Talk:Vancouver/Archive 7

Continental status
Finally we have an edit summary from the IP user who kept deleting comparisons to other cities on the continent, such as
 * Metro Vancouver's population is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area among metropolitan areas north of San Francisco and west of Chicago.
 * to wit: Geographic relevance to American cities completely insubstantial and irrelevant
 * the same user deleted comparisons within the Pacific Northwest region

While I agree Canadian comparisons should come first, Vancouverites are acutely aware of their coastal location, their distance from the other major metro areas of Canada, and the nearness of the border & Seattle. Many people, Vancouverites & others, may be surprised to learn just what a footprint Vancouver leaves on the continent, and if asked to name the top 2 most populous metros north of San Francisco & west of Chicago, would soon stumble. Vancouver is not just a Canadian city, and especially evident with the 2010 Olympics, it aspires to be a world-class city (for which it has been awarded 2 points [some evidence])

Other (non-Canadian) comparisons are in the lead abound - such as Other continental comparisons in lead
 * most liveable region in the world,
 * one of the three most livable cities in the world.
 * 56th most expensive city in which to live among 143 major cities in the world
 * Population density is highest for a major city on the continent after New York City, San Francisco, and Mexico City, and on track to being second by 2021.
 * btw, this on-track seems too iffy to me to be in lead
 * exports more cargo than any other port in North America. (definite keep)
 * third-largest film production centre in North America, after Los Angeles and New York City, earning it the nickname Hollywood North.

So, while this is not a continent-wide comparison, it certainly applies to a region spanning nearly half the continent. I cannot help wondering if part of the resistance to this is that it mentions yet another "American" city. --JimWae (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as this goes, Metro Vancouver's population is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area among metropolitan areas north of San Francisco and west of Chicago. -- What about Minneapolis-Saint Paul, population 3,502,891 to Metro Vancouver's 2,116,581? Also, Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Area, pop. 2,359,994? Denver is north of San Francisco (39°44′ to 37°46′). The quote isn't on the page at the moment, but seeing it here I thought I would ask about these other two metro areas. Pfly (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Doh - my only lame excuse is difficulty finding a link to the (continental) data all in one place.
 * My original text which was deleted twice without edit summary: Within the Pacific Northwest region, Vancouver is the most populous city, and Metro Vancouver is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area
 * Possible expansion (of area): Of West Coast cities north of San Francisco, Vancouver is the most populous, and Metro Vancouver is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area (this holds at least to the Rockies, anyway, but is more of a mouthful)
 * hope this can be considered without being too overshadowed by my erroneous expansion to Chicago--JimWae (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you are trying to achieve here. This article should simply be encyclopedic and not a vehicle for collective self-promotion. What is a "world-class" city anyway?? :::I have no problem with the Pacific-Northwest references, but the rest seems completely unecessary. Dionix (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Dionix - try to find a way to say Vancouver is part of a major conurbation in the Pacific Northwest, but keep it simple. The population of the city itself seems somewhat immaterial as the city is defined by arbitrary lines on a map. Drawing circles to find where Metro Van is still 2nd-biggest seems a pointless exercise and should anyway be in the Metro Van article.
 * And check all those references to most-livable city, check them right to the bottom - you'll find that they do not say it's the most livable city for the residents, it's the most livable city for foreign workers - Mercer and EIU publish surveys to help governments and businesses negotiate relocation allowances when they send their people abroad. Franamax (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't...
Shouldn't this article be called Vancouver, B.C. or Vancouver, British Columbia, or Vancouver, Canada or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan c.00 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can check through the history and archives of this page for the endless discussions :) Consensus is that this is the Vancouver everyone is thinking about, other uses are disambiguated at the top of the article. The article itself explains where Vancouver is. Franamax (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why isn't, I don't know, Seattle's article just called Seattle, not what it's called: Seattle, Washington? Ethan c.00 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno, maybe you should try asking at Talk:Seattle for the answer. It might have something to do with a decision on how cities in the US should be titled. For alternative reference, check Toronto and Paris. But as far as Vancouver goes, look through the archives, it's a-l-lll there. :) Franamax (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See Naming conventions (settlements) and Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide. It will require a lot of reading and investigating if you really want an answer. --maclean 05:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * maclean has directed you to the right guidelines. The Canadian naming guidelines provide that a city can be at Place, rather than Place, Province , much like the standard for many other countries.  The U.S. guidelines, which have been subject to endless debate, favour the "comma convention" ( Place, State ) - although the U.S. guidelines have recently been modified to suggest that some city articles could be moved to Place , I don't think any of the moves have occurred.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it should, because there is nothing else to disquish it from Vancouver, Washington which of course is the "original" Vancouver 30 years older. In Washington State, when a person speaks of Vancouver they mean Washington. So yes, it is both appropriate and needed to add B.C. to the Canandian city with the "borrowed" name. Just as Washington D.C. is different from Washington State. How many Seattles are there? TheRealGriz (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been argued on this page quite extensively in the past, and the consensus has always been to keep this as just Vancouver. The reason is that most city articles outside of the US use only the city name (not City, Subdivision) as a matter of style, and the default page is the most notable city with that name.  That is why London doesn't go to London, Ontario and Birmingham doesn't go to Birmingham, Alabama.  I'm sure people in Alabama probably think of "their" Birmingham when they mention it in conversation, but from a global perspective (which is what Wikipedia is concerned with) it is under no doubt which is the more famous city.  If you want to continue "fighting this policy" (if that is indeed what you're trying to do), please read the section below called "Why does this go directly to Vancouver, BC?, before continuing.  TastyCakes (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already read said articles, and did so before making my post. The points of those said posts that we should be concerning ourselves with, relate to the confusion issue, the need to disquish between items, places and people having the same name. The consensus on this issue is with reguard to this page solely and not the consensus of the most of the world, and a "final" consensus has not yet been reached. Because this is a library of information it needs to be "LESS" confusing not more-so. I searched for Vancouver looking for the page on Vancouver, Washington and ended up here. I expected a table of contents of some type where I could select the one I was looking for.  The result was that I had to come to this page to access the Vancouver contents page, and this should be the other way around. Consensus on this issue will be on the side of clarity, and this page will be labled correctly, in the near future. BTW Wiki is not concerned with "global perspective" (as you put it) its purpose is to "inform" through networking. You clearly have an agenda on this issue, and would ask you to refrain from giving me advice your clearly not qualified to give in the future. Furthermore, its quite obvious that this page is getting more hits because this issue is in dispute, this should be noted.TheRealGriz (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[undent]Good grief, did you really say this with a straight face: The consensus on this issue is with reguard [sic] to this page solely and not the consensus of the most of the world, and a "final" consensus has not yet been reached. Well, I'll tell you what, maybe 50 years from now there's an off-chance that Vancouver, Washington will be better-known than Vancouver BC is and you'd have some context to your claim about global consensus still being pu in the air. All I know is when a movie star or whomever is on Leno or Letterman or Good Morning America and they say they've just come back from Vancouver, or they're filming a movie or doing a show in Vancouver, everybody (including the audiences, not just the host and producer) know where they're talking about. Most Americans identify "Vancouver" with "Vancouver, BC", whether you like it or not. The coneensus has already been made by the American public. And nobody in the UK or Australia or South America has ever heard of Vancouver, Washington, unless they've got family or business there, or have lived there....."Good grief". Give it up, you won't win this.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been reached. After two votes and two admins stepping in the result was 'Oppose' to making Vancouver a disambiguation page. And you're right, consensus was on the side of clarity, that disambiguation links have existed on the top of primary topics since day one of this wiki and will continue to do so. The fact that only 1 in every 10,000 people will want to go to Vancouver, Washington makes it far more inaccessible as an information source to change it. It's a hard pill to swallow that in this particular instance Wikipedia was more difficult to use than for others but there's a reason why when you click links like London it doesn't go to a disambiguation page because there's a London, Ontario and a few people wanted to read that article instead.
 * NOTE I would also like to point out that User:TheRealGriz is a single purpose editor that has no other history on Wikipedia outside of this topic or page. Based upon the last two years and the frequency of editor's bringing this up as a topic on talk pages coupled with the fact that the editor is aware of Disambiguation pages, consensus, and the right methods in indenting a talk page, likely suggests this is the same editor who brought this up and was consequently blocked in February. Mkdw talk 04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel bad for you Griz. You have apparently been annoyed by something and requested a change that on the surface seems quite reasonable to you.  From your contributions list, this seems to be the first encounter you've had with Wikipedia bureaucracy.  But please believe me that you will not win this argument.  You can spend hours arguing and drive yourself insane trying to prove your point.  My advice to you, after having become very, very angry over the years about a wide range of stuff in Wikipedia, is to just let some stuff slide.  In this case, what do you hope to achieve?  The ability to be sent straight to the disambiguation page for Vancouver rather than having to click the little link at the top of the page?  Is that really worth the aggravation I guarantee pursuit of this bugaboo will cause you?  I urge you to try to put your time and energy into improving Wikipedia - there are vast areas that need improvement, and you will in all likelihood feel much more fulfilled by the experience.  TastyCakes (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the second and third post on this issue that is attempting to change the "scope" or "direction" of the conversation by attemping to discredit me in some way, whether that be to "suggest" I had not read the information and now an attempt to associate me with another user/editor, an administrator keying in might be warranted if this continues. In my defense I belong to multiple wiki communities, and have contributed to the wiki experience in a helpful way, the most recent is posted. http://www.wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheRealGriz


 * The issue is that one place is not any more or less important with regard to information, I have seen this same issue in discussion with regard to Portland  and I am on the same side of the fense, even though it is local to me.  Reason being, that it does not help the wiki community to force a person to be redirected to a page they are not interested in. Vancouver B.C. I'm sure is a great place, but no more "important" than any other title with Vancouver in it. Larger? yes. more recognized? perhaps.  However, this may be in the eye of the beholder and not relevant either way. If you open an encyclopedia you will not have to goto the Vancouver B.C. page to look up George Vancouver. This "online" encyclopedia should be no different, it causes confusion and turns the search into something more convoluted. If Vancouver B.C. is more renouned, wouldn't this be the reason to change it? So that something not as well known, would stand out so people can read about it? All of the arguments I have seen only further prove why this page should be labled a respective variant of Vancouver B.C.TheRealGriz (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel I was trying to discredit you, I assure you that wasn't my intention. I'm also a little sad you don't seem to believe me when I say you'll get nothing but frustration out of pursuing this matter.  Best of luck with your future wiki-endeavors.  However this situation ends, I hope you are not turned off of Wikipedia for good and will continue to contribute to the project.  TastyCakes (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that and am sorry as well we started on the wrong foot. I was just responding to the subject matter and feel no frustration, I want wiki to flow for everyone. We may disagree, but just have different perspectives. Good luck to you as well. TheRealGriz (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A very simple question then. Should London be a disambiguation page? There are other London's out there like London, Ontario. If yes, same reasoning then? Mkdw talk 09:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: If people feel so passionately about all articles being disambiguation pages and that you're arguing the 'principal' rather than the particular subject (and avoiding bias) this is not your battlefield. Wikipedia has policies: Naming conventions for cities, cities that are established as 'Primary Topics', and individual country naming conventions. Quite simply in regards to those policies, some cities are given the article namespace over disambiguation pages. Vancouver follows these rules along with thousands of other primary topic's taking the corresponding namespace. As such you should try to change the naming conventions, primary topics, and other affected policies. Vancouver and all other cities will change accordingly. If you don't, then it's clear that all these name change requests (the whole 6 we've had over 2 years) are not about the principals they claim to argue but people's bias for their own hometown, and so the thousands of readers aren't asked to accommodate one person (and so they shouldn't). Mkdw talk 10:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to Add (site)
Thank you all for your input. Here's hoping one day the site would become so useful that it will get included without me having to ask :) Thank you again! BCP

Vancouver skyline missing on Canada page
Montreal has one; Toronto has one.

