Talk:Vancouver/Archive 5

Archive
The talk page has been archived in Archive 4. Langara College 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Taken captive by natives?
Is there a source for the claim that Simon Fraser was held captive by First Nations people? Absent this, I will remove the assertion. Fishhead64 08:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in the Greater Vancouver Book. Bobanny 09:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the largest gay communities ...NOPE
I removed the line claiming Vancouver has one of the largest gay communities in North America as it is simply untrue. There are dozens of cities in North America (Canada, United States and Mexico) with larger gay communities than Vancouver. I feel once again this is an example of Vancouver thinking too much of itself. My opinion after living in Vancouver is that it is a mediocrity of a city. I replaced the line with a statement that Vancouver's gay community is visible as there is a two-block stretch on Davie Street that is quite gay-ish, though depressing and shabby. Acapulco, Key West, Chelsea, The Castro or Ste. Catherine Est it is NOT.

You know, you could have been nice about it instead of using it as an opportunity to express your dislike of Vancouver. Zazaban 01:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is that Vancouver has a fairly large and robust gay community in comparison to its size, although this is hard to back up with any substantial data for obvious reasons. I think that to any visitor or resident of the city this is fairly obvious. -D.L.

Category
Is there any reason why this talk page needs to fall under Category:Wikipedia? Agent 86 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the template V1.0 nom possible Mkdw talk 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, it should be removed. This is the only non-wikipedia article in that category, and the nominations page is currently suspended. There seems to be far too much overcategorization of Vancouver project related matters. Agent 86 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Time and date!
Here is an example. Any objections for Vancouver?
 * The current date and time in Ottawa is, Monday 29 July,.

