Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GVRD?

Is this simply a WikiProject for Vancouver? Or does it include the entire Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)? --Dogbreathcanada 03:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, originally, I was hoping to cover the entire GVRD (because I live in Richmond, not Vancouver proper) but after looking at the sheer number of articles involved, I think it might be a better idea to cover articles related to the city of Vancouver itself. However, if you guys reach a consensus about it, then I'm sure we can find a way of accomodating the entire GVRD. (I'm basing this WikiProject on WikiProject Ottawa, so their municipality system is a bit different from ours.) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 03:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not do the whole GVRD? Ardenn 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm leaving that up to you guys. I thought about it too but backed out because of the workload involved but if you guys reach a consensus and want to do it, then let's go for it. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 22:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna create a little mini-poll to see if we can reach a consensus. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Support covering the GVRD as part of WikiProject Vancouver

• Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Bormalagurski 22:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• FlyingPenguins 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Zhatt 01:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC) See comment.
• Canuck89 02:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Agree completely with Zhatt's comment.
• Luke 05:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC) - When people who don't have a very good idea of Vancouver read Wikipedia Vancouver-related articles, they don't differentiate between GVRD or just the City of Vancouver. To them, the City of North Vancouver is just as much Vancouver even though it is GVRD. I know this isn't a tourism project; but, Tourism Vancouver, the real-life company responsible for officially marketing Vancouver to the world assumes no distinction between City of Vancouver or the GVRD, rather they are a whole entity.
• Bookandcoffee 09:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• GeeCee 10:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Fishhead64 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (see comment)
• Sir Studieselot 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Magnopere 14:27, 7 August 2006
• Mkdw 10:48, 23 October 2006 - How can you not. I doubt the outter areas of Vancouver will have the resources and people interested needed in filling out articles and information for Wikipedia.

Against covering the GVRD as part of WikiProject Vancouver

• Dogbreathcanada 02:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC); seeing that the project is called "Vancouver" and not "Greater Vancouver Regional District", probably just best to stick with Vancouver. Seems like there's enough of a workload for Vancovuer alone. One possibility would be to start an overall Wikiproject for the GVRD, then create subprojects for Vancovuer (already exists, obviously), Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam, etc. and link to all those subprojects from the GVRD project page. Would be more beneficial to narrow the scope of each project.
• Limit to those features associated with the City. I'm sure nobody will stop anybody from contributing to Langley/Richmond/etc topics along the guidelines agreed to under this WikiProject. However, incorporating too much will bog the overall discussions/debate down and make the project less focused. --maclean25 00:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I think it's a good idea to work on the entire GVRD, but Vancouver pages should take priority as that was the Project is about. Maybe even make a seperate template for GVRD items. Zhatt 01:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that too, and that might be something that will happen, I think. Helps to minimize confusion, right? --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Partial agreement. See my comment in the "Against" section for my full opinion. --Dogbreathcanada 03:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That might work as well. There are many possibilities here, as you can tell. And that idea is a good one. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Chicago has done a good job of including its surrounding areas (called Chicagoland) without too many problems. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 18:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Especially with regard to historical issues, transit and transporation, and personalities it may be hard to distinguish clearly between Vancouver and the GVRD, though I agree that focus should be on Vancouver when possible. Fishhead64 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Even though I've added GVRD templates, I do believe keeping the focus on Vancouver is a good idea. However, it is important to note that at the same time, it's very restricting to limit things just to Vancouver without considering the surrounding municipalities. That's what makes this a bit tricky -- Vancouver doesn't stand alone very often. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion: bug co-op housing people such as myself. You draw on a pool of often over-educated civic-minded busybodies. I'll pass on this project to those in my co-op; maybe it'll help.--Gilded Lily 23:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important to include the surrounding areas because Vancouver itself has too few articles and even if you can come up with a lot of articles, they won't be of much interest. -Sir Studieselot 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How to do it

