Talk:Victoria, British Columbia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Other Facts

Under "Other Facts" it states Beacon Hill Park's 75 hectares lie along Victoria's southern shore. This is geographically inaccurate, as no part of Beacon Hill Park lies along or borders a shore, and is actually separated from the shore by a road and then another park entirely. http://www.victoriabc.ca/victoria/beaconhillpark.htm. Beacon Hill borders the Dallas Road Waterfront Walkway, which itself lies along the southern shore, but is not Beacon Hill Park. Joevanisland 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

...corrected section, mentioned JuandeFuca/Olympic views with appropriate Wikipedia links. Wish I could figure out how to indent(!). Edited own comments for newbie verbiage.

suggest "adjacent to"....more literal/colloquial is "is across the waterfront/clifftop dallas Road from [whatever the name of the beachfront park is].Skookum1 06:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed. I agree, "adjacent" is much better than "near", thank you. Joevanisland 08:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Yup, Beacon Hill Park actually goes right to the shore, so is part of the beachfront park. The other beachfront parks, contiguous with it are Holland Point Park to the west and Clover Point Park to the east. (per this map and this which describes the oceanside bluffs, "lashing waves" and differentiates with the "interior of the park".--Keefer | Talk 09:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I accept your citations without reservation. Mine here suggests Beacon Hill borders the Dallas Walkway but doesn't encompass it, but is no doubt a technicality more to do with making it easier for city hall to distinguish dog-handling bylaws than anything else. Your contention that it is one park regardless is more accurate than the point I made, as even if it's only one park in practice, that clearly is the consensus and more reflective of reality. However, does the wording chosen not satisfy you? Adjacent does mean "immediately adjoining without intervening space", so the park is still described as adjoining the federal shoreline, no? My original objection was only to wording that would suggest a linear park, all 75 hectares of which lay "along" the shore. Please freely edit my changes as per your will, and thank you for this correction. Joevanisland 22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad we have someone like you here who is taking an interest in the article beyond just a passing statistic and category addition, and who's capable of good discussion. Nope, adjacent makes perfect sense. I guess the only point I had in posting the above was to try and establish definitively that it does go to the shore (something which I wasn't sure of prior to this discussion, even). Happy editing.--Keefer | Talk 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Who says locals are confused about the rules of cricket? The people playing cricket are the locals. Is the "newly dead" cliche a popular local expression? I've certainly never heard anyone who lives here use it. This and the cricket-type comments are IMHO un-encyclopedic, not verifiable in any way, and rather brochure-like. Any objections to my deleting these statements? Joevanisland 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in above the succeding discussion, but there's an imediate reply here and yes it is a popular local expression, and relatively easy to dig up in newspaper columns mentioning Victoria; it's a stock cliche about the place, as also "God's Waiting Room". both are so common on-air and in-print, e.g. turning up in columns/broadcasts originating in the East, that doubtless both are in media styleguides. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they were, that's how common they are. Sure, no doubt the Board of Trade doesn't like it; but ask anyone in the Press Gallery and for sure you'll get a "yup".Skookum1 07:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I live here too, am involved with the local media, and yet I disagree with the original statement, thus the problem becomes what defines "popular", "stock", or "common", and that would need a citation, wouldn't it? Respectfully I do actually agree the phrase exists historically as a cliche said about Victoria, and wouldn't object to reinserting something with that language, but that it is a saying popular amoung actual locals? In present time? Joevanisland 08:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I would second the notion that that particular 'cliche' (as you call it) should appear somewhere in the article, even if it is explicitly stated that it is merely a 'saying' and not necessarily ubiquitously popular among populars. In fact, I contend that it would be 'un-encyclopedic' to make no mention whatsoever about one of the most frequently overheard 'sayings' pertaining to Victoria. Jester7777 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If it's something as obvious as a POV (point-of-view statement, you can feel safe in removing it without consensus. If it's something contentious (especially if negative) and unsourced, then it's usually safe to remove it without consensus. I've gone ahead and made the changes. -- KirinX 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Finding Be_Bold takes some getting used to. Should I delete my own wording of the views from Beacon Hill Park as "spectacular"? Impossible to imagine anyone thinking the view is average, yet it's still pure POV/OR, is it not? Joevanisland 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly think it can be spectacular (particularly on clear days looking south!). Nonetheless I wouldn't consider the term particularly encyclopedic. I'll delete/re-word it.--Keefer | Talk 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"spectacular" would be on every BC webpage, and at points no doubt has been on the bulk of them; situational descriptions have to suffice (they can be "colourized" a bit perhaps ;-) ) but the adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" is the proper response. "Spectacular" is very relative, believe me - I'm from the Lillooet Country, where there'es at least forty kinds of "spectacular" and a few dozen varieties of other similar words like "amazing" and "ancient" and "unique" and all those other brochure-y terms. It's like "beautiful" - it's just too generic; yes, it's a stunning view from Beacon Hill across the Strait to the Olympics; but it's one of thousands in BC, all equally "spectacular". And that's not counting AK and OR and other parts of WA etc...Skookum1 07:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've also lived here all my life, and the saying "home of the newlyweds and nearly deads" has been inescapable during my lifetime here. it's one of those inescapable sayings that one just comes to accept as part of the overall culture, like the saying; "If you don't like the weather in Victoria, wait 5 minutes". Aces&Eights (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods of Victoria

