Talk:Vancouver

Archives

---

• Why Vancouver is not 'disambiguous'

1. Archive 1
2. Archive 2
3. Archive 3
4. Archive 4
5. Archive 5
6. Archive 6
7. Archive 7

Vancouver in WP:FAR

I have nominated Vancouver for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since apparently no one responded to this (and I am as much to blame as anyone), the article has now been listed as a Featured Article Removal Candidate. We need some editors to step up to the plate and address the deficiencies right away or Vancouver will be delisted as an FA. Those who are interested in working on keeping FA status, please indicate your willingness below. You may also wish to comment here. Sunray (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I will work on keeping FA status

• Sunray (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going away for a few weeks & will have little time to work on this. Most of the complaints seem to be about the demographic section. That section is a problem in just about every city article. Every ethnicity & nationality in the world could end up in such a section. I think we should restrict it to identifiable neighborhoods - Commercial Drive, ChinaTown, etc. The request for citation for bilingual street signs seems unnecessary - but a photo of one or two should satisfy whoever is so concerned about that. The paragraph in the lede about rankings is long and, frankly, boring - it needs to be cut to a bare minimum. The Olympics can go with industry paragraph. --JimWae (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Demographics should also not dwell mostly on ethnic/visible minority issues; age/income/gender strata and other basic-demographics material should have equal coverage to the usual Canadian obsession with multiculturalism.Skookum1 (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed the quality of living stuff in the lead a bit and eliminated the blurb on the Olympics - it is covered in the sports section. Sunray (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[undent[One thing in need of doing for some time now is migrating most of the content in the History section to History of Vancouver; I don't have the time or energy, and admit to expanding this section myself; the same problem I think exists with the BC article vs History of British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• The olympics are a major event, like them or not. several cities that previously were sites stll mention them in their lede. Its importance to the city will only grow as we get closer to them. They are certainly more important than 10th cleanest city according to some magazine. The last paragraph still is terribly boring. Salt Lake City was transformedby the Olympics - and Vancouver is also changing quickly now - more light rail, new convention center,... --JimWae (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this article should not be a promotional brochure for the Olympics, just as it should not also be a promotional brochure for the city. Expo 86 also changed the city, or rather government infrastructure improvements associated with the political agenda behind the fair changed the city; so did, for that matter, the Diamond Jubilee (1960-61) and the British Empire Games (1954) and also Centennial-era improvements (1966-67 and 1971), though all that's somewhat obscured behind the general infrastructure expansion of the whole WAC Bennett era but includes things like the Granville Street Bridge, the 401, the Georgia Viaduct(s) etc. Crediting the Olympics with being the instigation of LRT and the convention centre is definitely part of the Olympics press kit, and while LRT has had its own agenda since Expo 86, it's quite likely the planning for the convention centre wouldn't have been fast-tracked without the Olympics agenda....nor its huge cost overruns tolerated as they have been (considering the same government that pushed the convention centre has made so much political hay off the Fast Ferries cost oeverruns, which were less than half that of the convention centre's). The concentration of spending in Vancouver because of the Olympics is also a major political issue outside of Vancouver by other parts of the province, particularly the Interior; that's not so much relevant to this article but all this is meant as a reminder that one-sided presentation of the Olympics as a windfall to the city is a loaded concept and definitely part of a political package; i.e. the infrastructure improvmeents would (eventually) have been built anyway, if not under Olympics justification then under some other justification (particularly highways improvements). That the city's charter was changed by the legislature to enable completion of the Athletes Village (because of its cost overruns and shaky financing) certainly has helped changed southeast False Creek; but building of facilities does not itself change a city; the Canada Games Pool didn't transform New Westminster, Empire Stadium didnt' transform Vancouver, so rebuilt sports facilities in QE Park and a re-fit for the Stadium are largely superfluous and transitory. That the RAV line shattered the traditional economy/community on Cambie Street definitely is part of teh story, though, likewise the rebuild of Granville Mall - even the selection or the RAV route (now the Canada Line) over the long-needed expansion into Coquitlam is also part of the political legacy of the Olympics....what I'm getting at is presenting Olympics improvements without their political context is NPOV-to-the-point-of-POV....Skookum1 (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A rail line from the airport to downtown is essential for a modern city. The Canada Line has been in the works since 1984 or earlier. The Olympics are a major international event. The present last paragraph of the article, even though all factual, would appear to be redundant boosterism. It seems to be rankings for the same thing by different magazines, and the entire paragraph needs to be condensed to 1 or 2 sentences. NYC article lede mentions both World's Fairs it hosted. Wikipedia has the advantage of being able to stay current, and the Olympics will only grow in importance in time. Besides being in lede, there probably should even be an entire section on it. It would have to be morebalanced than the paragraph above, though ;) --JimWae (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to whether we keep the reference to the olympics in the lead. It is pretty significant and, though I removed it, I could see putting it back. It is just that I hate those one line paragraphs (and so, I believe do FA reviewers). I will have another go at that last paragraph in the lead to try to make it more readable and if I can find an easy transition to bring in mention of the Olympics, will do so. Sunray (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the last paragraph. Took out the bit about being the 10th cleanest city. Added a transitional sentence about Vancouver and international events, which was a good lead-in to the Olympics, so I restored that sentence. How does that work? Sunray (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as those international events go, I found some stuff on UN Conference on Human Settlements and the associated anti-event, Habitat Forum; the year was 1976 and this is a Vancouver Sun article from its 30th anniversary; there's various stuff on this google and one...the UN's own site on it is here but it includes info on Habitat II and Habitat III (1996 and 2006). There was also the World Bank Conference in the early '90s, which was a very big to-do, and also if it's not mentioned already the Clinton-Yeltsin Summit .Skookum1 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

metro pop. error

I just found out that this article's metro pop. for vancouver is wrong because someone just added GVRD and FVRD this is not sourced and plus WP:CANSTYLE states for populations of cities and metro areas we should use sats can's numbers not other ones. RebaFan1996 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I raised this before, with no resolution - see this section above.Skookum1 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is unsourced (or rather, that the source does not give this figure). It is thus OR. I've removed it. Sunray (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

street railway

I lengthened this a bit for accuracy/completness though more is needed, e.g. the "Loop" line via 16th, teh Kitsilano lines etc:

Vancouver's streetcar system began on 28 June 1890 and ran from the (first) Granville Street Bridge to Westminster Avenue (now [[Main Street (Vancouver)|Main Street] and [[Kingsway (Vancouver)|Kingsway]). Less than a year later, the Westminster and Vancouver Tramway Company began operating Canada's first interurban line between the two cities and beyond to Chilliwack, with another line, the Lulu Island Railroad, from the Granville Street Bridge to Steveston via Kerrisdale, which encouraged residential neighbourhoods outside the central core to develop.

But wanting to note that the Vancouver-New West line, or one of them if not the first (?) ran via "Park Drive" (now Commercial Drive): think it may have been the original, because of the lesser grade vs. the Main Street hill; but it may have been the Burnaby Lake Line rather than the Central Park Line, will investigate that; also Westminster Avenue was only Main Street from the harbour to 7th, then the name Westminster Road applied to what is now Kingsway. Source for all this among many is Peter MacDonald's Historical Atlas of Vancouver, don't have publ. data.Skookum1 (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Physical culture/obesity in demographics

I'm not sure that the obesity bit belongs in demograhpics, unless other diseases and physical habits are also included; maybe it should be in lifestyle or health, if there are such sections:

According to Statistics Canada, Vancouver is the least obese metropolitan area in Canada, with only 11.7% of the population obese.[

I think there are also stats on the number of fitness club memberships and associated retail outlets, bicycle usage, hiking and skiing as activities, child sports programs etc. "not being obess" all by itself is too stand-alone..."body-conscious" is definitely something to be mentioend, not sure how it can be cited, though of course more noticeable on the West Side than on the East Side but also a common theme in the whole Lower Mainland.Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this from the "Demographics" section as it is also contained in the "Sports and recreation" section. The latter is in a stubby subsection called "Fitness and health." I agree that it doesn't stand alone and should be added to. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver featured article review - To do list

The following areas have been identified as needing attention as part of the featured article review:

• Edit lead and reduce number of paragraphs  Done
• Ensure images are correctly sourced [1]  Done
• Fix dead links  Done
• Eliminate stubby paragraphs (one or two sentences)
• Fix links to disambiguation pages  Done
• Add citations (rm "citation needed tags)  Done
• Edit article
  • Quality of prose ( WP:WIAFA criterion 1a )
  • Readability
  • Article length (condense)

Several editors have been working on this, but, as you can see, there is lots more to do. Sunray (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FA status removed

Well, we were working on addressing the concerns raised in the review but despite that, Featured Article status was removed. I'm pretty disappointed with the process and intend to find out more about why the article was de-listed. Does anyone else care? Sunray (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to devote to this and attempted earlier on to ask for a hold while we organized, but then things came up and I couldn't take it on. Even then it might have been too late and too many editors had already voted prior. Unfortunately the whole featured article process is more about democracy (even though it implicitly says it shouldn't). I was following your push with this article to get it back on track and thought you might pull it off. I too felt the issue was closed prematurely as you were correcting many of the complants. While I am unavailable to assist you, you may want to look up Selmo, Bobanny, Ckatz, and Alessa (the editor formerly known as AQu01rius, and Buchanan-Hermit who were pivotal editors in the original successful FAC in 2006. jbmurray is also another person that would strongly aid this process as he has incredible WP:FAC success with his numerous articles. Mkdw^talk 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Visible minorities section

One user apparently prefers all the ethnicity links in this section to be to the main article, as in Chinese people, rather than to the X Ethnicity in Canada article, as in Chinese Canadians. It's obvious that these links should be to X Ethnicity in Canada articles, since the article is discussing people of various ethnicities in Canada, not those ethnicities in general. The information in those articles is more directly relevant to people in Canada, and therefore the subject of the Vancouver article. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't change it to Chinese people. As a Chinese Canadian whose family has lived in Canada now for three generations, I don't even hold a Chinese passport, nor do I culturally identify with Chinese culture. Anyone who has filled out a census card or done any followup on the defined terms of ethnicity, culture, and citizenship, will know there is a very large difference between someone ethnically Chinese, and someone who can be defined on all points as a Chinese person. You should also be aware that the Wikipedia article Chinese people has very little references and does not match the Canadian legal definition as recognized by Immigration Canada and the Canadian Government. In fact, the article Chinese people, appears to be quite a mess as its views are the contribution of editors from several countries. Mkdw^talk 09:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would also be important to note that like many Canadians, I am a mix of different backgrounds, but can identify myself in more than one category. You also run into problems that if you identify yourself as French, you could be referring to Quebecois and not the French people etc. It appears you have issue with redundant information with in the articles and what belongs on a main page versus a subpage. Ultimately if the wording is correct (in a legal, politically correct, and recognized usage) then the content of the article must change. Simply put, we cannot change the way something is in life to accommodate Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 09:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)