How about a classic pic of Vancouver skyline and Ship in English Bay to illustrate Canada's largest Port under economy section? Love that town. There are many nice ones already on Wikipedia and on Flickr, but nothing that captures a) the skyline; b) ships in English Bay (showing it's function as Canada's busiest port); c) the mountain backdrop. That's how I think of Vancouver. There are pictures of the port, but somehow that doesn't capture it. I guess I'm asking if anyone found one.

Great looking page, btw. --Soulscanner (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted
Looks to me like we've been reverting to a bad version for a few days, the reference section had a wee bit of a problem. I've reverted to an unbroken version. Intervening edits were all minor, I'll review and catch things up. Franamax (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note on my page; I'll re-run AWB when I get a chance. (As I recall, the changes from the scan were pretty minor.) I also took a look at the problems with the "Reference" section, which seem to originate with the IP edits just after where you reverted to. The IPs removed a few brackets from the "ref" and "cite" coding that messed things up. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User concern regarding article neutrality
A user has expressed concern regarding the article's neutrality:

Any edits made to this wikipedia entry by people not logged in to wikipedia is immediately nullified by bots created and made by "ferdinand" who is a bot programmer for the Vancouver Olympic organizing committee. No anonymous person can make edits to this page.

Anyone any edits to t page are immediately flagged and assessed by emplyees of VANOC.

All references to current political issues within the GVRD are immediately removed upon entry to give the stable impression of a docile population. At least 2 people I know have tried to insert the true information that smoking inside is illegal all over vancouver.

Numerous attempts to add current events directly related to the olympics always fail.

If the wikipedia becomes a bot war. what's the point?

If the wikipedia is going to become another sanitized media outlet for cities and countries to put up their media propoganda about themselves, why would anyone trust it?

If people think its a separate issue, then why don't we have a separate page for larger cities that allows for multiple viewpoints of the political/social environment to be represented.

This article reads like a yuppie real estate sales pitch for the GVRD with a sanitized everybody welcome vanoc media press release.

The wikipedia is quickly becoming a tool for suppression of current events.

The above was posted by IP user 24.84.89.108


 * I had originally removed the post, as it fails the talk page guidelines regarding use of the page as a forum. However, as per suggestions from Skookum1 and Franamax, the text has been restored within a collapsible box, so as to avoid any appearance of "censorship". Thanks to those two for the ideas, and let the discussion begin... --Ckatz chat spy  21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Media manipulation and information control in British Columbia would certainly make an interesting article, and it's even conceivable without OR, just by fielding stuff from Adbusters. Just a joke, but a half-serious one.  Good idea about "controversy boxes"....might be worth coming up with an across-the-board concept, no?Skookum1 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am a robot. The good people at the Olympic committee had the insight to also allow this robot to freely edit other Wikipedia articles like Break a leg, which clearly helps promote Vancouver as a major tourist destination. Mkdw talk 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) PS vote for Pedro.

Introduction
I was just looking at the introduction to London and then compared it to the introduction for Vancouver. Does anyone else think our intro is obscenely long. It lists every notable thing Vancouver is known for and some records that almost no one else does. London is notable for a huge amount of things and perhaps more numerous records yet their intro is very concise. Would anyone like to work with me on shortening it and moving some of the records to their appropriate sections? Mkdw talk 03:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Vancouver has a wonderfully eager article, but too much is being attempted in the introduction. I just moved some 2028 (!) Olympic stuff out of there.  --Ds13 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also concur with you two. Some of the information in the intro is pretty superfluous, such as mentioning the ranking of Zurich and Geneva when compared to Vancouver. Does this frame of reference warrant inclusion in the article, thus prolonging the introduction? Decisions, decisions. --MadameArsenic (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also agreed, there's a lot of promo-bloat in the opening paragraph; comparisons to other cities or rankings on "world class"-ness are brags and not relevant to encyclopedic content (and highly debatable anyway, though treated in Vancouver as gospel proof that it really is "the best place on earth" yadayadayada. The opening of the Stanley Park article similarly has comparisons to other parks - Central Park, NYC and Richmond Park, London - which aren't really relevant; why not compare it also to the Teirgarten in Berlin, the Bois de Boulogne in Paris, or Frogner Park in Oslo or wherever else?  Vancouver's over-the-top insecurity about proving itself is why these comparisons are treated as if anybody else should care (they don't).  A lot of what's in the intro could easily be moved "south", especially the rankings, which are toxic incarnations of that insecurity and, well, really boring after you've heard too many of them.  I wonder, is there a ranking for "No Fun Cities".....I think there is, and Vancouver outranks Singapore on that count IMO, but it's not the kind of thing civic boosters even want to mention (while insteading claiming "exciting nightlife" in the brochures).  A lot of city articles are brag-fests; but Vancouver's is more than a bit overweening.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New Panorama and Nicknames
Best, from me Ricky-Roman, someones keeps changing this back... I don't know why I have to explain this but the nicknames are valid geesh... I am not going to explain them. I guess I will explain the ones that need explaining. Van City is just common knowledge for the nickname of vancouver and its always been there. Go look at the New York City page. And the term Slam City has been associated in pop culture towards vancouver for over a decade... just do a search on google.

Also the picture is absolutey beautiful and I had to go to great lengths to get that picture on the public domain. It seems like there is some sort of jealous revisioning taking place [maybe hate as well]... he says it "not his taste"... man you are not even from Vancouver? And that picture is fuzzy and not even one tenth the beauty of the one that I purchased strictly for the use in wikipedia. Grow up and I am being nice here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky-Roman (talk • contribs) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the skyline image, I agree. Ricky-Roman's is superior to the previous one and a very good representation of Vancouver. As for "nicknames", well I'm not fond of them in general, so my comment is biased, but pretty much every city on earth has various nicknames. Unless there is a strong historic connection or wide, international recognition (such as "big apple", "city of lights" or "eternal city") I would discourage any mention. Maybe "Lotusland" as at least this has recognition within Canada. Dionix (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lotusland is a reference to the BC political culture/milieu and isn't quite Vancouver-specific; it refers to me as much or more to Victoria. Vancouver's old traditional sobriquet was the Terminal City, as in the Terminal City Club on West Hastings (next to the Marine Bldg).  Some of the new zero-generation nicknames like VanCity I find repulsive and way too faux, like CHUM/Znaimer's attempt to rename Vancouver Island "VI-Land" as part of his CKVI branding efforts; but they are out there; what I don't like is hearing proponents of nicknames like VanCity and Slam City talking about them as if they're all that matters, and people are supposed to heard of them who aren't, um, part of pop culture.  VanCity to me is the credit union, as I've said before; it's way too "urban trendy" for me, sounds like a way to sound cool when you're really not, when you're really just a snotty post-consumer technoid with iPODs and a taste for rap to go wit hteh designeer duds....not meaning to get personal, just giving the assocations when I hear someone use nouveau terms.  They come and go, like Rainburg and others; Terminal City's as old as the railway, and citable, though....Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's try to keep the remarks civil. Several editors have reverted your additions. Czatz was fairly clear in an edit summary about the nicknames and Franamax and I have both said that the picture is not good enough. You have been warned about violating the three revert rule, so would you please agree to continue to discuss matters here rather than edit warring? Sunray (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, with respect to the nicknames and the tone. This has been discussed on several occasions and (IIRC) the feeling was that only notable, verifiable nicknames should be listed (if any). Also, please don't make unfounded accusations about "jealousy" and the like. Please look over the talk page, the article history, and the contributors; you'll quickly realize how unnecessarily provocative it is. --Ckatz chat spy  23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I rather like the new picture, and in the spirit of collaboration, would a vote be in order? I think the new picture shows an interesting angle (complete with water and mountains- Vancouver's greatest attributes) and the filtred light quality is very much Vancouver. The previous one could be anywhere. Dionix (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a vote is nesecarry everything is fine now I took out a nickname... becasuse I am guessing that is what caused the problem... to many "city" nicknames as well.. but I have not heard of half the nicknames that new york has. But I am now in agreeeance... Ricky. Again no vote is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky-Roman (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a striking image, my concern is that it seems as though it's been extensively retouched and kind of "fake". That's just my opinion and I'm not an image expert. I'm also not clear on whether you can buy a photograph and then release it as PD. Doesn't the original creator have to do that? Franamax (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've had to pull the names again - Ricky, please don't restore them until the discussion is resolved. I'll try to dig up links to the old discussions in the interim. --Ckatz chat spy  23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's missing
Two points:

--Loodog (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A city of 600,000 does not have a skyline like this. At least in the US, Canada, or Mexico.  Can someone explain how this happened?
 * 2) Lavish praise for how livable the city is abounds. Similar praise for the city's expensive cost of living is all over the place.  The two necessarily contradict.  In the United States, the most livable cities are places with cheap real estate such as Cleveland, Ohio, or Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  What kind of livability are they ranking?
 * Well, that is indeed what Vancouver looks like. Keep in mind the metropolitan region has several million population and it is Canada'a major port on the Pacific Ocean. However the particular skyline picture in place right now appears to have been retouched, giving it a slightly unreal aspect IMO. This is discussed in the section above.
 * The most-liveable city rankings, if you follow them to the source, have nothing to do with residents of the city. They are in fact "hardship indexes" used by international organizations to set the pay of expatriate workers. As such, they ignore or differently weight factors of interest to actual long-term city residents. That's where the contradiction comes in - it's a great city to live in, as long as you don't want to actually own a house some day. Franamax (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To expand on Franamax's point, Vancouver also has a deliberate policy of pursuing high density, which is reflected in the downtown skyline. Most of those buildings are condo towers.  I was actually surprised, in my travels, to find just how little density appears to exist in large North American cities, which have opted, apparently, for sprawl. fishhead64 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't really have to "opt" for sprawl; it's the free market default in a city with heavy automotive infrastructure, which virtually every post-1940s region of the US has in abundance. There are cities that implemented intent "Smart" planning like Portland but then the cost of housing goes up.