references

--CyclePat 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what are we looking at? I don't see the relevence of the time in Ottawa to this article. Mkdw talk 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the idea is to have a "local time" stamp. For us, it would be:
 * The current date and time in Vancouver is, Monday 29 July, . --Ckatz chat spy   23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protected
The article has been semi-protected due to recent increases in vandalism to the article. Mkdw talk 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? I just looked at the last 50 edits and must be missing something....are you sure it's not Hollywood North that should be being protected? ;-)Skookum1 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Every time an article is featured on the front page, it gets vandalised. We should expect no more or less. --MrBobla 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article was locked due to a string of vandalism long before it was featured. Langara College 05:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Union Jack/Scottish Flag ... again
Anyone feel like weighing in on this issue? User:Kanaye is insisting that the union jack should not accompany Edinburgh on the list of sister cities, but has so far refused to make the case here. My main concern is the stability of the article - this has been edit warred over in the past, and there is no standard on similar articles to decide the issue. To me, it's a step sideways at best, and that having both flags is less provocative than either one or the other. In lieu of consensus or some other authoritative reason to make the change, I'm inclined to try and preserve the status quo of an article that myself and many others have put significant energy to get it featured. Anyway, I'm gettin' close to the 3RR on this one, and some input would be appreciated. Bobanny 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I support using both. Edinburgh is part of the UK, hence the appropriateness of the Union Jack, but it's also in Scotland, which has its own distinct sense of people and history that warrants use of the flag of Scotland. No harm in acknowledging both. Agent 86 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely there are WP guidelines with respect to this question, since I don't imagine Vancouver is unique in this regard. Fishhead64 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any guideline, and all variations exist in other articles. Bobanny 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment only: dropping either the United Kingdom or Scotland from the listing may also help. It may limit the urge of other editors to add the respective flag of the country not explicitly listed. Edinburgh in popular culture is most often referred to as Edinburgh, Scotland - though everyone (presumably) still knows its' in the United Kingdom - and rarely so as Edinburgh, United Kingdom. However, I have no reliable source to support this. My first inclination was to just include Scotland's flag on the basis that; Scotland is a mostly self governing constituent country within the United Kingdom. However, on issues relating to international relations, defence, etc. is represented by the United Kingdom; which on a government website recognize Scotland as one of four constituent countries making up the United Kingdom. This perhaps raises the issue of whether or not the use of United Kingdom and arguably Great Britain is a specific enough term in referring to Edinburgh. This last idea is hard to convey. A real toss up in the end. Luke! 06:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ''Scotland is a mostly self governing constituent country within the United Kingdom.
 * So is British Columbia within Canada; which begs the question - what flag do Vancouver's sister city pages use for a flag for us? (Well, I'm in Burnaby, but you know what I mean....)Skookum1 07:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sister cities are accompanied by the nation-state flag. I believe nationalist sentiment is motivating removals of the union jack, so a closer analogy might be if Quebec City had the provincial flag, while all the other cities had the country flag. That still wouldn't be the same thing though, because the UK is an anomaly, as far as I know.Bobanny 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong and Macau, both of which are recognized Special Administrative Regions (mostly self-governing like Scotlad) within the People's Republic of China can be construed as in the same boat as the issue present now with Scotland. Luke! 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I support using both. Mkdw talk 20:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry not to have replied sooner, seeing as I’m the main troublemaker and all. : ) My case for simplifying the list of sister cities is really as follows: And by comparison British being used in a political sense: I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. I’d also like to add that comparing Scotland (or Wales or England) with Quebec really isn’t helpful, it‘s just not comparing like for like. Finally, if only one flag was used would anyone really care? Or even notice? Kanaye 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Simplicity. Displaying two flags and apparently two different countries is quite confusing for those unfamiliar with the political set up of the United Kingdom. I can see even in the above sentences some considerable confusion about the status of Scotland. Showing two different flags can hardly help.
 * Appearance. Maybe not as important as the others, but having only one flag looks much neater.
 * Accuracy. I feel Wikipedia should strive to be as accurate as possible. Edinburgh is a distinctly Scottish city, indeed it’s the capital of Scotland! Scotland is a nation, the United Kingdom plainly is not. The UK is political union not entirely dissimilar to the EU. To me, listing English, Scottish or Welsh cities under the United Kingdom is as ridiculous and inaccurate as listing all European cities under the flag of the European Union.
 * Consistency / Precedent. A considerable majority of pages throughout Wikipedia identifies places, people, sports teams, music bands and practically everything else of a non-political nature as being English, Scottish or Welsh. For example:
 * A Scottish City - Glasgow
 * An English person - David Beckham
 * A Welsh football team - Wales national football team
 * A Scottish group - The Fratellis
 * The British Prime Minister - Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
 * The British parliament - Parliament of the United Kingdom
 * Thanks for your comments, Kanaye. Admittedly, most comments here SFAIK are coming from people who live a few kazillion miles from Scotland (lots of Scots in Vancouver, though). I agree with some of your points, such as that one flag would look cleaner. The sticking point for me is the issue of sovereignty, and that's why raised the example of Quebec and why the EU comparison isn't convincing to me. The Canadian government recently passed a motion that the Quebecois constitute a nation within a united Canada. But like Scotland and the EU, it's not a nation-state with political/legal membership in the international community, doesn't have its own government, etc. Culturally, there's no question that Scotland is distinct from England, as your examples show, but it's the sovereign political entity that all the other flags represent (otherwise, we could use the Vancouver or British Columbia flag on Edinburgh's page instead of Canada's). Either way, it would be nice to a Wiki convention on this for all sister city sections. I'll check it out. Bobanny 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Quebec does have its own government - the province du Quebec at present, which in fact has more powers and control over Quebec's affairs than the Scottish parliament does over Scotland's; the issue outside of Quebec (speaking as one of les morts vivants, the assimilated and outside-of-Quebec francophone community, although my mother tongue isn't French - my grandfather's was, although it was Mom's English side that was from Quebec...) is that it would have been better to define les canadiens, ALL French-Canadians, as a distinct nation within Canada; the consequence of recognizing Quebec as a separate nation is it infers that the government of Quebec is the government of that nation, whether provincial in status at the moment or otherwise in the future (an issue I try to stay far away from, except by way of keeping track of). This doesn't really pertain to the flag debate, just as an aside as to the relative situations of Quebec and Scotland; I do know that when I've seen promotional material, websites or brochures, on the city of Edinburgh, it's accompanied by the Scottish flag, not the Union Jack, though.  In some ways, also, the EU states are more "provinces" now, albeit with internal provinces/states of their own, than are the Canadian provinces, which are really competing jurisdictions with and against the federal government rather than sub-entities of it...Skookum1 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Question for Kanaye: I am following this discussion closely and in the process visited your userpage. On it, you have an infobox stating that you support or advocate for Scottish independence. Though you, arguably, do raise some premises above that may be used in support for displaying only the Scottish flag, do you truly believe that this is as big of an issue as it appears (no doubt, it appears that way through Bobanny's points and the lack of Wiki convention) or do you believe this issue is one that you can not be impartial to because of your personal bias? I apologize in advance if you have taken offence and perceived this as a personal attack - that is not my intention. Luke! 03:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, absolutely no offence taken. Another infobox on my userpage states: “This user tries to do the right thing”. I would like to think that’s true. Like everyone else I have personal opinions and like everyone else all I can try to do is avoid letting them influence my contributions. To answer your other question, I don’t think this is a very big issue - unless there are identical discussions happening on every other city page. Kanaye 02:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I really think this discussion has been much more prolonged than merited. I looked at some of the Scottish localities with twin cities, and found that the Scottish flag was unfailingly used. I also found the English flag used for English towns similarly twinned. Comparing the ancient realms of the UK with the provinces of Canada is not really analogous. There seems to be an unwritten convention, and this article should conform. Fishhead64 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am adimant that the union flag should be used since Edinburgh's sovereign state is the United Kingdom. However, I can see that some want the Scottish to flag to use, so I think that having both wouldn't be a bad idea. Lofty 11:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

City/Town twinning is ultimately a cultural tie, not a political one, so the Scottish saltire seems more appropriate. I don't think it's important at all, but two flags look bad indeed.--Qyd 16:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a table, allowing both to be included, but not looking messy?

