Talk:Uplands, Greater Victoria

Uplands - incorrect information
The artice states that there is a Golf Course in Uplands, when in fact, Uplands Golf Course is outside of the Uplands Development, as it is on the West side of Cadboro Bay Road. The boundary of Uplands is generally considered to be anything East of Cadboro Bay Road, North of Dorset Road and South of the Junction of Beach Drive and Cadboro Bay Road.

The author also states two by-laws exsist (one dealing with hanging laundry, the other with keeping your yard neat and tidy), Uplands does not have it's own by-laws as it is not a recognized jurisdiction. All by-laws applicable to the area are under the Municipality of Oak Bay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.15.97 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The Uplands By-Laws are indeed By-Laws of Oak Bay but they are very particular to Uplands. I've suggested to Keefer4 who has done some editing and research here to have a drive through some other "somewhat comparable" areas in Victoria like Queenswood and report back to Wikipedia. Broadmead, for example, which was introduced in the 1960's and 1970's as the "New Uplands" by the developers as a "new" home for Victoria's elite incorporated similar and actually even more stringent house design and yard guidelines as Uplands did and does (Realty signs in Broadmead must be in wood only unlike in Uplands for example). Are the results similar? Are the results different? Is zoning a powerful tool in shaping a neighbourhood? What is the effect of design guidelines on neighbourhood ambience? Look at the effects of zoning versus design guidelines. Broadmead has design guidelines with smaller lot zoning while Ten Mile Point for instance has no design guidelines but large lot zoning. Uplands has both large lot zoning and design guidelines. What are the differences in the result? Let's get this research project going! Any realtors, residents, geographers or property valuation experts care to chime in here?

References from the Uplands article can be found in a number of sources but I believe there is a University of Victoria Prof who has done a very in depth historical analysis of Uplands and how it fits into "Victoria's urban fabric".