I think this section is pretty misleading. Many of these "neighbourhoods" are actually their own municipalities. I will try and reorganize into "Communities of Greater Victoria" and sub-divide. However, I'm not 100% on some of the neighbourhoods. -- Webgeer 07:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Communities of Greater Victoria should be moved from this article, which is about the Municipality of Victoria proper, to the Greater Victoria or Capital Regional District pages (why do we need two, anyway)? Any thoughts on this suggestion? Fishhead64 07:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Oak Bay is a separate municipality (currently celebrating the centennial of its incorporation) rather than a neighbourhood of Victoria. Assuming the section is meant to include only sub-areas of Victoria City proper, I will change the reference to 'Oak Bay Border' which is sometimes spoken of as a neighbourhood distinct from Fairfield.

Never mind... my bad... Aces&Eights (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Climate (2)

The section on climate is problematic.

Victoria has a temperate climate that is usually classified as Marine west coast, with mild, damp winters and relatively dry and mild summers. It is sometimes classified as a Mediterranean climate (Csb).

Problem is, in the Koppen climate model Victoria is defined as being Csb, not Cfb (see the Koppen article and updated map). Since Koppen is the most widely used climatic classificatory system used both here and elsewhere, it would make sense to stick with that description.

Furthermore, the article contradicts itself when describing a Cfb climate as one with "mild, damp winters and relatively dry and mild summers." This is in fact the definition of a Csb climate, not a Cfb climate (which has evenly distributed precipitation with no particular rainy or dry season). So it seems the article is not only inaccurate, but contradicts itself. Anyone else have an opinion? 66.183.80.6 (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert (simply an interested Geography graduate student), but... I think the way it is worded now is acceptable, although I don't agree with the Med classification based on Geiger's map. The classic, original Koeppen had Victoria as Cfb. Geiger's modifications expanded Csb (cool-summer Med) to include far too many areas, without regard for environmental regimes. It even includes parts of central Mexico! It no longer represents "Mediterranean" in the true sense, although cool-summer areas with med climates are covered (San Francisco, Porto to name two). The accurate term is "Dry-Summer Temperate". Trewartha's modified Koeppen climate classification is considered the best and latest version of Koeppen by many climatologists (It is, however, still flawed!). Two major requirements for a med climate are: at least 8 months must have average temperatures of at least 10deg C and the average annual precipitation must not exceed 900mm (35 inches). It seems Victoria is very much at the limits of (b) but clearly fails (a). Under this terminology Victoria falls under Do Temperate oceanic.Koppenlady (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Section

This section seems way to long and bloated. It also seems to read like an essay on "Why Victoria is a Mediterranean climate". Just read it for yourself with an objective eye. I know the Vic boosters won't like this but that's the way it is. BTW,Vic is my home town I grew up there so I'm not a Vic hater. Oh yeah, Its -5 right now in Vic. Med climates don't experience sub zero temps on a regular shcedule like the Island(Vic) does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.153.19 (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge in Victoria Harbour

There is a short article at Victoria Harbour (British Columbia) that does not look as if it will grow to more than a paragraph or two at best. It would seem appropriate to merge it into this article, as most, if not all, of the information is already covered in the Port section and the Transportation section. --Bejnar (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Just becaust's a stub now doesn't mean it will turn out to be; it has a history and (hydrography) of its own and will, I think, wind up having sections on the Inner Harbour, Outer Harbour, Gorge Waters, Portage Inlet (all of which can redirect to it rathe than be stand-alones). Historical episodes such as the Point Ellice Bridge Disaster and the building of the Causeway and the old E&N steamship terminal (now the Wax Museum) are all sub-histories of the larger Victoria article; the harbour should no more be merged with the main Victoria article than Fort Victoria or any other local specialty-article. Ports and harbours is also a different category from cities; Vancouver Harbour is a separate article from Vancouver etc....Skookum1 (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose and it is a stub no more. Any objection to removal of the merge flag? --KenWalker | Talk 16:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I see it is already gone from this article if it was ever here, will remove it from the harbour article. --KenWalker | Talk 16:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons cited by Skookum1. Thanks to KenWalker for removing the merge tag. I may soon remove the BC geography tag from that separate article. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

image in infobox

Since this is an article about the city of Victoria, shouldn't the infobox show a picture of the Victoria City Hall building rather than the British Columbia Parliament Buildings? NorthernThunder (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah, good idea, maybe City Hall with a view from the north side of Pandora looking down Douglas Street....Skookum1 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"economic benefits"