Lofty 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it! Mkdw talk 21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm considerably less sanguine. Why does Vancouver have to be different from other pages with lists of twinned cities?  The procedure with localities of the UK is pretty well established - the national flag of its constituent realms is unfailingly used. Fishhead64 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The concensus of the editors is more important than an unspoken conformed style. Implying otherwise is a break in WP:NOT and WP:SNOW. Langara College 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The table is a bit neater, but ultimately doesn’t solve anything. Scotland is a nation - not a region. Kanaye 02:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Several of the edit histories in other examples I've looked at show a similar pattern as Vancouver, with many of them changed to Scottish only by Kanaye, which does not indication a convention. I've found no guideline to defer to either, so I'd say we're on our own. The sovereignty issue is a potent argument for including the Union Jack that hasn't been refuted here, IMO. I wouldn't mind hearing from folks who adamantly feel the Union Jack shouldn't be there to clarify what the specific deciding criteria should be if not sovereignty? There are lots of "nations" contained within nation-states, and cities that "twin" frame it as a cultural thing as a way of getting around the fact that cities have no legal personality on the international stage. Personally, I like the table, but so far it doesn't appear to help with the deadlock.Bobanny 03:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I didn’t change them to Scottish only. I simply restored them to how they were before they were unilaterally changed by a certain user. Kanaye 16:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe this edit war over which flag to use. The table is the epitome of compromise, in that no one is happy. It doesn't solve anything that it allegedly solves, and unnecessarily complicates things ("Region thereof"? Does anyone in real life use "thereof"?). I originally supported simply using both flags - if anyone could possibly be "confused", they could easily click on the hyperlink. However, given the back-and-forth, I suggest simply leaving it at one flag, being the official flag of the country - in this case, forego use of the Scottish flag and just use the Union Jack. Agent 86 04:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, I do use "thereof" but not in something like a table heading; "insofar", "moreover", "whereas" and all those other archaicisms I can't quite seem to shake. That aside, this debate and the little edit war is almost amusing; I'd been ignoring the table itself but looked at it just before I went out (I'm back in now, obviously); and it so happens that "Sovereign State" is exactly what Scotland is; a kingdom no less, whether as defined/affirmed by the Acts of Union or by the dynasty itself; it's not a "region".  Invernessshire is a region (actually it's a county...); and actually California's a sovereign state, too....so the fuss-up over the proper language to call these things has resulted in further conundrums (conundra?); do Cardiff's sister cities equivalent tables display the Welsh gryphon flag, or the Union Jack?  What about Douglas, Isle of Man (well, that's not directly part of the UK, actually...); I know Belfast would use the Union Jack, but that's a very headily politically-flavoured choice; as also Edinburgh's habitual association with St. Andrew's Cross, or any Welsh city's with the Welsh flag....The UK is not a unitary state, not constitutionally anyway (if more or less in practice); a "region" in the UK would be a county, or a group of counties (the Midlands, or the West Country, for example); so rather than picking on the flag (and certain editors' penchant for misspelling consensus, while invoking the same - as if there were one....) I'm more concerned with the table headings; which are entirely inappropriate, given the context not only of the debate but of some of the things that appear in the respective columns....Skookum1 05:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the original, standard twinned cities table as applied on all other articles. This is blatant vandalism by User:Lofty - Scotland is a member country of the UK, not a "region". This is part of his ongoing persitent POV-pushing. Zero "consensus" was made before that preposterous "regions thereof" table was applied. --Mais oui! 06:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really going to get my butt on articles I've been meaning to write (SS Pacific, Phoenix, British Columbia, Antler, British Columbia, "Volcanic" Brown and Omineca Gold Rush - check 'em out when those aren't redlinked anymore...), but will spend a few minutes here, although giving my root-digging nature I could spend a lot more time cruising other Wiki city articles to see if there's a standard, but for now here's what I've found: Houston, Austin TX, Annapolis MD all use the Scots flag, and one of them (or another city; I should really make a table to prove the point) uses the Welsh flag on a Welsh sister city, and even the English flag on an English one; the one exception is a city that has Newcastle-on-Tyne, where the Union Jack shows up; and on Belfast, which as I said is natural as there is no flag for Ulster (not a "national" one anyway, because of the volatile political nature of the place). The Wiki standard appears to acknowledge Scotland as a kingdom/sovereign state/country, and Wales as a sovereign principality/country.....Skookum1 06:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason that any of these twinned city sections of city articles have a Union Flag is that over the past year Lofty (and several sockpuppet IP accounts, which are pretty obviously him) has gone round systematically removing the the flags of, and the links to, England, Scotland or Wales. 99% of his vandalism is immediately reverted, but sometimes these POV warriors manage to fly below the radar. --Mais oui! 07:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd thank you, mais Oui not to make all of these accusations. I change the flags because I don't see why the UK should be an exception and when most peopole say country they mean sovereign state, and Edinburgh is in the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Therefore, why you seem to accuse of POINT OF VIEW attacks, when Ebinburgh's soveriegn state being the UK is a FACT is beyond me. I still think that the template is perfectly viable. It has no POV whatsoever. I am not trying to push a POV but create wiki continuity!