Okay, looks like it's gonna cover the entire GVRD. Any suggestions on how to do it? (I personally like Zhatt's idea.) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - a template. Fishhead64 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, added. Let's see if this works out. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I missed out on this vote - I typically look at the end of a Talk page and ignore what's up top ;-) but in general I think it's a bit necessary to include GRVD materials, even though I don't quite like it given the particularity of the City of Vancouver unto itself and in the eyes of its citizens; conversely some of the Vancouver-addled (not speaking of anybody here, I think) make the assumption that nothing else in this area is important unless as part of the Vancouver metro area, and certainly the agglomeration is considered "Vancouver" to someone from outside the province. I live in Burnaby, but typically if I was out of here and someone asked me where I was from, I'd pretty well have to say "Vancouver". Nomenclature's a weird thing; see Talk:Lower Mainland....

On the other hand anything that's muni-specific should be on that municipality's page and not here IMO; it's a bit jarring for me to see something about Maple Ridge or Langley in a "Vancouver" article (I went to high school in the Central Fraser Valley - Mission). How to distinguish between Langley/Maple Ridge content and Vancouver-page Langley/Maple Ridge content I'm not sure....have to have more coffee and have a look on what's on the respective pages and give it some thought; just wary of "levelling" the remaining distinctiveness of the suburbs into the Vancouver-mass/blender in the same way that Toronto is now MegaToronto....Skookum1 17:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

People

1. Might as well start a list though, of important civic biographies to get done:

• Hugh Pickett
• Mart Kenney Jr.

• I've only put these two for now because their obits were in the news recently; my Mom's attending Mart's funeral tomorrow and I'll write up a bio of him from the obits once she gets to me; figured I'd remind someone else here that Pickett deserves an article.

• Others on the list, but unlisted above: mayors, noted councillors, "Vancouver people" (Alan Garr, Chuck Davis, Jack Webster etc.). Some already exist - e.g. Jack Wasserman - but again the placing of the stubs will help sort all that out. More later.Skookum1 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Further issue is how in-depth such coverage should be; Wikipedia ultimately could be fairly detailed within cities and communities worldwide because of its accretive nature; exactly which broadcaster or politician or businessperson is worthy of a bio is something maybe there should be a priority system on, or ???, otherwise the list is huge; I've run up into this in my puddling around in the early elections and writing a few bios there; there's tons of them, all potentially detailed, that need to be done up; same with civic personalities and others. I nominate the Hugh Pickett and Mart Kenney articles to be examples/collaborations or whatever; could also help establish a template for Entertainment Bio pages within the city's related articles.

I think the People area of the article should be broken down into Entertainers, Writers, Artists, Politicians, Business, Journalism/Publishing/Media, Civic Service/Notability (e.g. Joe Fortes) and so on. The alphabetical lists on the Vancouver and BC and other pages get unwieldy when all those fields are combined; they should be sorted out, or made separate pages with the Vancouver page as the index.

I've not got a lot of time; just fielding ideas for consideration that occurred to me while perusing the page and how it's growing.Skookum1 07:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn Shaw and Antony Holland should both be put in. Ms. Shaw is the current Artistic Director for Studio 58. She is a regular theatre director around Vancouver at places like Bard on the Beach. Both Shaw and Holland have been recipients to various awards around Vancouver. Jessie Awards, four Lifetime Achievement Awards, BC Entertainment Hall of Fame, UBCP / Actra Sam Payne Award.

Firefox formatting for main page

I give up. I wanted to add more photos along the right-hand side of the main project page but apparently this screws up the formatting in Firefox (my primary browser) by jumbling up the entire page's [Edit] buttons all together into one (so that they look like this: "[Edit] [Edit] [Edit] [Edit] [Edit] [Edit]" at the end of the article or section). So yeah... I give up. If anyone can figure this out, feel free to fix it. I've thrown everything I could at this problem. Argh. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

One way to do it is to intersperse the "Image" links throughout the article instead of bunching them at the top. You might consider this cheating. Usgnus 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Check out Bentall Centre (Vancouver) for the kludgy way to make the [Edit] links appear in the proper places in Firefox. Usgnus 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, that's cool. :-o Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Airport assistance