The lede blabs on about cruise-ship tourism and the The city also receives economic benefits from its close proximity to Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, the Canadian military’s main Pacific naval base. and then goes on about tourism-related events. SFAIK the biggest economic engine in Victoria is the provincial government, shouldn't that be mentioned? Also the huge pool of retirement-income revenues that also is related to the employment engines of the city's many public and private hospitals and therapists, etc, and the nearby presence of U.Vic (which is in Oak Bay/Saanich). Should only tourism and CFB Esquimalt be given such a spotlight?Skookum1 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

American dialect IPA?

While making other edits I noticed the given IPA:

  • Victoria (pronounced /vɪkˈtɔəriə/)

and that diphthong onf the second syllable just doesn't look right; if anything it's a USian pronunciation, in my estimation. The Canadian one is more of a pure "o" as in "oar" (not "oar" as pronounced by someone from Arkansas, either) and the original British one the "o" would be even more emphasized. Maybe [ɔə] is more like "oh" than I'd expect, but it just looks wrong. I've noticed several other BC placenames where an americanized pronunciation is/was given, this one seems to need (urgent( correction.Skookum1 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's British, and it is the "o" of "oar", as you'll see if you follow the link. Most people these days pronounce that the same as "or", but WP maintains the distinction, as do most of the dictionaries it relies on. You're welcome to add a local pronunciation if you think it's relevant, but as such per the MOS it should be listed as local. kwami (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New images of Parliament Buildings

I have added 3 new images of the parliament buildings, taken last weekend in the afternoon, the morning and at night. Since there are already images in the article, I thought I would leave it for someone else to decide whether to substitute any of these for the current photos. --KenWalker | Talk 04:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ken, I'll replace one of 'em with the night shot. Nice work.--Keefer | Talk 08:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen GUys, the Parliament building are in OTTAWA only. Any provincial counterpart is a LEGISLATURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.168.176 (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The legislative body of BC is known as the Legislative Assembly. The building in which they meet is the Parliament Buildings. If you go to watch question period, your ticket reads "Parliament Buildings of British Columbia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.110.130 (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Victoria City (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like some Canadian commenters, thanks SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Municipal Boundary

I believe there is a relatively unique situation for Canadian cities regarding the Victoria municipal boundary: it seems that the boundary crosses individual parcels (and houses, etc.) along a portion of the Oak Bay border area. I think this unique situation should be stated in the article, since I am sure there are several who would be interested. It is also worth mentioning along with the history of how this has occurred, and how some citizens literally live with a foot in 2 municipalities. 142.36.45.56 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a curiosity, to be sure, but is it really notable enough to include in the article? I tend to think not. Corlyon (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Naval Centenary 2010

Ii removed this from 'history' where it had been chunked in and broke the historical narrative. I put the wording into the Esquimalt article, but the Victoria article coould perhaps also reference this, but I'm not sure what other section of the article is appropriate. As it is, this article on the relatively small 'City' of Victoria has eended up being a catch-basket for any passing thoughts on regional matters that should more properly live in Greater Victoria or Capital Regional District. (and I have been guilty of this myself) Corlyon (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Education

I have reworked this section as it was starting to read like a discussion of educational opportunities in the whole of Greater Victoria. Most of discussion of Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific is in the Metchosin article, where the school is actually located. A detailed discussion or listing of the private schools outside the City of Victoria but in Greater Victoria probably belongs in the Greater Victoria article, but reference is retained to Glenlyon-Norfolk that has a campus in the City. The paragraph on infrastructure has the same problems, even talking aobut sewage disposal on the Saanich Peninsula, miles away from the City of Victoria. Corlyon (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

778 area code??