 * Accusations? I'm not going to bother digging into the edit history at Newcastle-on-Tyne, which is the only British city I saw which had the Union Jack on a sister city listing, other than Belfast, but I'm getting to the point with you where I won't be surprised that you're in the edit history somewhere; and although the Houston, Austin and Annapolis pages (and others) display the Scots and Welsh flags, and I've even seen the English flag somewhere, too, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you or a sock had been involved in edit wars there in the past; or maybe now that I've alerted you to them they're next on your agenda?  Could you please find something more useful to contribute to articles about, please?  Quibbling over established conventions on national flags, when there's tons of other much more relevant work to be undertaken, is just so last-year, dahling.  "Wiki continuity" here is expressed by the city-pages who have embraced the reality that Wales and Scotland are sovereign countries within the United Kingdom; cf. the Scotland and Wales articles and do some actual reading, OK?  What you're doing is disrupting Wiki continuity, period.Skookum1 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this...?

Lofty 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Lofty, but this is just ridiculously cumbersome. A survey of other locality articles on WP will reveal that an informal convention has been established with respect to UK-twinned localities.  Personally, I don't see why it should matter that much if we follow that informal convention and use the Scottish flag.  As has been noted, Scotland is a constituent country of the UK, so this is neither inaccurate nor inappropriate.
 * Might I suggest that if we can't resolve it here to everyone's satisfaction, we submit it as a RFC? Fishhead64 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's Lofty's goal; using up other people's energy and patience so as to bring down something like an RFC, in order that the wrong idea can be accommodated in the compromise milieu of "disinterested party intervention". I may just have to make up that table of cities that use the Scots/Welsh/English flags in their sister city listings, vs. those that don't, esp. if evidence towards this has to be presented in an RFC or something of that kind.  And Lofty, your headings in your tables are still wrong; again, read Scotland and Wales and get to grips with the fact that the Kingdom of Scotland and the Principality of Wales are sovereign countries within the United Kingdom, as is England; and in the same way that the Isle of Man and the Duchy of Sark are also sovereign, but still under the British crown.  The Union Jack, by the way, resulted from Scotland's annexation of England, not the other way around (in technical terms; see Acts of Union).Skookum1 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I might say again, Hong Kong and Macau are both Special Administrative Regions (SAR) within the People's Republic of China. Although not explictly defined as constinuent countries but as SAR's by the PRC, they are essentially the same as this Scotland and United Kingdom issue. Hong Kong and Macau retain the same role and responsibilities to the PRC as Scotland does to the United Kingdom. There is widespread consensus on the use of the Hong Kong and Macau flag in representing these entities in the wiki article names space. I suggest that we adopt the same convention and utilize the constituent country's flag. Luke! 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be puzzling to think of another example, i.e. non-UK, non-PRC....I think there are some but it's going to take some head-scratching; but you're right - "constituent country" is the correct concept, and it's equivalent to "sovereign state". And Scotland, whether Lofty can understand it or not, is a "sovereign state", and equal in status to England; it's not a subordinate part of the UK, nor is the UK one country....just ask the guys coming out of the football stadium after a game between Leeds and Glasgow....Skookum1 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In this context, sovereignty is a specific term in international law that Scotland doesn't claim (also see the entry on Country for a relevant discussion). Some examples I've looked are Macau, (two flags under Lisbon's sister cities), and San Juan, (Puerto Rican flag only on the Honolulu article). However you count 'em, there are enough exceptions to preclude any supposed convention or consensus on Wikipedia. No sign of consensus emerging in this discussion either as far as I can see, but at least the debate has been brought out into the open with this. Bobanny 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "convention" to which I refer specifically relates to the constituent countries of the UK, not to other entities. Call me parsimonious, but I think it would be conveneient - if nothing else - to follow the practice of other locality articles. There's nothing particularly exceptional about Vancouver. Fishhead64 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As a straw poll, my count is a stalement, so I started the RfC as suggested. One editor's "convention" is evidence of persistant vandalism to another. Mais Oui!, I suggest you take a peek at WP:KETTLE. Your agressive edit warring while this discussion is going on, with misleading edit summaries and erasing unrelated work by other editor's work, is very uncool. Bobanny 23:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FAR nomination removed