 * Even considering the 2 million metro area, that's still a huge skyline. Consider counterparts in the US with 2 million metro area:



Did the city subsidize anything over 10 stories? Were cars outlawed?--Loodog (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no subsidies and no car restrictions, mostly a matter of smart planning initiatives. But Vancouver always has been more urban than most US cities- perhaps a result of being a city of immigrants more used to urban lifestyles (initially from the UK and Europe, later from Asia). Compare to Seattle, just a couple of hours down the coast: Vancouver seems more vibrant and has a much larger population living in the city centre. By the way, your Canadian examples are misleading. TO and Montreal are also quite urban. In the case of Toronto, the shot is taken from a great distance. Dionix (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c, Dionix is right) Well honest to god, it's the way it is, I look at it every day. Get your Google maps out and look - downtown Vancouver is a pretty small peninsula and that's where all the towers are. As noted, many of them are condos, also, none of them are all that tall, mostly 20-30 stories I think. It is however among the most densely populated areas in North America and all those people have to live somewhere. Keep in mind too that is the only available shot showing those buildings (Yaletown from the south side of False Creek if I'm not mistaken) that particular way. Having seen both of Toronto and Vancouver's cityscapes, nahh, TO is way bigger, the buildings are far taller, the extent is much greater. What you are seeing is just a particular "perfect" shot - as I've said, I think it's retouched, but it's not faked. Fly on up here and I'll show you around. You should see the mountains from street level, with the little lego-brick buildings in front of them :)
 * And yes, Vancouver has a history of urban planning dating back to the 1960's, cars are not thought of highly, wider roads tend to not get built, traffic is calmed and pedestrians rule, and if you want to build something, it goes before a design committee. No subsidies, just follow the rules if you want to build at all. There's lots of problems, but the basic concepts of making a city for people have been followed here, believe it or not. Franamax (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. The whole issue is somewhat synthetic.  Downtown Vancouver is what it is...in other words, crammed with skyscrapers.  Part of it is intentional planning for density, and part of it is geographical necessity (Metro Vancouver has to squeeze between mountains to the north and the US border to the south).  fishhead64 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that I'm incredulous, but such a unique characteristic (IMO) is worthy of explanation and note in the article. If someone can pull up articles that talk about the Smartness of Vancouver's growth, or what kinds of building restrictions exist and how they've shaped the city, I think it would greatly improve the article.  All we've got now are talks of height restrictions, without an explanation as to why a modest-sized city has to worry about excess height all.--Loodog (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver's(metro)is only about a 1000 square miles,one of the smallest in North America(for a city this size) i would hazard to guess. Of that 1000 square miles, maybe a third is actually suitable for any buildings at all. Mountains to the North and bog and delta to the south. It's hard to place 2.2 million people in this area with out building up. Even the Suburbs like Burnabyand New Westministerhave a plethora of high rise buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea for the article. New section: Cityscape, which could maybe be merged with the idea of livability/sustainability.  I assume the latter is due to the former.  Something along the lines of, "One of the most striking features of Vancouver is the city's density.  Through [zoning/building restrictions/etc...] initiatives the city has built up a considerable core of high and mid-rises in a small footprint, which is often implicated for the city's walkable layout, abundance of street-level shopping and restaurants, and high public transit usage."  By the way, feel free to correct me, I've never been there and am going on what I've looked up.--Loodog (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, except it only applies to the downtown peninsula and a few other areas. The majority of the city is made livable by the lack of high-rise buildings, traffic calming, medium-density neighbourhoods. For instance, Kitsilano, where almost no building is over 3 stories, but almost every building is three stories. Franamax (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Contradictions
In regards to this quote from Loodog:
 * ''it's either most expensive or most livable, the two inherentk contradict

I don't see anything inheritently contradictory here. Liveable, in the context of the article, means that city offers it's citizens convenient access to ammenities, public education, clean air and water, etc. This does not imply a cheap city to live in. To give an analogy, imagine we were talking about cars, and someone mentioned a car was very driveable. That would certaintly not imply that it's a cheap car to drive.

Regardless, I think there should have more community consensus before sticking a contradictions flag on the article. Bosintang (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Coast Salish village still in Vancouver?
The first paragraph of the history section says there is still a Coast Salish village near Point Grey. Where is it? --Ds13 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference is to Musqueam, it would seem, which is a couple of miles from the point of Point Grey; it's also adjacent to the Point Grey golf course/country club; "Point Grey" as a neighbourhood tends to mean west of Blanca, north of 10th, but I've heard it used to include areas near the golf course. The description could be changed maybe - "near Dunbar and Southlands neighbourhoods" maybe?  There were villages closer to the point, and at teh point, but yes, those are all vanished (though there's arguments that the semi-permanent population of Wreck Beach constitute a tribe, if not a First Nations one....).Skookum1 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate Frisbee
The section has been added and reverted a number of times. It is currently in - I removed the peacocky language and wikilinked it/added refs for Wold championships to be held in Vancouver. I also moved it to the bottom of the section as it is certainly less important than Vancouver's Olympic bid. There's no reason for it to be reverted to the peacocky passage that the IP editor has been adding. But it really needs some kind of third party citation to assure the notability of the event, a newspaper article or somesuch. Whatever, the constant edit war adding and reverting has to stop. It shoulod be discussed here fully before any more adding or deleting occurs. Mfield (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Ultimate Frisbee is entirely a recreational pursuit and not a recognized sport with a world sport governing body. It should be placed in a separate section where other recreational pursuits can be included. It's inclusion among the professional spectator sports is frivolous and not warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.180.156 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Latlong change/standard?
Just wondering what the rationale is for the new latlong, which is roughly Main and 23rd; understandable that it's roughly the centre of the land area of the city, but isn't it rather a convention in geography - in Wikipedia I'm not sure - to place it in the city core and/or where the numbering system is focussed? In the case of BC highway measurements, I believe that distances from, say, Mission or Abbotsford are reckoned downtown to downtown - to Granville & Georgia or Hastings. Wouldn't that be more appropriate than simply a raw reckoning based on a median/average focual point-latlong? Vancouver especially is very core-oriented; AFAIK the distance from Langley to Vancouver is measrued to the downtown; not the city's boundaries or the "average" central spot. Anyway maybe wiki guidelines specify otherwise; I'm surprised, becasue its' the supplantation of a new paradigm over and in place of existing geographic (and govenrment) convention.Skookum1 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

 * We are looking for someone to create a montage just like in those cities listed below... anyone good at photoshoppe give it a shot and lets see how it looks and pans out and that would be great!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.143.32 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better picture for the article http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vancouver_Image.JPG

I got the Idea from New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles and London

--King of the Robots (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugly. Change it back to the old one, it showed the city in a much better light. This one makes you have to squint to get the panorama, and includes some not-too-interesting buildings. Vancouver's splendor is its proximity to the forest, mountains, and sea, not its luke-warm postmodern architecture easily found elsewhere.

Jackmont, Sept 9, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.174.77 (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And no offense, but the resolution is atrocious. I changed it back to the old picture. - Hinto (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone create a better resolution picture with the same 4 places and mainly Science World in better resolution and I see that one sticking... I tryed to talk to the person who created it but they don't have a talk PAGE... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vancouver_Image.JPG..

I still think that's a great idea BTW... whoever does it will get my PROPS... anyone good at Photoshoppe :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.143.32 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Style changes to article
I've changed the twinned cities over to a table format copied from the Calgary article. There's an even better format at Montreal showing coats-of-arms if anyone is interested.

And I've introduced a new concept, Vancouver to emphasize the fact that there's a lot of "stuff" linked down at the bottom of the article, and make it plain in the TOC for the casual reader. This was an idea that User:ArcticGnome brought up here and I think it's worth a shot. Obvious MOS issues but whatever. :) Franamax (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sister city - flag for Edinburgh
WP:FLAGS is non-comittal on which flag icon to use for sub-national entities in the UK. Looking for a source though, the City of Vancouver says Edinburgh, Scotland. Thus it seems appropriate to use the Scottish flag (or Scots flag, but I'm pretty sure it's not the Scotch flag :) Franamax (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, Edinburgh is its own district, i.e. not part of a province or county, thus the "Subdivision" box should be left blank, although Lothian is a possibility. United Kingdom and City of Edinburgh Council are inappropriate. The City and the Council area are co-terminous. Franamax (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be frank, this is ludicrous. WP:FLAGS makes clear the reasons and logic behind the use of the flag of the sovereign state - precisely to avoid these discussions. I am not sure exactly why you feel the flag of Scotland would be appropriate - why the flag of Scotland, and not the flag of Edinburgh, or the flag of Europe? My choice of the Union Flag (ie, the flag of the United Kingdom) is justified by the accepted categorisation of 'twin town' articles, as well as guidelines. Shall we perhaps now debate the use of the Californian flag for Los Angeles? Or the Odessan Oblast flag for Odessa?


 * Edinburgh is most certainly in a subdivision: Scotland. Lothian is not acceptable - it is no longer a local government area and has no political significance. This is a matter of information presentation, not verifying fact, thus your mention of the City of Vancouver website reference is irrelevant. --Breadandcheese (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Int'l students
I sympathize with ThVa's anti-POV/peacockery edits and the placement of various fact templates, although in at least one case "strikign mdoern buildings" to "modenr buildings" removes the point of that sentence; there are few old buildings downtown, the sentence is meant to promo all the big shiny stuff gone up in recent years, but bette wording could be found....However I can answer a bit, if not provide the cite, for the now-fact-templated:
 * ''International undergraduate enrolment at UBC has grown to nine per cent, or 2,800 students, from two per cent since 1996.

"International student" is a formal category at the universities, not just "students from other countries"; at SFU with a student population of ~25,000, there are only ~1000, maybe ~1500 official "international students". Anybody who's been on either campus for more than an hour knows that a huge amount of students, at SFU perhaps well into the majority, are "from" other countries and/or don't speak English on a daily basis except when required to and may be perceived to be "international students"....but as noted that's an official category, relating to admissions and tuition policies; all the rest are Canadian citizens or official residents, albeit whose primary residence and/or culture/identity is international in nature. This is an unfortunate result of the ways universities keep stats and create categories; the SFU Reports publication soemwhere will have an item in its pages, though they're not online; I'd imagine the same is true of UBC's official publications; but the Ubyssey maybe has an article that gives the figure, or somewhere on UBC's site there may be a mention of the current and historical figures.Skookum1 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * International House at UBC, which the last I knew was on the West Mall near the Music/Geography/Grad Centre/Asian Centre area, may have a website, or there may be a webpage that has something about it; I wouldn't know how to google for it other than "International House"+UBC but that's the first place I'd look for a stat....either there or the Alma Mater Society webpage...Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Seoul, South Korea - Not a sister city
I have found on an official document (bottom of page 1) by the City of Vancouver that Seoul is not a sister city of Vancouver. I have also looked around the City's site and found no mention of Seoul, South Korea being Vancouver's sister city. Also, on the city of Seoul's website, they also do not mention Vancouver as a sister city. So I think Seoul is definitely not Vancouver's sister city.Krazywrath (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether that was me who placed the cn tag, I think maybe it was. Anyway, it was from October, so it's time now to remove Seoul. If anyone knows different, feel free to re-add with the appropriate cite. Franamax (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Population Error?
The side bar says the population of the city is 1,578,401 for 2008, but the population growth section says that the population was 578,401 in 2006 and 611,869 in 2007. It seems unlikely that the population increased by exactly one million in two years. --68.163.109.25 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's because someone had unhelpfully edited an extra million in to the city figure. I have corrected it back to the cited 2006 census data of 578,401. The 611,869 in the text is an estimated figure for 2007. Infoboxes should show only the last confirmed figure. Mfield (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png
The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved - image was removed from Commonwealth Games Host Cities. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