I've been away from BC for a few years. Until 2007, the 778 area code was only in the same area as 604....when did this change? SFAIK there's only 250 on the Island, just like in the Interior; 778 only overlaps with 604.Skookum1 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Visible minorities

I have reverted a recent addition of a massive "ethnic origins" chart. The chart was HUGE and contained the racial make up of every resident. It is inappropriate to have such an in depth list in this article. The reader doesn't need a list containing over 140 ethnicities in a chart. It doesn't matter that there are 10 Rwandans living in Victoria, or 25 Bosnians. Such info would be suitable in a demographics article, not the city's article. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, gee, isn't that funny. Because someone had created a separate Demographics of Abbotsford article with the same list, and it was merged back into Abbotsford, British Columbia. Arbitrary cut-off points decided by disinterested editors as to how many people make a significant number is not a judgement call a Wikipedian should make, that's original research and also interpolation of importance. Given the small scale of some ethnic presences in Canada, such as the Bosnians or Icelanders or Tigreans, it's mportant that they all be represented, not selectively picked and an emphasis placed on those who have coloured skin, and are grouped by race rather than by self-identity. You were rash in removing this material; why include the 1% black population and 2% Filipno population if you don't include the 4.49% North American Indian or 4.4% Ukrainian (which is the same percentage as the Chinese). YOu can't pick and choose by skin colour; Canada isn't just about visible minorities and calling the list of ALL ORIGINS is, well, anti-multicultural and also POV; that you think ethnicity is unimportant that's entirely opinion, and also insulting to the groups listed; that "French" is high on the list, and that there's a 3.53% Polish community, and nearly 9% of the city has Scandinavian origin, is surely as important as cherrypicking particular ethnicities because they have legal status as "something more special than simply ethnic origin". Other city and town articles have such tables, and there's no reason why this one shouldn't other than your evident narrow-mindedness. There's alot of other more "junk" information on this page than the ethnicity table. And don't forget, as I said before, that there's a lot more demographic information yet to go in the article, about more than race and ethnicity and religion (all the great dividing factors), such as income and age structure and education. I'm not in the mood for an edit war, but\ I found your double deletion of cited material to be both rash and discriminatory, though your intentions were Good Faith they don't have that effect. I'm reverting to include the material, and you'd be at 3RR to delete it again; you're welcome to start a Demographics article but given the Abbotsford experience, and the presence of other such tables on other city pages, there's not much precedent for your insistence that ethnicities should be invisible, while "minorities" should be visible, even featured, simply because they're officially "visible" and the many others of the same proportion or larger are considered unimportant. BTW the given figures aren't exact individuals but based on the long form (which future censuses won't have) and it's only a 10% sample; figures were extrapolated from that sample, so the numbers aren't tangible, or exact, just estimates. Wikipedia needs more of these tables, and more demographic content on other topics, than deleting it because YOU think it takes up too much room....Skookum1 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Your feeble attempt at making this about skin color is both highly inappropriate and bordering on incivility. The section on demographics isn't suppose to be a resident by resident count of over 140 races. Your addition of this ridiculous chart and re adding it numerous times both puts you at 3RR violations, and vandalism. If you continue to attack users and throwing insults and general incivility you will be reported. You added material, you were reverted, you continued to re add it after warnings to take it to the talk page. You than lashed out and became uncivil. This is grounds for being blocked from editing. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Anymore edit warring and you will be reported. The chart is way too big and doesn't belong in the article. Just because YOU think it does, and YOU added it doesn't mean it belongs. As you can see with many other demographics section only sizable populations are included and the rest are put into an "others" category. If you want to include every single race in Victoria in a massive chart than create a Demographics of Victoria article. But even in the case of deographics articles usually huge lists are not included as is the case with Demographics of Toronto , Demographics of Montreal, Demographics of Ottawa, and many others. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Also I am not against improving the current chart as it is pretty terrible. But a chart including 140+ races is inappropriate for a city article. MAybe the top 5-10 races with an "other" category would be best suited in this instance. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Just by your wording, you seem more intent on "races" than on the relevance of ethnicities, and there's a BIG difference; a collapsible table is clearly the solution; yet your solution was to, again, simply delete the table rather than deal with its cited facts properly. The visible minority table remains, but has no real relevance to the city's social landscape - other than as a "race artifact".Skookum1 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, are you serious ? Stop crying about being reverted and start coming up with a solution. I know you're just trying to bait me into an argument which as a grown man is pretty sad. As discussed on the notice board the collapsable list is a good fix. Now quite whining and keep conversation on topic. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Then use the right language and don't call ethnicities "races".....and the upshot of your 4RR of the table I created is now there's a table representing the origins of a whopping 9.13% of Victoria's population, featured because of their skin colour, and the table you (four times) deleted still hasn't been resinstated in collapsible or in any other form, yet instead of doing that you take time for more insults.....you're the one who should reinstate it, with the collapsible function, and you should some eat some humble pie on behalf of the 90%+ of Victoria's people whose existence you decided was "unimportant" and "unneeded".Skookum1 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. First of all I did was revert your ridiculous edit. I didn't make the original list or title. If you want it changed go ahead and change it without using a list that takes up 1/3 of the article space. Trying to say that I'm insulting the people of Victoria by reverting your terrible list is ridiculous. Anyways, you obviously have issues, I'm done arguing with you. Stop whining ! UrbanNerd (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the long list has been re added as a collapsable list, does the "visible minorities" table still need to be there ? Perhaps it could now be removed seeing how the info is repeated in the list directly above it. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Boy, you really like deleting things don't you? Visible minority is a different definition and a different citation from ethnic minorities; easy enough to collapse that table also. Instead of finding things you want to delete, why don't you start adding other demographic information, which there's lots of and which needs to be here?Skookum1 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you really need to grow up. Stop publicly criticizing people, and whining on here. As a grown man you shouldn't need to resort to uncivil behavior on wikipedia. All I was saying is the visible minority populations are now repeated in the ethnic origins table. There is no point in listing them twice in two different tables. Please keep conversation on topic and quit the childish bickering, it's embarrassing. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Great Fire?

