Talk:Maple Ridge, British Columbia/Archive 1

Population
' the population is closer to 73,000..."not over 91,000" see: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/DATA/pop/pop/mun/Mun9605a.asp this shoudl be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.55.100 (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

more on the history
I think that there are several key points in the history that we could easily add, although I don't have suitable references right now. Mainly, the amalgamation of the smaller villages to make the municipality (Haney, Whonnock, Albion, Ruskin, etc.). Also, something about the 'new downtown core' and the associated political fallout. So those things are on the to-do list as far as I can tell. Spebudmak 22:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Innappropriate?
Does anyone else find the "aka Meth Town" comment in one of the opening paragraphs innappropriate? I don't think it's necessary and if I knew how I would edit it. Anyone else agree/disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.58.195.196 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC). -Never mind, its been changed

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat of arms maple ridge.jpg
Image:Coat of arms maple ridge.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Famous Maple Ridgers
I've added a very brief list of famous Maple Ridge people. I'll try to expand it as I get more names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.228.234 (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the list of "famous" people should be significantly culled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.92.138 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that someone (I don't know if I'm "qualified" enough to do it on my own as a non-member) should remove Brenden Morrison from the list, seeing as he was born/raised in Pitt Meadows... I know there isn't much distinction between the two municipalities to the casual observer but they *are* two separate places and should be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.40.162 (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ca-bc-mr2.jpg
Image:Ca-bc-mr2.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 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 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 12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat of arms maple ridge.jpg
Image:Coat of arms maple ridge.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 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 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 07:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mapleridgelogo.jpg
Image:Mapleridgelogo.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 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 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 (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Government and Politics of Maple ridge
It's perhaps a little excessive having this separate article, when neither article is over-long; I suppose there will be no objections to merging it? . DGG (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Most of that information can be stuffed into the infobox anyway. Carson 03:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, nless there were a whole non-OR article to be using this title; and that "politics" is a loaded word and invites SPAs and vandals (as if vandals need an invite). yeah, no other minor city has anything like this, merge 'em.Skookum1 (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Closed as no consensus to move. See note at Talk:Maple Ridge (disambiguation). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maple Ridge, British Columbia → Maple Ridge — This article title will be move to the name Maple Ridge to match the Canadian city related titles. And some user already move to Maple Ridge without making a discussion first. So I finally propose for renaming this title. For example, Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Penticton, Port Moody and West Vancouver all have Canadian city titles without including the province name. And this is one of the largest cities in British Columbia. — Steam5 (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support per Nominator. Steam5 (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are multiple locations with the same name and no indication that this one is more notable than any of the others.  TJ   Spyke   03:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The disambiguation is needed because of Maple Ridge, Edmonton, Maple Ridge, Ohio and possibly others. Jafeluv (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, There is a disambiguation page entitled Maple Ridge (disambiguation) and There's a link to the Canadian city article. Most of them are small towns from the States. And Maple Ridge, British Columbia is qualified as a largest city in Canada to be renamed without including the province name. Steam5 (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, so we're arguing primary topic here. I just assumed the argument was "move to match other Canadian city articles", so I opposed without checking the page view stats. Now that I've compared them (see     ), it seems this article is indeed the primary topic. Support. Jafeluv (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  17:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am leaning towards Oppose, also, as I see no real reason other than population why Maple Ridge BC should have the no-disambiguation status.  The Canadian policy is for unique names like Kamloops, Pitt Meadows, Nanaimo, Toronto, and in this case uniqueness is definitely not in play; the population factor, to me, is insufficient.  The reason Vancouver is undisambiguated (despite Vancouver WA) is because it is well-known, which Maple Ridge most certainly is not.  Not even as much as Dawson Creek, which simiarly is undisambiguated (BUT unique).  Also there is a parallel name discussions at Talk:Maple Ridge (disambiguation) concerning a simplification to Maple Ridge.Skookum1 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I already create a category called Category:Maple Ridge this category that has a lot of articles related to the city of Maple Ridge and I say once again "This is one of the largest cities in British Columbia". Steam5 (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to point out this guideline: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." You see, there is a real reason why Maple Ridge BC should have disambiguation status, and it has nothing to do with population. It has to do with the fact that Maple Ridge, British Columbia is searched far more often by readers. The page view statistics for this article are here (1944 views in 2009/04). The second most popular page on the disambiguation page has 115 views. This, in my opinion, is a big enough gap for us to consider making this article the primary topic at Maple Ridge, so that readers are directed to the page they are most often looking for. In fact, this article has already had "non-disambiguation status" for a long time due to the fact that Maple Ridge already redirects here. Jafeluv (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

This move request conflicts with the other open move request of the same day, filed later... Maple Ridge (disambiguation) → Maple Ridge

76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, now that's settled, what about Category:Maple Ridge??Skookum1 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed that. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity about this and other potential moves of this type, I'd like to call attention to WP:CANSTYLE. Specifically, items #2 and #3 under "Places":
 * Towns (unless the town's population is akin to that of a city), villages, neighbourhoods and other smaller settlements must have unique place names to qualify for a page move. At this smaller level, [comparing] importance is too subjective to be a viable criterion.
 * To clarify, the issue here is that at nearly any level smaller than that of a city of at least regional prominence, debating importance is far too prone to circular and unresolvable debates on the level of "mine is more important than yours because mine is the one I've heard of."


 * Population and Google-hit comparisons between cities of the same name may be helpful in determining primary usage, but are not conclusive in isolation.
 * It's possible for a big city to be less internationally significant than a much smaller place of the same name. One of the examples cited at CANSTYLE is Hamilton, Ontario, which although larger than any other place of that name when measured by population alone, has to contend with the fact that one of the smaller Hamiltons is a national capital, and several of the others are cities of significant regional importance in their respective countries. In another case I can recall, a person tried to argue that Embrun, Ontario should have non-disambiguation primacy over Embrun, France on the basis of a larger population, when both communities are smaller than 10,000 people and thus the population difference is marginal at best. While a population difference may be taken into account as part of the reasoning behind a potential page move, we don't just do a raw population comparison and automatically accord undisambiguated status to the largest place.

Accordingly, I'd agree that the current situation, with the disambiguation page rather than the district municipality in British Columbia being located at the plain title, is the appropriate one here, but I hope that the clarification helps people a bit going forward. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)