I've removed Vancouver from Featured article review per WP:FAR instructions regarding 3-month wait on recent promotions. The FAR is archived here: Featured article review/Vancouver. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 08:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since none of the locals was interested in expanding the "origins of the city" section and everyone inexplicably seemed satisfied with the former status quo, I was bold and expanded it into a proper "history" section by myself. The source is in case someone feels the need to correct some details. Thanks for your non-cooperation (slightly sarcastic, I know). Greetings from Europe. --Voyager 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Voyager, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you have to consider that the article Vancouver was not written yesterday. It's undergone a peer review, a featured article candidacy, and several archived discussions and finally an unjustified WP:FAR. In the WP:FAR many of the editors as well as WP:FAR regulars explicitly came to a concensus about no need to further expand the origins of the city due to the existence of the article History of Vancouver. Furthermore, in the Featured article candidates/Vancouver it was mentioned as one of the most common objections that the article was too long, especially the history section. It's the whole purpose why the History of Vancouver was greatly expanded. By changing the section name and adding a considerable amount of non-notable material against the general concensus is in opposition to what Wikipedia is. I've reverting your edits and moving your added material to the correct article: History of Vancouver. Mkdw talk 11:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Effects of World War II - non-notable? Internment of thousands of Japanese Canadians - non-notable? The oldest television station in Western Canada - non-notable? Incorporation of GVRD - non-notable? Founding of Greenpeace - non-notable? You do seem to have a very strange view indeed. Where exactly does "notable history" end and "non-notable history" begin? The so-called "general consensus" you are referring to was more or less your very own opinion which nobody dared to contradict. I wish you lots of fun and satisfaction with this crippled article because I won't bother you any longer. I will concentrate my efforts on improving the German version instead where it's much less likely I'll have to deal with such stubborn people. Best wishes. --Voyager 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your actions weren't based on missing "notable" information Voyager, but on an abstract idea of a "proper" history section. I dunno, the date the mall opened and the bridge was built didn't seem to add a whole lot to the article without any context. Also, leaving the dirty work to the locals, like troubling with citations, wikifying the date, and making sure additions are consistent with the rest of the article - I don't think would fly on any FA article. Bobanny 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced reverting the changes was the right way to handle this. Voyager has a point about the history section, and it's worth considering rather than just dismissing outright. Additionally, just because the article has had a peer review (etc.) certainly doesn't mean there's not room for improvement. (The lead section is certainly evidence of that, given that it is a bit of a mish-mash of information.) Despite all the hard work that has gone into the article, it is important that we don't get too "close" to it. --Ckatz chat spy  17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree there's room for improvement, and I attempted to engage with Voyager on his points, only to be told the effort I put into my comments would've been better spent making the changes he wanted. Recalling that citations were a deal-breaker in the FAC process, and one of the toughest critics there raked us over the coals for a lack of narrative structure (ironically the same one who rewrote the intro in its present mish-mash), it seems more collaboration than Voyager was interested in would be appropriate for moving it forward rather than sideways or even backwards. Bobanny 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Which flag(s) should accompany Edinburgh?
This is a dispute about whether the flag of Scotland or the Union Jack and the flag of Scotland should be used in the Affiliated cities section of the article. 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * I support using both. Edinburgh is part of the UK, hence the appropriateness of the Union Jack, but it's also in Scotland, which has its own distinct sense of people and history that warrants use of the flag of Scotland. No harm in acknowledging both. Agent 86 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am adimant that the union flag should be used since Edinburgh's sovereign state is the United Kingdom. However, I can see that some want the Scottish to flag to use, so I think that having both wouldn't be a bad idea. Lofty 11:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Edinburgh is a distinctly Scottish city, indeed it’s the capital of Scotland! Scotland is a nation, the United Kingdom plainly is not. Kanaye 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * City/Town twinning is ultimately a cultural tie, not a political one, so the Scottish saltire seems more appropriate. I don't think it's important at all, but two flags look bad indeed.--Qyd 16:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The procedure with localities of the UK is pretty well established - the national flag of its constituent realms is unfailingly used. Fishhead64 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * While this discussion is ongoing the twinned cities section should be restored to the condition it was in before User:Lofty started mucking about with it. --Mais oui! 08:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This review is slightly biased as I noticed my contributions / support vote for using both was omitted. I have not checked to see if others have also. Mkdw talk 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * just to clarify: the selections above are intended simply to give an idea of what kinds of arguments have been made for people just coming here from the RfC notice. The single flag people have made more points numerically than the 2 flaggers (not necessarily better points), so I tried to reflect that. Before I listed the RfC, I counted 4 votes on either side. Bobanny 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a very sneaky blanket reversion you just did - making no mention whatsoever in the edit summary of your reversion of the twinned cities table. Do not add back in Lofty's POV table(s) until and unless consensus has been reached here at Talk first. Restoring status quo. --Mais oui! 11:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mais oui!, please review WP:CIVIL and what it means to be polite. Your edit summaries are rude, unprofessional, and unbecoming a valued editor of Wikipedia.