I know there was one. Nothing on it in the History section so far; I'd dropped by looking for the date so as to add it to List of historic fires#Cities.Skookum1 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have never heard of a 'great fire' in Victoria and I've lived here nearly 40 years now (not that I know everything about the city, but I've done a fair bit of reading on Victoria's history and don't recall any mention of a great fire. The Point Ellice Bridge disaster, now, that might be worth adding to the history section. Corlyon (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The only "great fire" I've ever heard of in connection with Victoria (sensu latu) is a pre-historic forest fire that covered most or all of the Saanich Peninsula. The evidence for this from trees: either tree ring data or scorch marks in old wood. Pre-historic in the sense of "before the written history of the place", i.e. before European settlement began ca. 1850. There may also be traces of it in the oral history of the local Indians. Floozybackloves (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Climate

This section is waaaaaaayyy to long. It also comes off as trying to "case build" for justification in calling Victoria's climate med(lol)which of course it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


The weather records box is just plain wrong. For example the record low temperature for march is listed as 12C, while its 0C right now (March 5, 2010). I am removing it. No data is better than bad data.

Sunshine hours listed as 2,223 in the text, and 2,086 in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.40.1 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I updated this section to use data from the Victoria Gonzales weather station. This article is about the City of Victoria, and the Airport data (which was used previously) reflects a location that is 25 km outside the City of Victoria and not very reflective of the City's climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garryoak (talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Images?

I'm not sure the gallery was a good idea, but do we really need 2 images of parliament? I could see if one of them was at night, but two daytime pictures seems unnecessary. - TheMightyQuill 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, redundent and low quality pictures can be removed to give more room in the article. Also, adding more text would give room for images. I may look into expansion information in the future. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Why are there so many pictures of the Parliament Buildings?! This is a beautiful city with not shortage of other scenes to capture. Any one have some nice photos of Beacon Hill Park? Craigdarroch Castle? The Gorge? Cook St Village? The Galloping Goose Trail? Ponyclubrivals (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

General comments

General organization of the article

Reading over the talk on this article, there's clearly a lot of trouble, confusion, and disagreement because the term "Victoria, BC" refers to two quite distinct entities: one, the City of Victoria, proper; two, the greater Victoria area, approximately coterminous with the Capital Regional District (similar to a county government), and comprising at least 13 distinct incorporated municipalities and a number of unincorporated settlements (e.g. Port Renfrew, Jordan River, Ganges). To say nothing of a surprising number of Indian reservations, some of which are uninhabited, others of which are quite densely inhabited!

Wikipedia seems to globally have a persistent problem where a specific city name refers both to a metropolitan area and to a specific municipality within that metropolitan area. Examples include Vancouver BC, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco (which sometimes means SF proper, sometimes the SF Bay area in general), Los Angeles, New York, and so on. It strikes me that Wikipedia would benefit from a wholesale reorganization of such articles. In the case of Victoria, we'd end up with an article "Victoria, British Columbia - Metropolitan area" and another "Victoria, British Columbia - City of Victoria". (That's a fairly clumsy naming, but my point is that any given item of information regarding "Victoria" will refer to one of these or to the other.

Clearly, an article on the Victoria metropolitan area would have links to articles on the individual municipalities and the Capital Regional District, and maybe to articles on the unincorporated settlements and to a list (at least) of Indian reserves or bands.

But it seems to me that before anyone starts such a reorganization, we really need to have agreement so we don't end up with more cat fights over the issue. And, much more importantly, we need to find out how to raise this issue regarding the overall organization of Wikipedia. Does anyone know where to discuss such global issues about Wikipedia?