De=advertorialize
Only because this is a legitimate actual neighbourhood and its planning history is notable, I haven't trrimmed it of a lot of buzzword-type dsecriptions as with James Island and Bear Mountain; I'll be back to look more closely at this, but at present it still reads like promotional materail; in no small part because out of all Oak Bay's neithbouhoods only it and Willows Beach haev writeups, as if only they mattered. I wish realtors would use their p.r. budgets by actually buying ads instead of paying staff to complose poorly-guided free Wikipedia items....Skookum1 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Skookum1 - you are quite free and encouraged to add writeups about Oak Bay's other neighbourhoods. I am not a realtor, have never been on and have no relations with one but am pleased to write up articles of areas I have been fortunate enough to live in. The other areas clearly matter as well but I am not a good person to write about them as I have never lived in them. Having said that, I concede I have lived in South Oak Bay at one point in my boring life but haven't created an article for it. I propose to do so but I am worried you will consign my "poorly written" articles to the Wikipedia garbage can as you are slowly doing with my Ten Mile Point article and threaten to do so with the Uplands one which I started. I won't mention I created the Cadboro Bay article as you might wreck that one, too. I didn't write the Broadmead article but thought it was a bit severe for you to eliminate it entirely. Please don't do that to the other ones. But I tell you what - why don't you come visit Victoria this weekend and have a close look at the neighbourhoods that were missed and go ahead and create to your heart's content. I would applaud you and it would be much more constructive than truncating the hard work of others or even eliminating them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.122.197 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken out the part of the high real estate prices (which was not added by myself to my article but by someone else). I've done so not because I disagree but to save this article from destruction related to Skookum1's dislike for anything that is vaguely promotional for the area. He really didn't like me to describe a "coast" as a "rugged" [see the ten mile point article] for fear this would be real estate "promotion" when it isn't at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.122.197 (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles and content which are clearly advertising/commercial are deleted right away, same as copyvio. This is all about WP:MOS and WP:What Wikipedia is Not.  Broadmead etc was CLEARLY commercial promotional in nature and had no redeeeming qualities; if it had any it would have remained; Ten Mile Point, to me, should be merrged to Cadboro Bay, unless it's officiall a neighbourhood of Saanich, which I doubt; spewy content about beautiful setting and stuff applies to anywhere in British Columbia, and Ten Mile Point is no more breathtaking than anuy othjer part of Saanich's coastline, never mind BC's.  Overblown hype is overblow hype; Ten Mile Point is mostly notable, Wiki-wise, for being where STeve Nash and Nelly Furtrdo maintain BC digs; and no I didn't just visit Victoria and take a look around; I've lived in the bloody place, more than once, and though I don't live there now it doesn't matter; the perrson who deleted Broadmead-Sunnymead was from somewhere else in the Wikiverse, doesn't matter where; I posted my reason for a deletion, and a cruising admin agreed and applied Wiki rules.  That's the way it works, whether you like it or not.  All articles get vetted for content, and what there is has to be presetned in a certain way.  NOT like a sales pitch....Skookum1 (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also stress that both this article and Ten Mile Point cite no sources at all, which means they also violate WP:V and WP:RS — and as a consequence, under current Wikipedia rules they're both deletable in their current form. I'm not going to nuke them right now, because I'm not familiar enough with the topics to know how salvageable the articles are or aren't, but Skookum1 is wholly correct that Wikipedia has certain rules about the writing tone and presentation of our articles. They are uncomfortably close to developer marketing materials in some spots, and that's not appropriate. Our articles need to maintain a neutral point-of-view which is supported by verifiable and reliable sources about the topic, and need to be written in an encyclopedic tone. 207, please read up on our policies and style guidelines, because while I sympathize with the fact that you worked hard on these and feel like your work is being attacked, Wikipedia content is evaluated according to its conformance with Wikipedia policy, not according to notions that we necessarily have to keep everything just because someone took the time to add it. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you own Wikipedia? I don't think anyone has ownership over it. You have no more a claim over it than I do. As for sales pitches, again in the haste to rid the wikiverse of anything resembling that, articles such as the Bear Mountain one become one rather one sided as well. The idea is that collective efforts result in a more accurate and useful article. If you keep eliminating helpful information which could be designated as "sales pitches" you might delete important and useful information. Further, much knowledge is not available through statistics or academic articles. In terms of neighbourhoods, often the best source is someone who lives right in the area and can witness the actual setting. Things like atmosphere and setting are difficult to source but as I say the best source is often a live witness. If people disagree with my conclusions based on personal experience or a contradicting statistic, then they can add that to the artile. So for example, on the Uplands article, if you disagree with a description, then provide a contradicting opinion. If you believe the lamp-posts are red rather than green as I've indicated, please feel to change it with the warning that most witnesses driving through will say they are green and will likely change it to the truth.

As for an "official" neighbourhood, what is one? I don't think the definition of a neighbourhood has to be governmental or have representation. Are you the arbitrators as to what is an "official" neighbourhood. Are you to tell someone in a community that they really are in a subdivision instead - especially if you haven't lived in the area? I think it is critical such areas are defined by those who know best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.122.197 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * YOu just don't get it; Bearcat's also tried to explain it to you; Wiki articles are not governed by those who live there, or "those who know best" (ahem). My "own" articles have been extesively written and decfonstructed and remade and wikified, the parameterrs invovled are standard content/format issues necessary to the maintenance of Wiki's overall quality and reliability.  And there are rules about what is and is not allowed.  No, I'm not a Wiki dog- Wiki god's are admins, and they're the ones who do the deletions and the final calls on what's advertising and what's not, what's within the guidelines.  I suggest you read them before you do too much more complaining; I've told you eslewhere you don't ahve a right to "own" these ar4ticles and the fact is they were not written according to the way things have to be; otherwise everybody would poast anythign, right?  So pelase read up onWP:MOS and the links Bearcat has placed eslewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Section on Douglas Treaties
Perhaps the section “The Songhees continue to…but they did start to notice the bones.” would be better placed on a Wikipedia page on the Douglas Treaties, or land claims, as it refers to the Douglas Treaties that apply to more areas than Uplands.

Also, this section mentions “Victoria’s historic neighbourhoods.” Uplands was developed relatively later compared to other parts of greater Victoria, so it is not clear the author is referring to Uplands, or more generally to greater Victoria.

This section does not have a citation. One of Wikipedia’s core content policies is that statements need to be verifiable, based on reliable published sources. --Sunsonn (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)