cite for pronunciation?
This "(pronounced /vænˈkuːvɚ/)" bugs me - I know a bit about IPA and that /væn/ looks decidedly American to me. What's the citation for what's given here? Is this the local pronunciation? The CBC-English pronunciation? Again, that /væn/ just sounds like it has too much twang, a "native Vancouverite" tends to have a "flat a", whatever that symbol is.....not that there's anything such as a "person actually from Vancouver" anymore, and not that there has been. But to me this is reminiscent of "FraZHYer" for "Fraser".Skookum1 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The American Heritage Dictionary cites Vancouver as vān-kōō'vər (AHD). Rules listed as follows:
 * pat - ā
 * cat - k
 * boot - ōō
 * valve - v
 * butter - ər
 * IPA and AHD are very similar but use slightly different notation. Based upon their definition of its pronunciation, which sounds okay to me when I say it aloud, I'd say æ is correct. The only alternatives are ə as in about or eɪ/e as in face. The Apple Dictionary IPA defines it as vanˈkoōvər but a google test shows no other entries for it, though all the search results for vænˈkuːvɚ reference Wikipedia. The ending seems weird though. Mkdw talk 06:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, but is the American Heritage Dictionary an appropriate source? Just curious, what does it give for Fraser River....Skookum1 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Panoramic pictures
Many thanks to those who took/added the panoramic pics! The article is beautiful. Very impressive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talk • contribs) February 8, 2009


 * More factual if they could show endless rain and snarly traffic....instead of just pretty vistas. At least the rainy-seawall shot is halfway more like the place really is....Skookum1 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Urban planning myths part 1
I added a fact template to this, which apparently comes from one of the sources (but it's wrong):
 * ''City planners in the late 1950s and 1960s deliberately encouraged the development of high-rise residential towers in Vancouver's West End, resulting in a compact urban core amenable to public transit, cycling, and pedestrian traffic.[

Actually, the construction of the West End high rises reduced the overall West End population and its density; sites that had once held multiple-apartment houses covering nearly the whole lot were replaced with towers of single-occupancy suites with dedicated open space around the tower. I'm pretty sure this is somewhere in Peter McDonald's Historical Atlas of Vancouver or whatever it's called, and I think it's in Chuck Davis' Vancouver Book also, and gets mentioned in newspaper columns from time to time; Downtown South/Yaletown is a different matter and taht area was never heavily populated until the modern era. As for those 1950s and '60s constructions being made for cycling and public transit, that's laughable; the older era was indeed bicycle-devoted (the first pavement in British Columbia was for the Stanley Park Ring Road - now Park Drive - in the early 1890s, for bicycles) but planning priorities in the '50s and '60s were anything but oriented towards bicycles and transit; anti-transit is more like it, which is why the plethora of parking garages which now occupy the space bounded by Burrard-Melville-Pender-Bute (once a high-density housing area). And it's not like the West End has good transit either. Anyone here had to wait for a Robson bus or a Davie, or had to endure the ride? The old trolleys were ripped up in the 1950s, as part of teh same planning priorities. As I've often quipped, "it would help if those who want to rewrite history would read some first".Skookum1 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does this go directly to Vancouver, BC?
Considering that there are two medium-sized cities in the Pacific Northwest of North America with the name Vancouver, it's awfully confusing and strange to have this page direct searches for "Vancouver" to Vancouver, BC. How would one go about changing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do would be to read back through the archives of this page and review the many discussions that all end up with the current article naming left intact. Short form: Vancouver BC is a much larger city, the centre of a major urban agglomeration, a major port, the host of the 2010 Winter Olympics, and often listed among the world's "most-livable" cities. When most people around the world think of Vancouver, they're not thinking about the county seat and suburb of Portland. And per the relative style guides for article naming, US cities are titled, and Canadian cities whose names are well-known and/or unqiue are titled . Franamax (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Most people around the world don't "think" about Vancouver, period. Neither the Canadian nor the American city is a London, Tokyo, or New York. To those who think about it the most--that is, those living in the Pacific Northwest--the confusion over the two names is significant, and often requires clarification.

Furthermore, Portland, OR is a much larger city than Portland, ME (about 10x larger); while Vancouver, BC is only about 4X larger than Vancouver, WA. And they're both in the same region, which adds to further confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet, typing Portland into wikipedia takes you to a disambiguation. No doubt most people typing Portland are looking for the larger, Oregon city, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't go to a disambiguation when you have two cities with populations in the six figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why anyone who lives in the Northwest would be confused about Vancouver, BC or Vancouver, WA. When someone mentions Vancouver in the Northwest, they mean Vancouver, BC, not a suburb of Portland.  єmarsee ( Discuss ) 02:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no they don't; not necessarily. Maybe in the circles in which you run. Most people in the Portland metro area (the Pac NW's third largest metro area) are likely to think of Vancouver, WA, depending on the context. In Seattle (the largest metro area in the Pac NW), there is confusion as well, as Seattle is roughly equidistant between the two Vancouvers. People in Seattle are known to clarify the Vancouver to which they refer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please try to remain civil and refrain from making personal attack statements. Quite simply the editors in the WikiProject United States chose to name all their cities, in their naming convention. That was their choice and as such all US cities follow those guidelines. The WikiProject Canada along with many other European WikiProjects went with a different naming convention stating the most well known city could take the direct link with a disambiguation listing link at the top. This was decided in an earlier discussion involving people from both the WikiProject USA, WikiProject Canada & WikiProject Vancouver as well as outsiders. Quite simply, Vancouver is the 3rd largest city in Canada, host to the Olympics, and the 2nd busiest port in North America. The Olympics heavily weighted into the decision as it is expected 2010 Winter Olympics and Vancouver-related pages would receive a huge amount of traffic. Furthermore the hit count to the article Vancouver versus, Vancouver, Washington (factoring in hits attempting to make their way to Vancouver, Washington) was still greatly considerable. Vancouver is also a featured article on the Wikipedia main page which gave it an additional distinction. Vancouver, Washington is not alone in that its the subject to this situation. Many other articles (non-city related) face this issue, but its the Wikipedia standard and the reason for the disambiguation link at the top exists. If you wish to change this instance, then I suggest you take a look at the styles and systems Wikipedia has implemented over its development. If you are still dissatisfied with them, you can motion to have those policies changed, but isolating a single article to be outside of the norm is something that should be avoided. Hope this helps clarify 'why things the way they are'. Mkdw talk 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, who is making personal attack statements or being uncivil? I would be curious if you could quote anything written in this section that qualifies as either.

To the point, many US cities include the name of the state in which they are located because there is some confusion as to which place one is referring. So for cities such as Chicago or Seattle, where there are no others with that name, simply typing the name alone is sufficient. For cities like Portland or Vancouver, where there is more than one fairly large and/or noteworthy place with those names, it is necessary to add the state or country for clarification.

Having the Olympics is great, and if someone in Seattle, or Portland, or Bellingham says "I'm going to the Olympics in Vancouver!" it will be clear from the context which city they mean. If someone in one of those places says, however, I have a business trip in Vancouver this weekend, it will not be clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have an old-fashioned primary usage debate. There are three quantifiable criteria for primary usage that can help:
 * google search: 11 of 12 on the first page go to Vancouver, BC
 * hit counts. Van, BC: 136000, Van, Wash: 11000.
 * What links here: Vancouver, BC has over 10000 incoming links; Vancouver, Washington has less than 1000.


 * That means, Vancouver, BC has orders of magnitude more notability in quantifiable measures, which is a good rule-of-thumb for its having primary usage. Of course, like all wikipedia, this isn't etched in stone, but it'd take a lot to convince me that "Vancouver" doesn't usually mean the city in Canada.--Loodog (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone refer to Vancouver, Washington without specifically saying they're talking about the American city. I hear people refer to Vancouver, BC without specifying all the time. From my point of view, the default Vancouver is certainly Vancouver, BC. Of course I live in Canada... I am not sure if there are "Wikipedia style guidelines" that cover this topic, but perhaps someone could check? Perhaps the default should be Metro Vancouver... TastyCakes (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The style guidelines basically dictate WP naming convention should follow most common name for native English speakers in the world including: US, Canada, UK, India, Nigeria, Phillipines, Australia, etc...--Loodog (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm ok, not sure how much that helps us. Shouldn't the article be named Vancouver, British Columbia to avoid confusion with the other Vancouver?  Like someone said above, it makes sense to add the province if there is another city with the same name...  TastyCakes (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should London be renamed to London, England to compensate for London, Ontario? No. That's basically the same point here.  єmarsee ( Discuss ) 06:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To Tasty, No. c.f. "Boston" as the name location of the Massachusetts city, and not any of the other Boston's.


 * The superceding guideline here is whether (like "Boston") "Vancouver" has a primary usage. If it does, the city associated with primary usage should be located at "Vancouver".  If it doesn't, the page needs to be disambiguated to a page with every possible meaning of "Vancouver", though we can list these two cities at the top.  My argument was that "Vancouver" has a primary usage and Vancouver, BC is that primary usage, based on quantifiable indicators.  --Loodog (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that, as the larger city, Vancouver, BC, is the primary usage of Vancouver, but it is still ambiguous. Many newspapers in major cities specify BC to clarify that issue, and I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different.

For example:

Here's an article from the Oregonian (Portland): http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index.ssf/2009/01/vancouver_bc_dayandnight_delig.html

Here's from the Anchorage Daily News: http://www.adn.com/money/story/674122.html

LA Times article: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/02/stop-the-presse.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are all American papers; if you had cited some British or Australian ones you'd have made a point. This is a global encyclopedia, not a United States persepctive encyclopedia, least ways it's supposed to be.  Most people in other countries aren't aware of the existence of Vancouver WA; the name "Vancouver" references only Vancouver, BC, Canada in nearly all cases outside of the US; even in the US to say "Vancouver" (as on the talkshows quite a bit lately, because of so much filming here and various actors coming from here), it's implicit that it's Vancouver, BC that's meant; there's no hint even that, again, Vancouver WA exists, and those are on American talkshows.  And rest assured if you talked to someone in Edinburgh, Scotland or Melbourne, Australia, if you said something about Vancouver, it would be definitely the BC one that's being named....Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Latecomer to the discussion, but I just want to say one thing: in exactly two US states, the name is ambiguous enough that you virtually always have to specify which one you mean. In the entire rest of the world outside of those two states, the name "Vancouver" without a state or province after it is always taken to mean the Canadian one. The end result is that the one in Washington can almost never be referred to as just "Vancouver" without a state name after it, because even in the small region where it is a prominent and well-known topic in its own right it still has to be disambiguated from the other one, whereas the Canadian one can be referred to as "Vancouver" without a province name in about 99 per cent of the entire world. That's what makes the Canadian one a primary topic.