I've added relevant comments to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Metropolitan_areas_vs._components_thereof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floozybackloves (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

==Did you not notice Greater Victoria, British Columbia? fishhead64 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Mediterranean climate

Hans Roemer, a Victoria biologist now retired from public service, has analyzed Victoria's climate from a horticultural standpoint and found that it most closely resembles that of the Adriatic coast of former Yugoslavia, in terms of the annual variation in temperature and precipitation. Also, among gardeners, Victoria's climate is generally agreed to be "cool Mediterranean". The key distinguishing factors are (a) the generally mild climate and (b) the wet winter/dry summer precipitation regime. Terming Victoria's climate as "Mediterranean" offers the reader important information: Victoria does not conform climatically to the mythical dripping wet rain forest of the Pacific Northwest.

A further wrinkle is that microclimatic variation means that within Victoria (sensu latu) there is a wide range of climates, whereas the the City of Victoria proper has much less such climatic variation. This distinction is encapsulated in the observation that the annual rainfall in the area rises by approximately one inch per year per mile as one travels out the West Coast Road to Sooke and points beyond.

Irrelevant content

Without pointing any fingers, I must comment that some of the information in the Victoria article is essentially trivial, other of it sounds way too much like Chamber of Commerce boosterism (Babbittry), and some sounds like it's been written by the earth mother brigade as an expression of their fantasies of Victoria as a wonderful, perfect, truly hippy-dippy, organic, ecologically sound, green place. (Yes, Fernwood residents, I am referring to you.) All of this is inappropriate to Wikipedia, where a dispassionate and impartial point of view is the summum bonum.

Floozybackloves (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

More Irrelevant content

While showing my wife some info about my old hometown, I came across the cultural section, and at the end of the section, it would appear someone added a part about religion. No problem in general, it was just that the entire bit was about Mosques. As I recall, there are many temples, churches and yes, mosques in Victoria. I deleted the 5 or 6 line paragraph and will continue to monitor. I have no problem with a religious section in the culture tab, lets just make sure it is more accurate and better shows the diversity that is present in Victoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.193.185 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

British Columbia Parliament Buildings

Sorry to say, there is no such thing as the British Columbia Parliament Buildings. As someone who has (a) a degree in History, with (b) significant portions of it focused on BC history and (c) someone who has taught Grade Ten Social Studies (which comprises much of BC history) and (d) a person born and raised in Victoria, it has always been called the LEGISLATURE or the LEGISLATIVE BUILDINGS or the LEGISLATURE BUILDINGS.

I don't know who wrote the section on this, but I do know there is a whole other page focusing solely on the (non-existant) British Columbia Parliament Buildings, so I didn't want to go in and edit it. However, if it doesn't change to reflect reality, then I will likely go change it. But wait! When I go to the BC Government site, I see they are also calling it the BC. Parliament Buildings. I have now emailed them to find out when and why this revisionist history took place, because whenever I called them the parliament buildings my grandparents, my mother, her boyfriend (who was a janitor at the BC. Legislature) and my peers all corrected me. So...sometime in the last 15-20 years, someone decided to play with history and erase the fact that these buildings have never been called the BC Parliament buildings before this time.

I will let you know what i find!

Cheers.

87.101.166.158 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Bruce87.101.166.158 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good luck, Bruce, and keep us updated. The Interior (Talk) 22:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We always call it the Parliament Buildings, though I was not born and raised, my two sisters were and are under the same colloquial impression as I am. Nevertheless, I wish you luck in resolving this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.193.185 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Legislative Assembly's website refers to the "Parliament Buildings and Legislative Grounds", so it seems they're confused too! 207.194.133.9 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I was born in Victoria fifty years ago; my mother was born in Victoria ninety years ago; my grandmother emigrated here over one hundred years ago. We have all known the facility as the Parliament Buildings. fishhead64 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger complete

  checkY Merger complete. Information from Tillicum Centre has been merged into this article per the merge result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillicum Centre. NorthAmerica1000 09:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger complete

  checkY Merger complete. Information from Mayfair Shopping Centre has been merged into this article per the merge result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfair Shopping Centre. NorthAmerica1000 06:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

expansion - split? - of history section needed

while Fort Victoria still needs its own article, I'm not sure if it should be separate from a possible/probably History of Victoria, British Columbia title; this article is already so large that adding much of anything to the History section would be overburden given the amount of historical detail that's "out there" for early Victoria.

Flags

Regarding the recent disagreement in the article about the use of flags in the infobox, I don't think they are distracting at all. They sit next to the table of contents so it is certainly not distracting of the prose of the article. I think they illustrate the regions well. I support the inclusion of the flags in the infobox.

