Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Operation Schadenfreude

Regarding citation templates
We need to come to an agreement for consistency in the date formats used for the citation template parameters so we can all use the same format when updating the refs. I propose we use for the  parameter: November 30, 2009 and for the   parameter: 2009-11-30 throughout the article. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Canada adopted the ISO 8601 format for time. For numerical: YYYY-MM-DD. For expanded, 01 January 2010 would be the correct. Mkdw talk 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok then so we can agree that for |date= we'll use 30 November 2009 and for accessdate= we'll use YYYY-MM-DD. That way we can have consistency. -- &oelig; &trade; 11:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or for the |date= parameter do we have to use whatever format is used in the reference? -- &oelig; &trade; 11:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The |date parameter should be same say as 30 November 2009 or YYYY-MM-DD to be consistent. In Canada we use all three, but the only reason for that is because of our proximity to the United States. We have opted for the more Canadian version that the government uses. Mkdw talk 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Schadenfreude?
Just wondering what made you choose this name.. -- &oelig; &trade; 11:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Schadenfreude roughly translates to 'pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune'. Quite simply this is an extremely tedious task for all of us. The article is a message in its over 200 references to its choppy sentence structure, dates, and even accuracy (most of it has 2006 information). I thought the only way we'll have a little fun is to laugh at our situation whether that's at each other or outsiders laughing at the amount of work we're about to endure. =) Mkdw talk 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A draft idea for the lead
I couldn't bring myself to make any changes to the current lead for Vancouver but I felt compelled to try to rewrite something so I'm posting it here just in case you find any of it helpful. The two main interests for my edits were narrative and readability. Terms like "lower mainland" and "census metropolitan area" don't strike me as helpful for an international audience. The sentence about size ranking of the city core and metro area is boring, and I don't think we need to mention anything about the Netherlands in the lead. Full disclosure: I tried hard to include something succinct about the current outstanding land claims, in Vancouver, with First Nations but I was ultimately unable to. But this strikes me as an issue that is totally notable and unique, both in the context of Canada and internationally: we're living in relative peace with First Nations groups and we might not, by our own law, own the land our mortgages are on. Anyway, I'm not an expert in this field and I don't have citations and all of my attempts failed to qualify as neutral point of view! :) However, I know some historians so perhaps I can dig up some references and see if this kind of information fits somewhere else. Please feel welcome to delete this entry if this page is not really an appropriate space for it. I have a copy in my sandbox. I've been staring at the references but haven't quite been able to jump in on the clean up - but I'll keep trying. --Sherwin55 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a little rewrite a couple days ago. I trimmed much of the historical information in this section as it was already found in the next section, history. One section that I moved did mention the first nations inhabiting this area, but since this article is about the City of Vancouver, I opted to keep a short historical reference to how the city was formed and left the rest about the original inhabitants in the area to the history section. I used Minneapolis as a guide between how much historical information they had in their lead section but also kept the article current by noting things like its major industries and other things I thought most readers would want to know right away. Mkdw talk 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still gaining confidence around looking at and comparing the article's versions so I'll try to figure out how to read the version as it was while it was a feature article. I have read the Minneapolis lead, which is totally awesome - only three paragraphs! :) I suggest that while you've followed the Minneapolis example to the letter, you've overlooked it's spirit. So, for example, they chose to mention the etymology of the city name and you've done the same for Vancouver. But the marriage of a Dakota word and a Greek word is totally interesting - partly because the meanings reflect an important geographical element of the city (water), and probably people from Minneapolis know the etymology and it informs their own sense of identity - in short, it reflects the culture there. And the etymology reflects some of the deep history of the location. And it's a great reason to mention the First Nation. And it makes for an engaging narrative. But the etymology of "Vancouver" does not capture the self-identity or culture or felt history of Vancouverites. Wait, did I mention that I'm from Victoria? (: Still, the Netherlands is, in my opinion, not a concept that should be mentioned in the lead, and is less notable than the First People. Although