And furthermore, to those who are claiming that there isn't a large population disparity between the two cities, keep in mind that the comparison isn't between a city of 150,000 people and one of 500,000 people — the 500K one is the central hub and namesake of a metropolitan area of over two million people, while the 150K city is a suburb of a metropolitan area which is named for a different city in the area. So the comparison is between 150K and two million, not 150K and 500K. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Essay by Mkdw about 'Why no Vancouver disambiguation'
Thanks Mkdw for making the effort to summarize this! Perhaps this should be copied onto an FAQ sub-page, so it's easy to point to when this comes up again four months from now, just like clockwork. Franamax (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Franamax. That was my intention. All the previous attempts at moving this page have been far spread out. I plan to link this essay to the archive box at the top. Mkdw talk 21:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Thanks Mkdw....somebody should send it to Vancouver WA's p.r. department and major newspaper :-) although I think they've long since overcome their civic envy, though clearly some of their citizens haven't. I did notice this comparison though, which isn't quite right:
 * ''Possibly inaccurate, a resident of Vancouver, Washington described it on a major discussion as a suburb city to Portland, Oregon. Much like Richmond, British Columbia is to Metro Vancouver
 * The reason being that Richmond is very much more a suburb of Vancouver BC than Vancouver WA is of Portland; maybe more like Vancouver and Abbotsford, though Portland is smaller than the former and Vancouver WA somewhat more regionally important than Abbotsford; something more than a satellite city for sure; maybe more like Tacoma or Everett, a city in its own right, not just in name. A similar parallel might be Spokane and....Mowcow, or is it Boise of Coeur d'Alene I'm thinking of?  Vancouver WA very much has a life of its own, and would still be quite large even if Portland weren't there; I think somewhere there's commuter-flow studies that prove this point, in fact....i.e. it's not so much a suburb as it is a "neighbouring city", or the lesser of twin cities....just a nitpick, but otherwise a great tract, er, treatise.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey
I'm conducting a new survey since the last was done 3 years ago (an editors lifetime on Wikipedia) at 2009 Vancouver Vs. Vancouver, Washington Survey. Your input would be most appreciated. Mkdw talk 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WT:D is probably the wrong place to hold the survey. A pointer there to a survey here would be a better idea for the 2012 running. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver as "Lotus Land"
Why does Vancouver have this nickname? There's no mention of it in the article. Where does it come from? What is it referring to? OlEnglish (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It might have been Fotheringham or another Sun columnist or editor, maybe Len Norris, who first coined it; back in the late '60s or thereabouts; it's parallel to "La-la Land" for LA/Southern Cali; the image is a combined one, "the Land of the Lotus-eaters" in The Odyssey, and that of a boddhisattva sitting on a lily pad contemplating the cosmic lotus om mane padme hum etc. It's a reference to BC's "wackiness" and relatively la-di-da value system (or so it used to be).  "In the Maritimes people work when they can, in Toronto people work for status, in Manitoba people work because they have to, in Alberta people work for the money, in BC people work so they can play tennis and go skiing".  It's of journalistic coinage for certain, I'm just not exactly sure who it was came up with it; it's a ref to BC's legendary political flakiness, and in fact primarily refers to the political culture and the "governing mentality", not to everyday wackiness like post-modern hippiedom in Kits or Little Amsterdam; it's a reference to the eccentricity and odd ways of the establishment here, more than anyone else....I'm sure it has a "first provenance"....might have been Bruce Hutchison who came up with it, ir Jack Wasserman, if not Fotheringham or maybe Trevor Lautens.  Chuck Davis could tell you exactly if you wrote him.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Skookum, you're a wealth of info on Vancouver-related topics :) Maybe this could be incorporated into the Vancouver article somehow too. OlEnglish (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just Vancouver; it's as much a reference to the Lower Mainland and Victoria/the Islands as well (Victoria in particular). Guys like Vander Zalm, also, were kind of emblematic of it (and he was from Richmond/Surrey)Skookum1 (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NB both Lautens and Davis could use bios...very notable.Skookum1 (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Driver trends
The article says: "While the number of cars in Vancouver proper has been steadily rising with population growth, the rate of car ownership and the average distance driven by daily commuters have fallen since the early 1990s.[63][64] Vancouver is the only major Canadian city with these trends." Is that true? Because I read somewhere quite recently that although Calgary's downtown working population has increased dramatically, parking spots have not risen nearly as fast and much greater use of public transportation (the C-Train especially) has resulted. Now rate of car ownership may not be down in Calgary, but I think % of commuters that take public transport must be, so I'm skeptical about the Vancouver claim. Further, even if it is true, monitoring it to make sure it remains true, and continuing to judge what classifies as a "major Canadian city" seems to warrant changing the language if nothing else. TastyCakes (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As a preliminary aside, in Alaska nearly any place, even with 100 people or less, is officially a "city"...so what's in a word/name? :-) But re the car thing, the city's policies have forced some of this, first by restricting the number/availability of downtown-peninsula parking space and second by controlling access to the (very) few ways on and off the downtown peninsula; I remember Gordon whatsisname - Gordon Price? - bragging about this at one transit-oriented public meeting; the point was to discourage vehicular use so that people would take Skytrain/Seabus etc or put up with the atrociously-bad bus system (although the Richmond B-Line works out pretty well, and ironically/deliberately as the best-functioning bus line in the city is going to be phased out with the opening of the new SkyTrain line...).  And part of the point of building up "corporate lifestyle" residential development in Yaletown and Coal Harbour was so that those people would walk, or taxi, to work instead of having to drive (persumably in the CBD); another factor is telecommuting, and IIRC there's been a lot of job movement to industrial parks in Burnaby and beyond, and finding accommodations close to locations like that is easier/chepaer than downtown....but there must be stats on all this; but care should be taken that some of those stats might be skewed by the agenda of the presenting party/source, and that stats shouldn't be interpreted casually, which is synthesis; the true cause of an effect is often much harder to understand/discern than the effect itself.  If people are coming downtown to work less, it could also be because jobs in the downtown core are not so common anymore; I do know that there's issues with residential values being higher than office values in the downtown core, adn there are concerns that businesses will not locate there precisely because of that; many people who live downtown actually commute OUT of it....Skookum1 (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And to note, though I have no stats at hand to back it up, that it's a good guess that people who are able to buy property downtown are not the sort of people who actually have to work in the usual sense, i.e. with a "job"...with a locus you have to "commute" to; it's not telemarketing so much as investment returns in many case that are "income".....Skookum1 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, Skookum for the last six months at least there ain't no "investment returns" in Van, neither from property nor junior miners. I'd agree though (without sources to back me) that the type of people buying places to live on the peninsula are probably working at higher-level types of activity such as finance. As far as transit, the city itself is pretty well covered, at least if the carpet of buses running on Broadway and W. 4th are anything to go by. The Canada Line is going to massively increase transit into the downtown when it gets running, who wants to drive across those bridges from Richmond? And of course, since Cambie Street is now devoid of continuing businesses after the construction, the new owners and customers will be using the LRT system when they finally show up again. Speaking about transit outside Vancouver city proper, yes it's pretty pathetic, as in Surrey where you have no idea when you drive to the LRT station whether you will be able to park at all, and the bus routes involve multi-kilometre hikes to access. But there are some pretty ambitious plans ($14b worth) for transit expansion over the next 5-10 years, so we shall see.
 * Tasty Cakes, first re: Skookum's comments about "major cities", even if we include "major regions", the only one I know of is York Region in Ontario which is/was aggressively expanding transit systems, so they may at some point show a similar trend.
 * I think however that you may be misinterpreting the statements you question. The specific trend seems to be that people in Vancouver are moving closer to where they work, so that for those who use their cars to get to work, the average distance driven has fallen. I rather doubt this would apply to Calgary. The Calgary metro district has -umm- bloated, so the people living on the periphery could equally well make the choice to keep on driving into the centre, thus raising the average distance driven even while the people close to the new transit stations fill up the parking lots first. This can only be ascertained when reliable sources emerge, so I don't see any great need to modify the sourced wording in the Vancouver article until we have evidence to the contrary. Franamax (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes I think I was reading it wrong. I was reading it as "average miles driven by everyone, with people riding transit counting as 0 miles driven to work".  TastyCakes (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Census
There seems to be disagreement about the population of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver. Please stop using the info box as a discussion (it makes the article look messy) and talk about it here. A decision should be made whether we will continue use of the 2006 census for the official population details or use current estimates. Also please avoid including red links as well as extending the length of the introduction. Any adjustments should be made to the proper demographics section or info box, or simply updating already existing numerical figures. (this comment was intended for more than one editor) Mkdw talk 17:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with which stats are used as long as they are consistent and accurate. The Lower Mainland is consalidation of the Greater Vancouver Refional District and the Fraser Valley Regional District. While "Metro Vancouver" is just the name of the governmental body which manages the GVRD. The statistics being posted on the Vancouver page do not accurately represent the geographic areas, even using the 2006 raw data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrillamunsta (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, gotta correct the geographic mumbledy-peg. The GVRD and FVRD happen to include all of the Lower Mainland, but the latter term is from a different, purely georegional context/ the GVRD and FVRD include areas outside the Lower Mainland, which ends at Horseshoe Bay on the one end, and at Yale or Hope on the other, and does not include Port Douglas which is in the FVRD, nor really does it include Alvin; in its historic context it's the literally lower mainland, and existed a long time before the boundaries and quasi-democracies of the RD system was establish in 1866-67.  It's not helpful to muddle the terms; in IMO the provgov has gone a step too far with the name Metro Vancouver, which could at least say "Regional District" on its tag just to make it clear it's not a supragovernment for Vancouver (which is indeed the "background" agenda to the name).  Conversely the term Greater Vancouver existed before the Greater Vancouver Regional District did, likewise the Fraser Valley before the Fraser Valley Regional District.  but they are not hte same thing; Surrey, Richmond and Delta - and Langley and Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows and Port Coquitlam and even New West and Coquitlam (Maillardville-Fraesr Mills-United Way anyway) are also Fraser Valley, but not part of the Fraser Valley Regional District.  Lions Bay is, or was, traditionally, not part of the Lower Mainland; it was where you had to take a boat to get to (the highway ended at Eagleridge/Horseshoe Bay bluffs....).  RDs are not useful geographic units, especially in terms of historic content and also public usage/perception; they are administrative bodies only, whose jursidiction, slim as it is, applies within the given boundary; the Vancouver Forests District and the Chilliwack Forests District hold real sway over much more of Southwestern BC than either RD board does; they happen to have been used by Statistics Canada for census-area boundaries, but they are not in common usage as geographic locators; until Wikipedia came along that is....Skookum1 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm so you're saying Metro Vancouver is not defined precisely area-wise? Or that it is not exactly the same area as the GVRD?  TastyCakes (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [post edit-conflict, I'll be back to answer you in a sec]::Further, Greater Vancouver as a term and as a metropolitan reality, and especially as perceived from outside the province, includes places not in the GVRD such as Abbotsford and Mission and even Chilliwack/Hope and Squamish/Whistler - as seen from LA and NY and even from TO and Mtl. Using RD names for anything but census figures and articles about bodies/institutions/services actually under the jurisdiction of the RD is not only pointless, it's synthesis; wores, it only muddles the equation when attempting to describe where something is; it's an irrelevancy that's become over-real in Wikipedia, given more weight than it deserves. I'm not meaning to bite your head off, as you might take this, only laying out an important distinction; the GVRD and FVRD are in the Loewr Mainland, but they do not define it. They only define themselves. Soon I'll be makign List of political geographic units of British Columbia and you'll see what I mean ("units" or "divisions", I'm not sure - Mkdw whaddya think between those terms; I'm thinking MoE regions, MoTourism regions, moF regions, plus the unsung Land Districts (still the official locational system, adn the only truly citable one).Skookum1 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see two areas of discussion here:
 * What geographical areas are being referenced? Variously:
 * Vancouver - this IMO should always and only be the City of Vancouver proper, which is defined in all respects. Figures and commentary within this article should always be confined to the city itself, unless they explicitly refer to a wider region.
 * Metro Vancouver - this IMO is the precise area proclaimed by the legal entity known as the GVRD, branded as Metro Vancouver. This will hopefully also be exactly the same area as defined by the provincial legislation granting special powers to Metro Van (the "city charter") and the area defined by StatsCan as the Vancouver CMA - but I haven't checked on those. This area will be different than the transit authority, water districts and probably the forestry and hydrological districts.
 * Fraser Valley Regional District - again a precisely defined legal/political entity.
 * "Greater Vancouver" - a colloquial term used rather vaguely as in weather forecasts.
 * Lower Mainland - also imprecisely defined in terms of geographic boundaries. I have in hand a Vancouver Sun "Issues/Ideas" piece (23Jan09, W. Boei, "And:Just what constitutes the 'Lower Mainland'?") where an editor reviews the various government and university definitions of Lower Mainland. I'd link it but the Sun seems to have improved its archives by screwing them up completely. I can try scanning it for anyone interested. Short form: there is no precise definition.
 * Authority of population figures - official census or latest estimate? And whose estimate - federal, provincial, regional, local? Estimate on a website or from a referenced source? I've looked and found no guidelines on this. We can hash it out here but I'd be just as happy to see it at WP:CANTALK or WT:CANSTYLE so that we can develop a guideline for all Canadian setllements/regions. Franamax (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All fine ideas. I recommend we do exactly what we did in 2006 when we made Vancouver a featured article, and that is to look at another well-known and highly maintained featured article of another city. Last time we used London. It was one of the very first featured article cities on Wikipedia and set the way for many other standards. It will also make a good example of how they've chosen to break up the various districts in their vast and sprawling city. Mkdw talk 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Coupla thoughts:
 * re "Greater Vancouver" - at one time this certainly would not have referred to wilderness and outlying rural areas now wihtin the boundaries of the Regional District (i.e. since 1966/67); but back then it might not also have included Langley and certainly not Maple Ridge. Now on the other hand, from the perspective from outisde BC, it would include Chilliwack and Squamish....though generally "Vancouver" would be the term for the whole region if used by, say, someone from NYC or LA.....I remember some star or other, Tom Selleck maybe, who had a place on 56th in Langley, near the Matsqui boundary (when Matsqui was still separate from Abby) saying he "had a place in Vancouver", and Winston Rykert's stunt/studio ranch is in Stave Falls (part of Mission) is referred to as being "in Vancouver", and likewise when We're No Angels was made, the Hollywood press referred to the set as being in Vancouver.  None of this need guide the population figures here, though; my own gut feeling is that the City of Vancouver is a definable and very distinct unit from any of the other munis, and the now-titled Metro Vancouver article should be the one for the (official) metropolitan region, though please note the majority of its terrain is, indeed, wilderness (and not part of "Vancouver" in any sense).
 * the Fraser Valley Regional District, indeed, is precisely defined; but is not limited to the Fraser Valley (Boston Bar is not part of the Fraser Valley, nor is it part of the Lower Mainland).
 * the various ministries and agencies you mention re "Lower Mainland" do not define the Lower Mainland in their documents; they co-opt the term and make it part of their region title, e.g. MoE's "Lower Mainland-Sunshine Coast" addresses the two core areas of their local region, but they do not define the Lower Mainland as such. Using a name in a title and defining the meaning of that name are two different things.
 * The Vancouver Sun is nota reliable source on stuff like this, partly because so many of its contributors and editors are from outside hteprovince and are regularly in the habit of mangling both geography and history (and current events, infamously). Once upon a time the Canadian Press styleguide was indeed useful; I haven't seen it lately; see Talk:Lower Mainland though about citations for a true definition; the true definition being historical in nature (from a time when anything "up Coast", including Lions Bay and Squamish, was definitely outside of it, and anything "up the Canyon" was also outside of it....in my conception (I'm from the Valley) Hope is inside it, Yale really I'm unsure about; the idea is, historically, that the term related to transportation realities and the sense of the "upper country".....I think I'm gonna have to get around to my List of political geographic subdivisions of British Columbia because of all of this, as there are so many different ways of cutting up the province, and few have identical boundaries.  Only some kinds of articles and information shoudl be classed by regional district; their utility in Wikipedia - and their citability - relaly only applies to census figures and actual RD bodies; this is my favourite tub-thump, I'll leave it asid;e but basically it's irrelevant that the Golden Ears are in the GVRD/Metro Vancouver - what's relevant is that they're in the Garibaldi Ranges; just as one example....Skookum1 (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Two Vancouver?
Hello! I am from Taiwan. My friend tell me there is two Vancouver. Is there Vancouver in Canada also? If there is two Vancouver why do they have same name? It is confusion. Thank you your advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.228.79.152 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Vancouver (disambiguation). There is a Vancouver in Canada, this article refers to it.  There is also a smaller Vancouver, Washington nearby in America.  There is also an island in Canada called Vancouver Island.  TastyCakes (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing suspicious about that post. Really? Someone in Taiwan, on the Pacific Rim, just prior to the 2010 Olympics, has never heard of Vancouver in Canada, and (presumably) has only heard of the Washington Vancouver? Please, pull the other one.  freshacconci  talk talk  16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It also seems like "bad Chinglish", i.e. someone faking the way a Chinese person writes/talks...that being said, however, it is a Taipei IP address, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything; posts are re-routed all the time.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite possible, but may as well assume good faith. TastyCakes (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa!
Population in the infobox is messed up. The pic of totem pole and mountains in the background don't look familiar, and other recent edits by IP 24.something-or-other don't look right.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am curious as to why they do not look right, as well the population has not been tampered with... all that there has been done is moving and changing of images... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.138.107 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What totem pole picture? there isn't one on the page.....AS for the population stat, i removed "2,373,612 Lower Mainland" as neither of the provided links gives either that figture or uses the term "Lower Mainland", - which is not a census division; even if OR was performed and combined the populations of the Metro Vancouver regional district with that of the FVRD, that still wouldn't equal the Lower Mainland, although the difference is negligible considering the small populations of Boston Bar and environs and Yale (which is sorta in the Lower Mainland, though often referred to as "Interior").  Were those the figures you're talking about?  And again, which totem pole picture?  Where??Skookum1 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