rv sneaky blanket reversion lacking edit summary by Mkdw - restoring twinned cities section to its prior condition - no consensus has been reached at Talk

persistant vandal Lofty

rv blatant vandalism by User:Lofty


 * Are some examples of them. User:Lofty is clearly not a vandal as you can read above and has only tried to help. As for my revert, I was in the process of restoring the table but was still working on moving the history section over to the article History of Vancouver. If you do not believe me, please take a look at my edit history, what I wrote above on this discussion page, and also Featured_article_review/Vancouver. I am in favour of using both the flags, but agree that until a concensus can be reached, no further changes should be made per WP:3RR. It should also be noted that you're in violation of the policy and the reason no one has reported it is because we're all trying to get along peacefully here. However, when you make these accusations it makes that process extremely difficult. Mkdw talk 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently the two sides are to have and not to have. Mais oui! has been reverting back to the not-to-have version by justifying that it should not be changed until a concensus can be reached. However, by reverting to that version its reverting to a version that is being objected to as much as Lofty's version. I have reverted the section back to the Jan 15 version. This version is the version before the first edit to removing the flag occurred and where the conflict began. It will be changed once a concensus is reached. Mkdw talk 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that is simply not true. The twinned cities section was first mucked about with by an IP address on Christmas Day 2006:
 * 
 * I am restoring the article to the state it was in before the POV flag warring started on 25 December. Do not muck about with that section until/unless this discussion concludes in consensus. --Mais oui! 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See this I don't understand. The current version you've reverted to, has only 1 flag. you're saying it was first mucked about on Dec 25 by an IP address (to which that IP address removed 1 of the flags). So wouldn't you be reverting to the version that was 'mucked about with'. Especially considering that 13:00, December 2, 200 has both flags? Mkdw talk 12:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Only because one of User:Lofty's sockpuppet IP accounts had removed the flag of Scotland the previous day!!!
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vancouver&diff=91399415&oldid=91383496
 * This WP:FLAGS edit warring has clearly been going on at a low level for some time on this article. It has to be knocked on the head now. You are not helping matters one iota. --Mais oui! 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's totally unecessary to have both flags, or to describe the twinned city as "Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom". "Edinburgh, Scotland" with the Scottish flag is descriptive enough and factually accurate- including an additional flag or expanded wording would surely only be necessary if there was some possibility of confusion with another "Edinburgh, Scotland". Not the case here, I think. Both flags + more words is a) ugly and unparsimonious; b) smacks strongly of a political statement. I'm glad Mais Oui recognises the appropriateness of reverting to the status quo whilst controversial changes are being discussed, rather than unilaterally making changes without discussion or consensus, as is sometimes the case here on Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree. There is no need for two flags, and most people will know that Scotland is in the UK anyway. Most international descriptions of towns and cities in the UK will tend to use Scotland, England etc rather than the UK, and never Scotland, United Kingdom. So unless the convention is different in Canada (which I doubt), then it should be Edinburgh, Scotland. Astrotrain 13:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It seems that anons seem to have an affinity for changing these sister city listings. I randomly dug out another article with a Scottish sister city, Ingolstadt with Kirkcaldy. There's definitely a back and forth between 'Scotland, United Kingdom', 'Scotland' (at creation), and just 'United Kingdom' . Carson 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No need for any flag
The discussion above is truely amazing... There is no need for any flag in the twin-cities section. Cities are twinned with cities, not with countries. What additional information do you think is presented by displaying the little flag next to the city and country name? For a more humorous reflection on this, but still making a good point, take a look at WP:FLAGS.

Mais oui! and Mkdw — you both need to stop the reverts on this article, and the mud-slinging at WP:3RR. If you continue you'll both end up blocked for disruption. Discuss here and leave the article alone (or it'll get protected) until consensus is achieved.

