Talk:Vancouver General Hospital

Hospitals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: British Columbia / Vancouver Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Vancouver (assessed as Mid-importance).

VGH vs. VHHSC[edit]

So that we don't have to do it later ... I'm splitting off the VHHSC into it's own article. The VHHSC article will list and describe the various facilities, unless said facility merits its own article (in this case VGH) thus will link to it instead.

The VGH article here still contains VHHSC information. I'm trying to break that out, so that the article gives only VGH information. Therefore a lot of the information that was here has been transferred to the VHHSC article. --Dogbreathcanada 05:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought th merge discussion was on the other talklpage so put my vote there; Oppose for what it's worth; VHHSC is a group of institutions, not a single one; even though VGH had more than one pavilion (I was born in the Heather, like all of us of a certain generation....).Skookum1 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

Does anyone have any pictures of the building outside, not sure about internal photos for privacy reasons but some exterior shots would help a bit. I could take some but its a bit of a trip for me, if anyone is close by and could do it would be great! -- Tawker 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to go this week. Usgnus 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BC sure is old![edit]

'In 1959, VGH opened the “Centennial Pavilion” (named in commemoration of the centennial of British Columbia becoming a province of Canada), which at the time was the largest part of the VGH facilities.'

This statement carries the implication that BC celebrated its centennial in 1959, which would mean it became a first province in 1859, fully 17 years before Canada become a Dominion. One way or another, this sentence should be clarified by someone who knows the story. -198.163.45.88 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the date for British Columbia's founding to 1858 and made a correction regarding its original status (founded as a British Crown colony, nine years before Canadian Confederation). Also, the opening date of the Centennial Pavillion has been changed to the correct date. Starbuck-2 23:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adult hospital[edit]

I have edited the facilities section to reflect the fact that VGH serves adult patients and doesn't offer pediatric or maternity services (although maybe that's important enough to be nearer to the start of the article). I don't have a reference for that (I know because I have been there), but if someone could find one I would appricate it. I also removed the refernce to the breastfeeding centre. The Vncouver breastfeeding centre is not part of VGH (although it is afiliated with VCH).Stevecudmore (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

There are five entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. Removed two links and a 2014 maintenance tag.

ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]