it is interesting that "Coevorden", in Dutch, means cow crossing. Another example is "county seat". I think that this is probably a term that people from Minneapolis know and use. A county is an integral part of the culture there. But "Census Metropolitan Area" is neither a term that's known to most Vancouverites (I think), or a concept that's integral to understanding Vancouver culture. Hmmm, actually the authors of Minneapolis also use the term "metropolitan area." Well at least that's not so jargony. "census metropolitan area" feels like we're using jargon in the lead that makes it less readable and engaging. I don't know. Does any of this make sense? If so, I contend (finally) that concepts of central importance to understanding the city of Vancouver, and the people that live there, which are currently missing from the lead are: 1) mountains, 2) rainforest, 4) First Nations, 5) rivers - not necessarily in that order. These concepts are more notable than: 1) Netherlands, 2) Dutch, 3) Coevorden, 4) census metropolitan area, or 5) the city being the 8th largest in Canada. I hope this feedback is helpful. Thank you! --Sherwin55 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are awesome. I recommend we set up a sandbox page to look at the article lead more closely. I've actually found a writer friend on mine who is new to Wikipedia, but has in my opinion a wonderful turn of phrase. I think once we narrow down what exactly are the most important points to have in the lead, he can get his hands on it and make it fit that first criteria that states, "(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;". I was discussing it with him and he said, imagine you were traveling in Europe and you wanted to tell someone about Vancouver. What would you say? I think that was a great way to put it. Some of the more technical information or history can always be read later once the reader's attention has been caught. I thought about comparing the lead section to the back of a book. I think if I were telling someone about the city to someone sitting beside me on a plane, I'd tell them, that its in Canada and its a big city. It's known for being in nature, surrounded by world class mountains, ocean and the rain forrest. It's famous for being a major port, tourist destination, and film center. It's a very diverse city, one of the most diverse in North America. The city has been host to some amazing events like Expo 86 and soon the 2010 Winter Olympics. And then maybe some history about how it was a major route to the orient and was a logging town (but then it starts to become less attention grabbing and more informational). Your thoughts? Mkdw talk 06:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your list of main ideas is totally great and I just need some time to assimilate it and various guidelines - everything just got really blurry for me!--Sherwin55 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created a sandbox here for us to test various versions of the the article. Mkdw talk06:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems like a great way to consider different do-overs. Really great. I'll start by moving my draft over to the sandbox. Then I'll review some more and see if I can get clear on stuff. --Sherwin55 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a draft to your sandbox and left a bunch of notes on the discussion page there. Reading my draft today, I think that it doesn't really succeed at being engaging but hopefully there is something in there that helps. I think I'm probably confusing neutrality with being boring! :) Sherwin55 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cross-referencing
Hi all, it'd be a good idea to cross-reference by placing a link to WikiProject_Featured_articles/FA-Team I think (as the message on my talk page gives that impression). It'd also alert watchers of that page as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This project was not officially taken on by the FA-Team. I had nominated it for approval, but it does not seem any action have been made on my nomination, and I didn't want to step on anyone's toes by making the decision to approve it as the nominator (even though I am an FA-Team member). So alternatively, I "invited" the members of the FA-Team to "participate" in Operation Schadenfreude under the WikiProject Vancouver. I did title the invite box WikiProject Vancouver rather than FA-Team. I apologize for the confusion, but I thought it would be okay since participation is voluntary and the FA-Team wasn't currently working on an assignment. Plus you guys are super handy! Mkdw talk 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of schadenfreude...
...I am pleased to inform you that you have failed.

Seriously, though, is anyone still working on this? I am not involved in this effort, but I am interested in its outcome, so I thought a wake-up call might be appropriate; I suppose there is still some time to bring the article to FA level, if not give it its star back. Waltham, The Duke of 04:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm it does appear to have lost some steam. I think a lot has improved though, could we make another list of things that still need fixing to bring it back to FA?  TastyCakes (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I also participate
I am not currently a member WikiProject Vancouver, and I don't know how to join. So can I participate in this operation. Extra999 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)