Thanks/wangi 14:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Another good point. Getting rid of the flags completely would help to resolve the issue, although there is also the wording which some may object to. I do think the flags look quite pretty tho, personally.... Badgerpatrol 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I support removing the flags altogether. I'd also like to mention, as the one who made an issue of this, that a low intensity conflict has been able to go on for a long time on many articles simply because it's off most people's radar. Bobanny 17:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I also support removing them, if it's the only way to remove this ridiculous situation where one country i.e. the UK is an exception. Not the sign of a proper encyclopedia IMO. Lofty 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Esthetically, the flags do look nice - but I'd also support removing them until things calm down and we get some feedback from the RfC. The text could easily be written as"'The City of Vancouver was one of the first cities in Canada to enter into an international twinning arrangement. There are has created special arrangements for cultural, social and economic benefits with Odessa (1944), Yokohama (1965), Edinburgh (1978), Guangzhou (1985), and Los Angeles (1986).'"(Names of nations could be dropped since the pages are linked.) --Ckatz chat spy  17:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support removal of flags - Anything to end this discussion. Flags are for the symbol minded anyway. =) - TheMightyQuill 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: who in this discussion is Scottish? I know I'm not, except maybe distantly on my Norwegian, Irish or English sides (there's others). What I'm wondering is why it is that Lofty is making such a big issue of this, as no one else anywhere else in Wikipedia seems to be. I mean, exactly whose tub to thump is this anyway? I'd say it might be left to any Scots among us to decide, if it's come down to the righteousness which Lofty has invoked.Skookum1 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW the Edinburgh page doesn't display the Scots flag, although it does say Edinburgh (pronounced /ˈɛdɪnb(ə)rə/; Scottish Gaelic: Dùn Èideann) is the capital of Scotland and its second-largest city. (bold emphasis mine) But the Scotland article displays the Scots flag and the Scots coat-of-arms, not the Union Jack.  Seems like the Scots have decided the issue for themselves, at least on their own page.....Skookum1 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know whose tub is being thumped, or whose ox is being gored, for that matter. I'm of Scottish ancestry, and I could not possibly care less since Scotland is a full and equal partner in the United Kingdom - and in fact pretty much took over England when their king succeeded to the English throne.  I'm just interested in maintaining consistency across articles. Fishhead64 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, and I'd say the consistency to be maintained is the one expressed by Scotland's own page....Skookum1 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mais oui, Astrotrain and myself (and all from Ed I think)... Although we're all on this article's watch list due to earlier edits (well, I know I am!). Ckatz made a good point above, these cities don't even need a city tagged onto their description - they are all well know cities. Ta/wangi 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the flags per Wangi's proposal and Ckatz's specification. Only support was expressed for the proposal, from both camps, and no objections. Everyone seems thoroughly exasperated by this debate, old hatreds have been reinforced - ahh, the smell of consensus. Thanks evwybuddy ... Bobanny 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes...consensus: where nobody wins, and nobody's happy....one of the ironies that always struck me about it (I was in eco-peace type politics in the early '80s...) was that it was usually "caused" by the stubbornness of someone with a radical opinion who needed pacifying or nothing else could get done....sound familiar? It's one of the reasons I dropped out of fringe politics (which is still plagued by it, years later....)Skookum1 07:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article
I see that Vancouver is to be featured on Feb. 7 (Weds.). I suggest as many of as possible remain vigilant that day for any editorial "amendments" which may be made as a result of the article's higher profile. Cheers! Fishhead64 01:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have visited this page before, and it still had that "Featured-Article" star in the corner. Pages can be featured twice?--Surfaced 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He means it is being featured on the main page. Everyone be on your guard. _dk 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... the "Featured article" version has a stronger lead than the actual article. We should consider reworking Vancouver accordingly. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  05:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks to be stronger because the obligatory pronunciation and other details have been cut out, so it's more concise. Not sure we could emulate that, though as a reader, I agree it's nicer that way. Bobanny 05:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the IPA - that doesn't bother me. Whoever wrote it, though, has managed (through trimming and rearranging) to weed out several of the things that have been bothering me. The real article's lead is a bit muddled and could use a similar cleanup. (I've been meaning to look at it for a few weeks now, but you know how it is...) --Ckatz chat spy  05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got my support. Bobanny 10:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Woot~! nice to see my fair city up on the main page, keep up the good work ^^ LG-犬夜叉 09:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Stargate
Isn't stargate filmed in Vancouver? That's worth mentioning Tourskin.
 * There's a whole category of Vancouver television series and while I don't find any of them particularly worth bragging about, Vancouver's film & TV industry isn't particularly well linked in this article, although it is mentioned in the introduction. Perhaps a link to List of filming locations in and around Vancouver? - TheMightyQuill 02:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For such a significant portion of the local economy and culture - the film industry gets surprisingly little mention in the Vancouver article (who doesn't see the ubiquitous film trailers in and around town). I wouldn't mind an extra sentence or two on the topic, perhaps in the economy section, or maybe just a simple link as suggested above in the "see also" section? thoughts much appreciated TCB007 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Storm damage not mentioned?
I didn't see any mention of the extreme damage to Stanley park by the two recent winter storms.    Shenme 16:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Try as we may, can't get everything in there. It's mentioned in the Stanley Park article, and IMO, is too much a current event to include here. Bobanny 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Governance
I edited the comments which portrayed the Westside as more conservative than it actually is, I think. All its MPs represent the Liberal Party of Canada (well, except Emerson, of course, but he's a special case). Most (but not all) of its MLAs represent the provincial Liberal Party, which is a defacto coalition of moderates. Fishhead64 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

--location== location needs to be fixed. article is locked so I can't do it. delete this after

Population stats misleading
The opening paragraph is very misleading and needs to be changed:

"With a population of 2,180,737 (2006 estimate),[1] it is the largest metropolitan area in western Canada and the third largest in the country.[2] The population of Vancouver proper is 587,891"