I am of course open to other points of view. Chillum 21:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A colleague of mine pointed out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. While I prefer the flags to be there I do understand the need to be consistent in style. It would help if @IJBall: mentioned the link Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes in his/her edit summaries. Chillum 22:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: – the context here is that the operating guideline on this topic, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, is contradictory on the topic, in regards to city articles. Essentially, the current operational policy on this seems to be that it's best that, whether flag icons are used in city article infoboxes or not, that their use (or not) should probably be consistent across all the articles for a country. The issue here is that, as far as I can tell, there has never been an "overall policy" on their use in Canadian city articles, and within the last month, one particularly enthusiastic editor has been adding flag icons to articles where they weren't previously used, without establishing a consensus for it.
My advice is that some of the major editors at the Canadian city articles should hash this issue out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities, once and for all, and try to figure out if there should be flag icons at all Canadian city articles (or none of them). (FTR, I'm definitely in the latter camp...) --IJBall (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Good advice, this is not something to be settled on individual article talk pages. When I first responded I did not realize the scope of the issue. Chillum 22:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Victoria, British Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine

Garryoak, we can't guess and make unreferenced claims like this with regards to Victoria supposedly being the sunniest city in BC. In fact, if you look back at older records, for the 1961-1990 period, Cranbrook had 2228.6 hours of bright sunshine and Victoria Gonzales in that same period had 2185.1. In the 1971-2000 period Cranbrook had 2205.3 and Victoria Gonzales had 2193.3. To assume that Victoria has now had more than Cranbrook is just guessing. Air.light (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Garryoak, please review WP:VER and WP:NOR Air.light (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that according to the 1981-2010 normals, Cranbrook gets 2190.5 hours of sunshine. Unfortunately, the 1981-2010 data for Victoria Gonzales is not available, but for the most recent data shows 2193.3 hours for 1971-2000. We're both making assumptions. You’re assuming that the hours for Victoria Gonzales went down compared with 1971-2000 (and are thus now lower than the 1981-2010 Cranbrook numbers). I’m just assuming that the hours stayed the same or went up. Given that the hours for Victoria Airport increased from 1971-2000 to 1981-2010, I think my assumption is more reasonable. Why is my assumption considered "unreferenced" and "a guess", while yours is not? Garryoak (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has a specific rule, WP:NOR, against publishing unverified statements based on assumptions. You're violating that rule and Air.light isn't, because you're actually adding statements to the article which are predicated on assumptions, while Air.light is avoiding the assumption and just expressing a statement ("was #2 in the last available set of data") that can be objectively verified by published data. So there is a difference between what he's saying and what you're trying to do. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
We should depend on only secondary sources making such claims, we should not be interpreting primary sources ourselves. Chillum 14:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree. I have changed one source that is a primary one regarding the fact that it recorded the sunniest month to a secondary one. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the wording change to add "in the last available set of data", so I can see the difference in that case. The problem is that even just comparing the published 1971-2000 data, the Cranbrook and Victoria numbers aren't really comparable since sunshine recording was discontinued at Gonzales in 1988, so you're not comparing the same time periods. Perhaps a more generic statement like "Victoria is one of the sunniest locations in B.C." would be better? Garryoak (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I downloaded all the monthly sunshine data for Victoria Gonzales and Cranbrook Airport to make a more direct comparison. If you compare the two locations for the period where there is an overlap in the record (1970-1987) so you are actually comparing the same years for each, you get 2,223.3 hours for Victoria Gonzales versus 2,217.3 hours for Cranbrook. Alternatively, you could look at the most recent 30 years of data for each (30 years being the standard time period to calculate climate normals) and you get 2,209.9 hours for Victoria Gonzales (1958-87) versus 2,194.4 hours for Cranbrook Airport (1972-2001). While it may not be verifiable that Victoria gets more sunshine, I also don't think it's verifiable that Cranbrook gets more since the published 1971-2000 climate normals are based on different periods of two different lengths (1971-87 for Victoria Gonzales vs. 1972-2000 for Cranbrook) Garryoak (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

How did you downloaded all the monthly sunshine data? Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There are monthly climate summaries on the Environment Canada website, which includes monthly sunshine hours going back to 1951. I also have more detailed hourly sunshine data for Victoria Gonzales, which can be purchased from Environment Canada.Garryoak (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Victoria a catch-all for locations in Greater Victoria?

At several places in this article Victoria seems to be a catch-all for places actually located in Greater Victoria.

For example, locations in Saanich, British Columbia, such as the "Tillicum Centre" and the "Uptown Mall" have been added to the Victoria article. In the Sports section, when describing the "National Headquarters", locations in Saanich have been added to this article because they are located in the "Greater Victoria area".

By comparison, Toronto makes no claim to Square One Shopping Centre in nearby Mississauga (all part of the Greater Toronto Area).