Based on the tag I saw on Vancouver International Airport I just updated List of airports in the Vancouver area. Can someone who knows about the area make sure I added all of them to the list. The full list of airports is at Category:Airports in British Columbia and the full list of heliports is at List of heliports in Canada. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Delta Heritage Air Park the same as Boundary Bay Airport? --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 06:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No it's not so I just added it. All the airports in the Category:Airports in British Columbia are different. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver_Coal_Harbour_Seaplane_Base has wrong airport code and coordinates. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vancouver_Coal_Harbour_Seaplane_Base for discussion. This needs to be corrected as does List of airports in the Vancouver area 24.84.54.6 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

CXH is definitely the IATA code for Vancouver Coal Harbour. The old coordinates were definitely for Coal Harbour, British Columbia near Port Hardy. --Usgnus 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

School district 39, British Columbia

I created Vancouver School Board as a redirect to School district 39, British Columbia. I think it's best to work with the original article, since it's in a naming format already used for other BC school districts. --Dogbreathcanada 08:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The current SD 39 page needs some work though. :) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 09:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there's no doubt about that. But best to direct the work to the right article, rather than split work across two articles. --Dogbreathcanada 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, both of the above now redirect to School District 39 Vancouver. -- TheMightyQuill 15:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Elementary Schools

After creating a couple of elementary school pages, I've realized that perhaps we should have a single page for all of them or just include them in the VSB page. The high schools in general have enough information for their own pages. What do people think?

-Well, I just "graduated" from Cameron Elementary in Burnaby. When I was in school at Cameron, some of us students took on the Wikipeda page as a mini-project. If, instead of combining them, we send out an e-mail to each of the red-labelled schools about contributing, some of them may put up their information. After all, they are probably the only ones who know about the history of each of the elementary schools.--Supercraft99

Vancouver Neighbourhoods NavBox

I've created a new NavBox for Vancouver neighbourhoods, to bring some sort of unity to all the areas. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 01:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• {{VancouverNeighbourhoods}}

I removed the navbox from the talk page. Follow above link to see it. Usgnus 23:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver biographical stub template proposed for deletion

Voice your thoughts here. I'm staying out of it, as I'm neutral on the issue. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Transit

SkyTrain

With the Olympics approaching, I want to begin work on creating station articles, but before I do that, I want to ask for some help. I've never been able to figure out how to redirect, and I was wondering if someone could get "Sky Train" could redirect to "SkyTrain." This screws me up every time...and I live here! Tx! Fishhead64 21:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. For redirects, you do this: #REDIRECT[[name of page]]. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bus Routes

In List of bus routes in Greater Vancouver (before I created this account), I changed the B-Line section to 90-99 because in 2007, the 135 route will be converted to a B-Line and in 2009, the 43 route will be converted to a B-Line. The tentative numbers for these two routes will be 95 and 91 respectively. So even though there are no 90-96 B-Line routes right now, I saw no harm in changing the section titles ahead of time. I'm not really defending what I did so much as explaining. I'll just be more patient and wait until the new lines are announced (or at least confirmed).

Oops, I wasn't signed in for my last edit. I hope it's okay that I changed the Skytrain section to a more general Transit heading. Forgot to sign before. Usgnus 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the B-Line numbers back because the new B-Lines aren't official yet. There's no 91 B-Line yet. Doesn't seem to make sense to change the headings now. Wait until they are officially introduced, and in service, and then we'll see. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We should have some articles on bus routes.Canadianshoper 23:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

95 and 91 B-Line, where do you get that from? Sir Studieselot 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For the 95 B-Line, TransLink Annual Report 2005 (PDF) page 14 (page 16 in the PDF). Both the 91 and 95 B-Lines were mentioned in documents produced during the Vancouver UBC Transit Plan process. -- Usgnus 22:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sir Studieselot 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Merged