Changes that need to be made:
 * the population of the GVRD is mentioned *before* the population of the actual city. No other city that I can find on Wikipedia does this.  It is misleading and confusing.
 * Vancouver might have the largest metropolitan area, but it is NOT the largest city in the west. Calgary is about 1/3 bigger.   The article is about the city, not the metropolitan area.  Vancouver's metropolitan population should be mentioned further down, not in the opening paragraph (although perhaps it would be appropriate in the GVRD article) given that the bulk of the population is not in the city.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.150 (talk • contribs)
 * I really don't see how the intro is unclear. When people say "Vancouver," more often than not, outside the Lower Mainland anyway, they mean Greater Vancouver, not just Vancouver proper, which is a constituent of Greater Vancouver; this article is about both. "Greater Vancouver Regional District" has its own article, but that's an administrative entity that normal people rarely use. Calgary's article seems to be equally clear on this point, such as: It is the largest Canadian metropolitan area between Toronto and Vancouver. Pop size of Calgary proper is a point of notability for that city, whereas the population of Greater Vancouver is notable for this burgh, and that seems to justify the different ordering in my mind. There's a graph showing population growth for both Van and Greater Van that should illustrate the difference. Someone added a corresponding table for Vancouver proper, which seems to me should also be done for Greater Vancouver. In any case, even if Greater Vancouver amalgamated tomorrow, it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference in the reality: economically, they work together as one in a lot of ways, just like any major metropolitan centre. Besides, it's the motion of the waves, not the size of the ship that's important, or so I've been told ;=) Bobanny 08:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Vancouver's population (as a city) should be listed before the GVRD. It's misleading to people who don't know Vancouver, particularly because Vancouver is geographically quite separate from its surrounding area.

We don't refer to New York's metropolitan population (even though people think of New York as the amalgam of New York and surrounding areas):
 * "New York City has a population of 8.1 million within a land area of 321 square miles (830 km²),[2] making it the most densely populated city in North America. With a population of 18.7 million, the New York metropolitan area is one of the largest urban areas in the world.[3]"


 * ditto for Paris:
 * Paris has an estimated population of 2,153,600 inhabitants (2005 est.)[2]. The Paris urban area has a population of 9.93 million[3];


 * Toronto:
 * The city has a population of 2.48 million and its metro region, the Greater Toronto Area, has a population of 5.9 million.


 * Calgary:
 * As of April 2006, Calgary's population was 991,759. The estimated metropolitan population (CMA) was 1,107,200 in 2006 (see Calgary Region), making Greater Calgary the fifth largest Census Metropolitan Area in the country.


 * Why should Vancouver be any different? For the sake of consistency and clarity, Vancouver's article should be updated to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.239.150 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Vancouver should be different because it is different. Other cities are also different, if you look at more than just population stats. You're comparing apples and oranges, and it would be more confusing to over-emphasize administrative divisions for people who want to learn about Vancouver. What you're suggesting is to dumb it down so people can make pat comparisons.

Here's some reasons why your points don't apply:
 * Geographically separated: There's bridges and ferries that have long overcome that problem, as with other port cities surrounded by water, e.g., Montreal, New York City (from that article: the Bronx is the only borough of the city that is part of the United States mainland)


 * CMA is for head counting purposes, and doesn't reflect much else. Are you seriously suggesting that Oakville is to Toronto what West Vancouver is to Vancouver, or Jersey City is to NYC what Surrey is to Vancouver?


 * The Greater Vancouver Regional District is not the equivalent to your examples. It's an administrative/census designation and not much else. The Lower Mainland is closer, but is not the CMA.


 * Toronto, as with other cities in Ontario, amalgamated in the 1990s; Vancouver should amalgamate, but hasn't. The correct comparison would be Old Toronto, which is properly included in the main Toronto article, as with Vancouver.
 * The equivilant for NYC, as I mentioned, are the boroughs, not the census area, which crosses into 4 states (we'd have to include Calgary, and maybe Seattle as part of Greater Vancouver to approximate anything even close to an equivilant, not to mention BosNyWash). Same with Montreal, another amalgamated city with boroughs that are a closer approximation to constituents of Greater Vancouver.
 * In your example of Calgary, the article notes its own uniqueness (as it should) compared to other cities: Unlike many major urbanized areas, Calgary developed as a "unicity" having incorporated most of its suburbs into the city proper.

You seem to want to make a point about size more than clarity, but at the expense of precision. For the record, no, Vancouver pales compared to a lot of CMAs, and even the population of the entire province is smaller than that of the Greater Toronto Area. Bobanny 03:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't find the stats misleading at all. Forget the 'way' other wikipedia articles are. Are you confused by the sentence, "With a population of 2,180,737 (2006 estimate),[1] it is the largest metropolitan area in western Canada and the third largest in the country.[2] The population of Vancouver proper is 587,891". Unless you don't know what a metropolitian area is or the proper of a city is I don't see how as a sentence its confusing. Furthermore if you don't know what those two things are, the poluation is the least of your troubles I think. I also think its better to use metropolitan area and Vancouver proper because on all maps the city shows up as Vancouver. The Vancouver Greater Regional District is only a term really used and widely known by other Vancouverites. Take a look on any world atlas and you will see what I mean by confusion of Vancouver and Greater Vancouver Regional District. Furthermore the sentence if you read it carefully does not say Vancouver proper is the largest city in western Canada. Mkdw talk 10:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)