-- and why cant Vancouver show off some of its palm trees as they are somewhat unique to Canada? , """"So are teh monkey puzzles and the huge rhodos; between the palm trees and "censoring rain" you're engaging in the wannabe-California syndrome. "Denial", that is. That totem pole, and the one behind it - that's definitely the collection at Brockton Point; that pole is Kwakwaka'wakw, the one behind it is Tlingit; beyind the tour bus (fake trolley) in the background is the bulk feeder at Neptune Terminals on the North Shore, tha'ts definitely Vancouver at its kitschiestSkookum1 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

also I had originally removed File:Stanley Park 1999 Rain.jpg because of the fact that Vancouver is relatively dry in the summer time, so I thought the dry and sunny palm trees would help better represent Vancouver's summer time, however I do not currently live in Vancouver so I could be wrong and Anna Frodesiak could be more correct on this one???
 * Denying it's rainy is such an old gambit in VAncouver tourism literature it's tiresome. The Stanley Park seawall picture was very evocative; I know, i've walked out there in the rain often enough, for sure....why can't even ex-Vancouverites deal with the fact it rains a lot?Skookum1 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree - from mid-May to mid-October, Vancouver is quite un-rainy. It's definitely rainy right now and stays that way for weeks at a time in winter, but summer is a different story. The precip figures in our article confirm that. Contrast with for example Halifax, which is rainy in summer. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the summers in Vancouver are great weather-wise, but a glance at the pictures in the article shows there isn't a single one where it is raining. Even the stanley park one you mention seems to only show mist (incidentally, I quite like the picture).  So I don't think the argument "it's not always rainy so we shouldn't have any pictures where it's rainy" holds any more water than "it's not always sunny so only rainy pictures should be allowed".  TastyCakes (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The problem with rainy pictures is that they often look terrible and illustrate very little other than that there's rain. We simply don't need a whole picture to support the few sentences in the climate section that says it rains a lot. The landscape photos with the sun out allows for the most visibility and hence covers a number of subjects discussed in the article from the mountains, beaches, and green-spaces that surround city to the identifiable city skyline and land-markers. Every picture should contribute greatly to an article simply due to the space they take up. A picture says a thousand words, but make sure those words are not all the same, rain rain rain rain, seems pointless. So I invite you to find a suitable photo that has both the climate but also portrays other aspects of the city as well. And please make sure that it at least allows something to be recognizable. The last few rainy pictures we had on the article could have been of any city on a rainy day. Mkdw talk 09:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I like this picture (of course a higher resolution and license free one is required, but its off to the right start) - http://www.whale-images.com/data/media/2/crw_1505.jpg -- wildlife, tourism, the ocean, and rain.
 * This is getting pathetic and tiresome; the wildlife in VAncovuer is garbage-raiding raccoons and cat-killing coyotes, and re tourism Wikipedia is not a tourism brochure. The grind of traffic at Granville & Broadway or on Georgia Street or East 1st is waht's real, not "the ocean" (by which I suppose you mean English Bay).  Back in the old days, people didn't shy from images of a rain-soaked Theatre Row or Great White Way glistening in the rain, or pictures of people wearing overcoast and carrying umbrellas; now it seems like "we don't want to let people know it rains - after all, it's sunny most of the summer.  But pullling in a whale-watching boat, from where I don't know - somewhere down by Victoria?  Up in Robson Bight? - as representative of Vancouver is just asinine and has nothing to do with the city.  AT ALL.Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