I merged the "General" discussion section of the WikiProject with the (empty) "Strategy" section, since the latter was gathering dust and one discussion section makes more sense and alleviates confusion. If there are any objections, feel free to speak up and we'll see what we can do. Thanks. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates for biographical stubs: GVRD

As there is a current discussion about the {{vancouver-bio-stub}} template right now, I feel that it is appropriate to discuss the {{gvrd-bio-stub}} template as well. Right now, it looks like vancouver-bio-stub will be merged with {{vancouver-stub}}. Do you guys want to do the same with gvrd-bio-stub if that happens? (i.e. merging gvrd-bio-stub with {{gvrd-stub}}?) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys might want to keep a closer eye on it this time. The discussion has now turned into whether or not to kill the GVRD stubs too, effectively vetoing the consensus we as a WikiProject reached earlier. They obviously don't understand the political situation of the GVRD, and that cities like Richmond and Burnaby are not exactly considered to be "Vancouver" but more commonly as "Greater Vancouver." --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Now they are doubting whether GVRD is the common name for the region. I'm fighting alone here, guys. I'd love to see more people back me up on this (that both GVRD and Greater Vancouver are common names for the region) because they are threatening to veto the consensus we reached earlier about having GVRD stubs... (I've requested a Vancouver-area admin as well on the Admins' noticeboard, just in case.) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, my two bits are that the GVRD is the "actual" Vancouver as far as the outside world goes; the City of Vancouver is really only a "ward" in a larger metro complex which the rest of the world knows by the name of the city. But it's also hard to consider Maple Ridge and Langley as Vancouver, even if you can get away with that (figuratively) for Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby and even Delta. In other contexts "Greater Vancouver" is used interchangeably with "Lower Mainland", which is actually the combo meal version of Greater Vancouver plus the Central and Upper Fraser Valley (Hope/Yale being the borderline of the Lower Mainland). Why not just use "van" in the stub instead of "gvrd"? GVRD is a whole can of worms; historically it didn't exist before a certain date etc.Skookum1 04:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

GVRD is used because it has set boundaries and is more undisputable. In any case, the category to be used now is Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District. Guess those stub categorization guys dislike abbreviations... --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Schools NavBox

I have created a NavBox for Vancouver Schools. I had no idea that there were so many private schools in Vancouver! If I am missing any schools or if you think we should remove any of those "alternative programs" that are listed under the "private schools" sections, please let me know, or just fix it yourself. Canuck89 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

...and I thought here in Richmond we have a lot of elementary schools! Sheesh. Good job. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 06:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing category for GVRD stubs

I'm changing the category to "Greater Vancouver Regional District stubs" to prevent articles being listed both on the parent category and subcategories. If you have any objections, state your case here. Thanks. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 03:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sea Island

I wrote up the page for Sea Island. I'm not in on this project, I live in Tennessee, but I saw Tawker's stub and was interested. Let me know what you think and have fun with it. "Sea Island" now needs a disambig page because there is also Sea Island, Georgia. Happy editing. TKE 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks okay. I expanded on it several days ago, but not bad for a non-GVRDer. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 22:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say it's no longer a stub. :-) Usgnus 22:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed stub tag. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 22:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bridges of Greater Vancouver template

I'm taking out "Airport Connector Bridge" because, according to the official Tourism Richmond map, it is officially called the Sea Island Bridge, which already has an entry in the NavBox. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 01:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Where is the Middle Arm Bridge? I count only four road bridges across the middle arm of the Fraser, and they are all accounted for: No.2, Dinsmore, Moray and Sea Island. Usgnus 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, the Middle Arm Bridge was the old name for the Moray bridge. Vancouver Bridges Andrewjuren(talk) 08:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe Middle Arm = Moray as well. I've lived in Richmond all my life and I'm not aware of any other bridge besides the ones Usgnus just listed. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing Middle Arm from the template Usgnus 02:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• I moved the Derwent Way Bridge to a new category: Road-rail bridge. I saved space by increasing the left column from 15% to 18%. Usgnus 21:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month: April 2006