Should locations near Victoria, but not in Victoria, be more carefully teased out? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As we have things now I think they should be removed; however, I would prefer it if we merged this article with Greater Victoria and the other city's stubs/articles in the area. Victoria is a relatively small area in the region. When people think of "Victoria" when they're not thinking of municipal boundaries and duties they usually think of other municipalities in the area as well. I think this is reinforced by how most municipalities in the region just put "Victoria" on an envelope in place of their own city's name. If we do start removing things from this article that are not about Victoria directly we're going to have a lot of work to do. For instance, how are we going to determine those in the notable people section what their street addresses/cities were and some people live in different addresses at different times. I believe there's 13 different municipalities in the area. I think we could make things a lot simpler and cleaner by bringing all the articles together. Air.light (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
There can potentially be some debate about the best place for any particular piece of content about the region, but the rule on here is that every municipality must have its own standalone article as an independent topic — we do not merge all of the individual municipalities into a single omnibus article about the wider metropolitan area. Below the level of the municipality, individual neighbourhoods can be merged up to the municipality if they're not well-sourced, but the municipality is the base level at which each individual entity must have its own individual article. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
That would make sense considering that all the articles where I've seen this done previously are where an actual amalgamation of municipalities happened. Thanks. Air.light (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody locally considers Saanich to be Victoria. For what it is worth. HighInBC 19:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Meh... disagree, somewhat. Oak Bay is certainly generally considered to be "Victoria". Saanich is a little more vague – sometimes it is in general conversation, and sometimes it isn't. It's probably accurate to say that most would consider Saanich to be "Victoria-adjacent". But Sidney is pretty much never considered "Victoria", and neither is Sooke. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I live in Victoria, and if the police come it is the Victoria police, and when I get a letter it says Victoria on it. My friend lives 2 blocks away, when the police come it is the Saanich RCMP, and when they get a letter it says Saanich. They have a different city hall, and difference bi-laws. I suppose people say Victoria sometimes when they mean an area near Victoria, but that is just imprecise language. HighInBC 18:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Anecdotes are interesting, but not encyclopedic and hence not helpful. I live in Burnaby, but for out-of-towners, I may as well be a Vancouverite - and indeed, I could literally throw a stone out my window and hit Vancouver. I concur with the point made, Victoria is a City with specific geographic boundaries. The surrounding municipalities are rightly grouped in the Greater Victoria article. I spent a few years gatekeeping this article to remove references to sites outside the City - e.g., the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory, UVIC, the Butchart Gardens - or to specify that they were located "in nearby Saanich," etc. An encyclopedia should inform...at least it shouldn't misinform. I grew up in Saanich, and am proud of the distinction. fishhead64 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Name in Saanich language

I have some concerns with the opening presentation of the name of Victoria in the Saanich language.

Firstly, the language as written in local orthography is in all-caps. The citation even gives METULIYE as the correct spelling.

Secondly, is this relevant? The language has no official status and isn't even the dialect spoken historically by local Indigenous people. Lekwungen groups lived in what is now the City of Victoria. Saanich is/was spoken further out on the peninsula.

Madg2011 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing a lack of objection, I have removed the Saanich name. Open to reversal should someone come forward.
Madg2011 (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It's happening again...

Some editors have invested much diligence in assuring the accuracy of this article by ensuring it discusses the City of Victoria, and not venues outside that municipality. There are articles, such as Greater Victoria and/or the articles pertaining to the municipalities where these venues do exist, like Saanich. Is there any reason why we have a section on "Attractions outside the City of Victoria" in an article about the City of Victoria? Some editor has invested time in adding places in Esquimalt and Central Saanich, so I'm opeb to a discussion of why they shouldn't be deleted. fishhead64 (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Victoria, British Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox montage

The infobox montage will need to be fixed as it contains a photo of Fisgard Lighthouse National Historic Site, which is located in Colwood, British Columbia. Victoria's boundaries can be seen here. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Magnolia677 Well, Colwood is part of the Greater Victoria. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 00:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Allice Hunter: Indeed, but this article is about Victoria. Would you be able to remove the photo from the montage? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Done! Please, tell me if you like it. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 19:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Allice Hunter: Awesome! Thank you so much. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

The recreation portion about Western Speedway is no longer relevant. The property was purchased by developers and is currently being changed to high rise apartments/ condominiums. The track was demolished last year. 184.71.27.166 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 16:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Reducing repetition on page

There are a lot of lists and charts without describing text here (e.g. in the demographics section). If I have some time I'll take a crack at reducing the repetition. Cheers, Uninspired Username (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

City of Surrey BC bigger than Vancouver Coty

The City of Surrey BC is almost 3.times larger than Vancouver City BC Peter dooran (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria,_British_Columbia/Archive_2&oldid=1215669672"