, and then where it applies to now. See archive discussion. Two editors made a very large effort to remove the Vancouver section despite the evidence that the term was mainly applied to Vancouver originally, and in more recent decades applied to Toronto (although back in the 80's Toronto was some times referred to as Hollywood North as well). The books and magazine references were used to show that publications had been written about Vancouver and referred to the use of the term in relation to the city in its contents as the main recognized location for the term with in the film industry for many years. The second factor to these publications was that when the article was first written, it faced another challenge, and that was from the deletionists who argued that this term was simply a neologism. Having these publications helped the original writers confront these arguments and eventually keep the article on the site in the first place. Mkdwtalk 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Following the advice from the third opinion request I see no reason to keep the book mentions as they are right now. If a further reading section for any books relevant to this article is to be created that would be fine. I see nothing about how listing these books re-enforce vancouver as being referred to as 'hollywood north' originally. These books are all published post-1970's when several newspaper articles are cited referencing toronto as 'hollywood north' in the 1970's. A 3rd party review was put in and yet it is being ignbored? I say take the steps advised by the 3rd party review or said section should be removed. Brodey (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Also the way you described the use of a section violates wikipedias policy on advocacy. Brodey (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Brody, again, I'd state that I'm concerned by an apparent pattern of enhancing the material focusing on Toronto while at the same time deleting text relating to Vancouver. Furthermore, in questioning he books, I'd ask if you had actually investigated them. The first one in the list, for example, is written by a former reporter for the Province who is now a member of the Department of Journalism at Concordia. It is a historical overview of the development of the BC film industry, and as such certainly notable in the context of this article. --Ckatzchatspy 08:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am concerned with Brodey's edits. He has disregarded advice or the opinions of other long time editors of this article. He turned to a third party editor who I highly doubt is very familiar with the subject matter and made a first touch comment, but since that opinion was expressed in line with his views, he's disregarded article consensus. Furthermore, it's clear that he has the intent to only promote and expand the Toronto section while seemingly removing information from the Vancouver section. This unbalanced editing could lead to an extremely biased and factually errant article. I warn that further attempts to reduce the Vancouver section could be seen as tampering for the purposes of promoting the sole ideas of an editor, and not writing a complete and well rounded article about the whole subject matter. I say this as we've seen it in the past, especially with Donteatyellowsnow we ultimately tried to have the article deleted -- was banned -- all because he couldn't work together with other editors on having an equally weighted article with sections pertaining to both Toronto and Vancouver. Mkdwtalk 05:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book References