-- I agree i like this picture http://www.whale-images.com/data/media/2/crw_1505.jpg, but tell me this, why does Toronto receive more precipitation then Vancouver, yet it doesn't show off its summer time as rainy, I just thought its misleading and Vancouver's summers would be better represented with a nice dry sunny day picture, with the palm trees being more of a bonus than anything.
 * BECAUSE Vancouver's rainfall is measured at YVR on Sea Island, i.e. in the city of Richmond and regional rainfall patterns are topographic; the relevant rainfall is downtown's, though Environment Canada still hasn't gotten its s**t together to relocate the "Vancouver" weather station. Claiming it rains more in Toronto than Vancouver is just nonsense.  It's like saying it snows more in Vancouver by measuring snowfall on Grouse Mountain.Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

both and http://www.whale-images.com/data/media/2/crw_1505.jpg would work well together in my opinion.
 * Wikipedia is not a travel brochure, and the palm trees are not a bonus, they're a curiosity, and are NOT typical of Vancouver in the way they are of Los Angeles; not even San Francisco uses them, and Seattle and Portland certainly don't. "A nice dry sunny day" is not a picture of a city, either.Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

- also i think the add a nice touch to the sister cities section? yes no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.138.107 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What do the totem poles have to do with sister cities? Or do you mean just as decoration?  TastyCakes (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The whale-watching image is not suitable at all; not representative of Vancouver and certainly not take in English Bay or Burrard Inlet; �Wikipedia is not a tourism brochure. The Totem poles pic is out of place in the sister cities section, though it does deserve to be in the article, or rather I'd prefer to see one of the whole group of totem poles, which is more iconic of the city rather than just hte close-up on this one (well, two actually).  Even so a picture of the totem poles shoudl be taken from teh otehr direction, with downtown's towers in behind, across Coal Harbour.Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Personally" I think somebody's trying to work on a chamber of commerce-type promotion campaign.Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

-the only thing that was not relevant with the pictures was the totem poles, which like you said do deserve to be in there, as for the palm trees why does it make it not right to include palm trees just because seattle or portland do not have palm trees... how does this make sense? Also, it does seem fairly obvious that Vancouver receives less precipitation then Toronto IN THE SUMMER TIME... check environment Canada's website, please. All I hear is rubbish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.138.107 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.81.204 (talk)
 * Well, I suppose you can add a rainy pictures, just as long as it doesn't look like crap like 99% of all rainy images. Mkdw talk 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Palm trees and totem poles aside, the metro population currently displays a link (a dead link, that is). If someone has a RS, the infobox would look better with an actual number.  APK  thinks he's ready for his closeup  16:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the population figure, just so everybody knows...because of the infobox's actual coding syntax, it will display a long string of gibberish if you insert the StatsCan reference directly after the number in the same entry field. The citation for population figures needs to be added to the separate field for "population_footnotes", not directly next to the number itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Metro" pop. field in infobox
Because of the muddying of waters caused by the transformation of the GVRD into "Metro", as the Vancouver press is now styling The Regional District Now Known as Vancouver, the infobox population field usage, "Metro", meaning metroplitan region, apposite to "urban", here meaning Metro-Vancouver-the-regional-district, there's got to be a footnote placed on the field-names to explain what they refer to, as it is not clear at all. I see in a later instance that Metro is defined as GVRD + FVRD, and while that's certainly the Lower Mainland (though including minor non-Lower Mainland locations like Boston Bar and Spuzzum), it's still quesitonable of Chilliwack is part of the metropoiltan area; and if it is, then so is Squamish and, really, also Whistler. What is teh actual metropoiltan area population is thus OR to work out, as StstsCan has opeted to create its own definition based on RD boundaries but othe than that technicality, the instances in the infobox are not in teh same frame of reference as what "urban" means in the Lower Mainland vs. "rural". Counting the rural population of the GVRD, and the urban population of the FVRD, is really the relevant term, and using "metro" as a rough synonym for the Lower Mainland doesn't wash, both for the RD-name reason as well as that much of the Loewr Mainland is neither urban nor "metro" (small-case m). Anyway I don't know how to annotate the infobox, or maybe it's just too late at night to sort it out. The fields as named are confusing in the local context, they need explanation/context.Skookum1 (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In order to accurately portray the population of the region surrounding Vancouver, there should be at least one expanded regional population that includes an area from Squamish to Hope in the infobox.  And just to clarify, Metro Vancouver is merely a governmental body that manages certain issues within the GVRD. There was an attempt a few years back to change the name of the Regional District but it was not approved by the Province, due to possible confusion.  As for the definition "urban" vs. "metro"  it is a way of discerning Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas from Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas with the United States censuses. For example, the PMSA of Seattle consists of King and Snohomish counties, while the CMSA includes Pierce County.  Using this logic the GVRD population would reflect the urban. And perhaps the Development Region as defined by the Province of British Columbia (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/mun/PopulationEstimates_1996-2008.pdf) or a hybrid version would represent the Metro. (Scrillamunsta (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
 * YOu just used teh capital-M "Metro", which confuses what you mean; you mean, I think, the metropolitan area. It's problematic that the Vancouver media have been using "Metro" to refer to BOTH the metropolis AND the RD.  Generally Abbotsford is considered a separate city, though part of the generael regional megalopolis (general region including the whole I-5 corridor), likewise Chilliwack.  Anyway, if Squamish is to be included then that means statistical components have to be separately added to the combined FVRD/GVRD figure; but if that is done, then also subtracting rural postal codes in the GVRD and FVRD from the total is fair game as well; actually I supose that would be "rural electoral areas" though GVRD "A", I think it is, would remain included as all areas in it qualify as near-urban (UEL, Indian Arm etc); but doing so is original research; and there's still large rural aras wtihin Surrey, Langley, Delta, and certainly the "city" of Pitt Meadows (city in name only, still mostly pasture/cranberry bog).  Also syntehsis/OR is applying the term "metro" or more pointedly capital-M Metro in ways it's not commonly used, i.e. to include areas outside what "Metro" is used for in BC (now); that it's a rebranding neologism of recent coinage makes it all the trickier.  What I'm getting at though is once you start to mix the different egg cartons, and to use terms like "urban" to include populations of places like Deroche and Kent, which are clearly rural, is and has to be synthesis.  I realize "urban" in the case of teh Seattle-area groupings you mention includes rural areas, I'm just getting at the notion that perhaps the infobox titles have to be amended as not applicable because of local usage and local particularities.  And I will also emphatically state that if Squamish is included, along with the new ultra-riche burbs along Howe Sound (which are in the SLRD, not GVRD) then it's fair game to include Whistler as well, which is definitely an "extension of the metropolis" (and which is closer to Vancouver than yonder parts of Chilliack and certainly Hope.  "Region" is a term I could deal with a lot better than "Metro" for such a span; especially because "Metro" is coming to ahve a specific meaning in the Vancouver area, like it or not.Skookum1 (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the list of Development Regions, where "Mainland/Southwest" includes the SCRD and SLRD, which is to say the Sechelt Peninsula and the Lillooet Country as well as the Sea to Sky Country (there's an overlap between the former and the latter, namely the Pemberton Valley). Clearly not "urban".....so the "search for terms" must continue, and I'll state that I think the fields of the infobox-as-designed are a Procrustean bed and need redfinition or some flexibility.  I also submit, re demograhpics in general and not just here, that clearly the BC government defines things differently than StatsCan does, though necessarily drawing on StatsCan's chosen units of demographic quanta, which is to say the RDs and their EAs.  But extending "Mainland/Southwest" to be mean the Vancouver metropolis just ain't right; maybe in twenty years with high-speed rail and air-car commuter suburbs in Lillooet and Sechelt adn Boston Bar, but not yet....Skookum1 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On a somewhat separate issue, which I guess I'll have to take to a few different pages, I see from that table that terms like "Kootenays", "Cariboo", "Nechako", have definitions parallel to but distinct from their usual meanings; this is nothing new as BC Tourism has different region-names than even BC Parks/MoE.....I've gotta get busy at List of political geographic units of British Columbia to cover all teh respective and distinct types of regions and the parallel and sometimes overlapping, sometimes identical, sometimes different uses of different terms and regionalization systems....the Development Regions are yet another type of retooling of the province's geo-nomenclature.....btw as far as any eventual infobox on Okanagan for example, "urban", "rural" and "metro" usages are all similarly confusable as in the Lower Mainland-cum-Mainland Southwest.....Mainland/Southwest Development Region also happens to correspond, near-exactly, to the Ministry of Environment's Lower Mainland Region (which includes the Sunshine Coast).Skookum1 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Postal code range
On a similar tack, the postal codes shown are City of Vancouver only; those for the GVRD/Metro should be shown as well, in a separate field, and those form the FVRD not (some overlap - Ruskin's rural route is VOM IRO and straddles the Maple Ridge-Mission boundary. But since the infobox clearly covers more than just CoV, it can't just do it for population....Skookum1 (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Protected and issues thereto
OK, now I see that article is sprot'ed, which always bugs me a bit. Major articles undergo regular little vandalism chips (which we revert in common course), this one has now gotten to the stage of "excessive vandalism". Although it pains me to respond to undiscussed and repeated IP edits, one sort stands out:

As a relatively new resident of the Canadian west coast, can someone explain to me how the Vancouver/Lower Mainland area became part of the "Pacific Northwest"? Isn't Vancouver part of the "Pacific Southwest" in terms of Canada?

My only understanding of this is from geography class in high school long ago, where I came to understand that the "north" component of the moniker was in relation to US territorial boundaries, the "west" component was "past the Mississippi" and the "Pacific" part was "over the last mountains but before the ocean". Only the last definition applies in the case of the Vancouver/Lower Mainland region. One common definition of course is "where it rains all the time but hardly ever snows" - but I don't see that as a primary definition in the Pacific Northwest article.

So anyway, I'm curious as to the process where Vancouver has come to be defined as part of the "Pacific Northwest" and I'm happy to be enlightened. There is also the notion of Cascadia as a competing or maybe complementary concept. But I don't see primary notability there either. Any help? Franamax (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really clear to me. It looks like some definitions define it based on the continent of North America, not based on country borders, which is what our article here says.  I can't really find too much definitive online, though I suspect that a trip to the bookstore travel section might yield more results.  The best thing I've found so far is an old National Geographic map  which appears to define the area as excluding Canada.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is one source stating that Vancouver is in the Pacific Northwest.  єmarsee  •  Speak up!  04:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Emarsee, heh, that's a good one. By that definition we'll have to modify our articles to include Montana, most of which I'm pretty sure has rivers running the wrong way. You gotta admire the spirit of the marketing department at Sears though. :)
 * Chunky, NatGeo is a large part of where I base my own definitions. The magazine has in the past been unabashedly US-centric (which is no problem, it's a US organization). I see a fuzzy map at the left side with something in yellow spanning the BC and WA interior, and green stuff on both coasts. There is of course the Oregon boundary dispute to think of.
 * Nothing compelling so far (thanks though!). I'll wait for additional informed commentary. Franamax (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been exhaustively discussed on Talk:Pacific Northwest. First thing you should udnerstand is that this region being referred to as teh Northwest or the Pacific Northwest predates British Columbia joining Canada; it also predates the drawing of the 49th Parallel boundary in 1846.  The geospatial reference is to the northwest of the continent, not of the United States. There are numerous conundrums that result from trying to maintain BC is NOT part of it, .e.g hte Alaska Panhandle is considered part of it, so how can BC not be?  But it's a common literary and journalistic reference; and like "Fraser Valley" vs "valley of the Fraser River" toponyms don't have to make any logical sense.  Some Americans are likewise under the impression that it's an American-only term; but people within the Pacific Northwest generally don't "draw the line" at the 49th.  I don't want to rehash old ground I've been over too many times; see Talk:Pacific Northwest...(where someone just yesterday asked a conundrum question about "Canadian Southwest" - which has never been in use - to the effect that how can somehting to the north of the Northwest be the Southwest?.if I can think of anywhere else, i.e. which other talkpages such a dicsussion occurs, I'll come back.  As for Cascadia to me it's a noxious and overly trendy neologism whose campaigners attempt to substitute it for Pacific Northwest at every turn, and it has political/POV overtones that give it in fact a different context; there are distinct articles on teh two subjects despite efforts to merge them, btw.....and as for Canadian Southwest, no offense, but I find efforts like that to re-label BC geographically as a sort of pan-Canadian chauvinism; not dealing with BC in its own historical terms, but wanting to impose perspectives from other parts of hte country that have little to do with the why and the how and the what of BC; much like the difference between how "West Coast" is used in other parts of teh country vs the older usage/context here where the Lower Mainland was part of teh same "West Coast" as LA and San Francisco, or how within BC "out on the West Coast" means Tofino.....Skookum1 (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll also come across the terms British Northwest and Pacific Slope. British Northwest had/has two contexts and is a wake-up call to remember that (southern) Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta (and, actually, northwestern Ontario) were at one time "the Canadian Northwest" or, in Louis Riel's terms, simply "the North West" (as in "the North West Company"); but British Northwest was also commonly used to refer to the British sector of teh Pacific Northwest, sometimes in contexts which included teh "Prairie Northwest"; "Pacific Slope" devolves off that, i.e. the British sector, although originally it was used also to include what became Oregon/Washington Territories as of 1846.  In "Canadian Northwest" terms, it's northwest of the settled parts of Canada, as was also British Columbia after its acquisition by Canada in 1871, although both "Pacific Northwest" and "British Northwest" were established usages by that time.  You do see pairings like "British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest", as in the Historical Atlas of that title, but you'll find in Hayes' intro that the context of the title is "British Columbia and the rest of the Pacific Northwest".  We are a partitioned region ("we" being the place/people of the Pacific Northwest) and the nomenclature is an inheritance of that partition; between American geographic chauvinism on the one side and Canadian geographic chauvinism on the other there are efforts to "correct" this or pretend it's a mistake; citations provided to back it up are always citations made irrespective of the history of the term, rather imposing a mistaken one (like that Nat'l Geographic one, which btw was part of a series of maps on regions of the United States and so automatically excluded Canada (as also their Cascadia article did...)).  "Canadian Southwest" wouold only be apt if the bulk of Canadian population/"civilization" were located in the area between Lake Athabasca and Hudson Bay; when most of the Canadian popluation is at a more southerly latitude than any part of British Columbia, it's preetty clear to see that Vancouver (and even moreso Prince Rupert) is decidedly to the northwest of the Golden Horseshoe and the St. Lawrence corridor.  Maybe, conversely, you can explain why "Western Ontario" doesn't mean Thunder Bay....Skookum1 (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, and to make Skookum's parenthetical comment an explicit link, don't forget the North West Company, the Montreal-based company that explored much of the (Pacific) Northwest. The terms go back a long way. Pfly (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, would someone with authority change a URL on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver#References

Line item # 85: Real Estate Price Charts Blog, http://www.canadian-housing-price-charts.235.ca/charts.htm

...to the new (shorter) URL: http://www.chpc.biz/

If the old (longer) URL is on other Wikipedia reference pages, could it be changed as well?

Thanks in advance, W235813 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, someone dropped the reference. Celestra (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Celestra. Is it possible to get the link www.chpc.biz placed back into the reference list? I am the author of that site, and each month I update and publish 7 charts that plot the housing prices of Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, as well as a feature chart on Vancouver's prices for Single Family Dwellings, Townhouses and Condominiums. According to my server trafic stats, some +/-10,000 unique visitors come to the site each month to view the monthly updates. Cheers, W235813 (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New photos
It has been brought to my attention that these new photos being added by User:Guyfrombronx are not originals, where the uploader is solely the copyright holder, but rather have been taken from Flickr. It is unclear if this editor has received permission from the various photographers to use these images. I am especially concerned since these photos are not all from the same source, but a variety of flickr users. Under these circumstances, I believe that WP:COPYRIGHT must be confidently satisfied for these changes to be made to a featured article. Furthermore, attention to the Vancouver article has skyrocketed with the Olympics fast approaching and I would like to make sure it's in presentable shape and we not embarrass ourselves by stealing work and perpetuating a negative view of Wikipedia work that has been identified as "the best Wikipedia has to offer". Mkdw talk 07:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This user has persisted on other articles including Calgary and Toronto. I have left the below messages on the corresponding talk pages and reverted his changes.

New photos
There has been a concern regarding the photos User:Guyfrombronx has uploaded and inserted into Canadian articles. A number of fellow editors have found that Guyfrombronx has not obtained or failed to properly show the licensing required to use these images on Wikipedia or the Commons. The photos are primarily from Flickr.com and from several photographers. We also have not been able to determine if all the photos are from Flickr and could be from other sources. Due to these facts we are inclined to believe that he has obtained these images illegally and have removed them from Wikipedia articles as per WP:COPYRIGHT. Until we have confirmation that such permission to use these photos under a Common license has been granted by each photographer we will continue to remove the images. Attempts have been made to contact Guyfrombronx, and it appears they have been unsuccessful. Mkdw talk 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User has resorted to personal attacks. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Metro
I was just thinking why does the Metro pop. use the Lower Mainland since Abbotsford id it's own metro area which includes Mission and also the pop. I found out that the metro pop for Vancouver is the same of the Metro Vancouver Regional District. RebaFan1996 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Discussion above.Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * and just for clarity of terms, Metro Vancouver is the name of the governing body, the name of the territory it runs remains Greater Vancouver Regional District. go figure.Skookum1 (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

External links - discovervancouver.com
Hi, is there any consensus to add a link to http://www.discovervancouver.com/ to the external links section of this article? Do you feel it merits inclusion given our guidelines at External links? I do not have an opinion on this link, but rather following up after blocking for COI / spam of this link. Thanks/wangi (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They used to be a good source of information regard tourism in Vancouver. However with their recent site redesign, it makes them look like any regular promotive website without much information regarding the city. I would not add the link to the Vancouver EL section.  єmarsee  •  Speak up!  18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I reverted Dvancouver a couple of times prior to the block. The site is pretty much only promotional for specific businesses. I'd think the official city website gives the same kind of info without advertising for specific businesses who possibly/probably pay to be featured on the site.  freshacconci  talk talk  19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Discover Vancouver has in the past been heavily criticised for allowing the basest sort of racist postings on it's forum, even today some of that nauseating race baiting continues.IMO they are to be avoided.
 * Not only racist, disgusting crap that would more suited for 4chan's /b/. DV should definitely avoided. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest here. I've been a regular at DV for a few years and I think it's a great forum. We get people from all over the world coming to this forum and the majority of the people are good people. There are people from across Canada and the United states, even people from Europe and Asia making regular appearances. Sure there are a couple of jerks (especially the ones who are making comments about disgusting crap and racism...HI Ace!) There has been some troubles with racism, mostly from teenagers who think it's really funny to make bad comments from the safety of their computers.

DV has changed a lot over the years. The main problem is a lot of the old troublemakers didn't like the new rules implemented into the system. Since then we've had a lot of trouble with spammers, post bombers, etc. but the mods have done a great job cleaning everything up. I think DV could really benefit from being posted on Wiki.
 * Yes, no doubt DV could!! but it won't benefit Wikipedia in any way.  It would get DV more hits and hence higher advertising income; it's not just a question of the site promoting businesses who pay to get promoted, it's also teh carrying of ads all over the entry page and this is NOT permissible for Wikipeia esternal links, especially when t he site's intent is clearly commercial/moeny-making.  There's been a trend lately in Wikipedia of ad-driven webzines placing their links in External links on various pages, and very pointedly at the TOP of those sections, in order to get priority hits.  No useful information that can't be found elsewhere in neutral, non-commercial sources is to be found on the site; Wikipedia also is not for community bulletin-boards whether commercial or not; it is not a blog, not a WP:linkfarm, it's not a free page to advertise businesses, especially when those busiensses are masquerading as newspapers or community blogs.  There are some exceptions - http://thetyee.ca and http://www.britishcolumbia.com which are ad-driven but which provide meaningful content, in britishcolumbia.com's often covering places' history and services that no one else will; they're useful as a cite.  DV is NOT.  I also took DV's spamlink out at least twice; it was blocked shortly after and for good reason.  Don't be disingenuous, it's not about benefitting DV, it's about what Wikipedia will tolerate.  We're not a vehicle to increase your hit rate and revenues; racist posts on its blogs are not even an issue IMO, it's the fact that it's purely a commercial site pretending to be a community driven one.Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I swear, someone out there is holding seminars or offering instruction on "Wikipedia for dummies: how you can use Wikipedia to promote your online business" and "Wikipedia as a vehicle for community tourism promotion". There have, as I said above, been a slew of external links of this same kind popping up lately, many directly and obviously violating WP:AUTO from the start, and in DV's case being entirely WP:SPA.  it's not like the user that got blocked (DV) was contributing anything to the article, or to other Vancouver articles, or to Wikipedia at all; they just want to use Wikipedia to promote themselves.  CoCs and municipal tourism offices have been doing the same, but they at least try and add to the articles, even if they tend to break the rules with a lot of spammishness in the process.Skookum1 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There's a lot more to DV than the forum. It's an entire website with a lot of good information aimed at tourists. I have nothing to gain by having DV on Wiki (I'm not an owner) but I would love to see it a part of Wiki.


 * You completely don't understand what Wikipedia is for; DV is no more useful than a host of other similar sites that want on Wikipedia. This is not a place to list discussion pages about someplace, not even non-commercial blogs and others; Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory - see WP:Wikipedia is not a directory and WP:What Wikipedia is not.  The DV link has no place for all kinds of reasons, and its presence violates more than one standard Wikipedia guideline....no amount of "but I think it's useful" posts will change that....Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I have removed a "I support Discovervancouver.com too" post from an IP user that was clearly advertising/promotional copy masquerading as debate. Advertising is no more acceptable on talkpages than it is on article pages.  Spam is spam, and it is not allowed.Skookum1 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So skookum, why do you keep removing any post that isn't negative? I took the time to support DV as a useful site only to have it removed? How about I delete your comments and see how you like it.
 * I removed only one post, which was clearly promotional/advertising copy masquerading as debate. There is nothing to debate, case closed.  Discovervancouver.com is NOT the kind of link that is welcome or allowed in External links.  WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it's not a place to hype your favourite website, whether on a talkpage or in an article; the post I removed was clearly a sell-job for this site and no matter what you say about how great it is, hosting links like it is not what Wikipedia is for.23:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)