The University of British Columbia article is the WikiProject Vancouver Collaboration of the Month as it has the highest number of "support" votes out of the nominees. (The SkyTrain has the same number of votes but it was nominated later -- for tiebreakers, it's first come, first serve). If you find a Greater Vancouver-related article you think deserves recognition, by all means nominate it. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

All of the nominated articles are quite lengthy and full. Seems pointless to nominate them. Articles that require more, more facts, more depth, should be the articles that we nominate. The point of collaberation, in my mind, is to work on bringing more articles up to Wiki standards, not work on articles that are already up to Wiki standards. --Dogbreathcanada 09:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, apparently I misinterpreted the "COTM" meaning as being the BEST article of the month... now I'm embarassed. [pause]. So... anybody want to vote in favor of de-COTMing the UBC article? Because now this is making them look REALLY bad... Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just glad I finally got your attention on the issue. :) --Dogbreathcanada 09:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good thing too, because I would've offended a LOT of hardworking people who have made good articles. I'm just really embarassed right now. I guess the only way to learn is to fall flat on your face. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 09:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Selected Article of the Month

Now that we have collaboration articles and featured article squared away ...

Are Wikiprojects allowed to have Featured Articles? If so, should we set this up? Perhaps move the UBC article to "Featured Article" and quickly nominate a new Collaboration Article (be easier to have these things start on the first of every month anyhow). --Dogbreathcanada 09:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, they're referred to as "selected articles". deadkid_dk 11:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's wait about three days to see if there's any objection to this idea. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 21:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've removed UBC as COTM -- I guess we'll see if there's a clear-cut winner in the next few days or so, for COTM. Vancouver General Hospital is "winning" so far; that's my personal choice. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver's size

Apparently, WikiProject Vancouver is the largest WikiProject dedicated to a Canadian city. We actually beat out Toronto by a huge margin. Just a little interesting tidbit. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 03:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

*brings out the beer* deadkid_dk 03:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How was this measured? Curious. --Dogbreathcanada 05:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

By number of participants. That's how I measured it. By number of articles, I have no clue... Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick count -- the WikiProject has around 260 articles for Vancouver proper. I haven't counted the GVRD article total yet. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A&B Sound

A&B Sound, electronics retailer founded in 1959 in downtown Vancouver (Xm2631 21:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

Original founder, Frank Steiner operated the first store in Vancouver, and in later years opened up other stores in Victoria and at Marine Drive (South Vancouver). Eventually Hasting St., (East Vancouver) Surrey, Metrotown (Burnaby) followed and eventually branched out further east of the Greater Vancouver Area and British Columbia, Vancouver Island, Alberta, & Manitoba.

CHAN-TV

CHAN-TV, Vancouver's first privately owned television station. Presently known as Global BC (Xm2631 21:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

Spanish Bank

As of 2005, the official name is Spanish Bank and is no longer Spanish Banks. I've updated the wikipedia pages I could find.[1] —This unsigned comment was added by Usgnus (talk • contribs) .

Vancouver Courier article on the name change. Usgnus 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Erg. Another instance where officialdom is trying to lead public language/culture by the nose. What the heck was wrong with "Spanish Banks"? And who uses "Spanish Bank" other than the stylesheet of a national media monopoly's local neighbourhood gladrag?Skookum1 21:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article is just reporting on the change and one person's reaction to it. The change is coming from the Vancouver Park Board. See the first link above. Usgnus 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as there is a redirect from the commonyl used name, and a note in the article about the common name of the area. Spanish Banks. --Dogbreathcanada 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no article for Spanish Bank(s) yet. Usgnus 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus is to revert to Spanish Banks and include, where appropriate, a note about the official name, that works for me. Usgnus 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming new WikiProject participants

I realized that we should probably have a welcome template for new WikiProject participants, to gain some sense of community, so I created {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/welcome}}. I wrote it up relatively quickly, so if you can think of ways to improve the template, go ahead by all means. I just want to find some way of welcoming the WikiProject's newcomers. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gastown, Today

l.5: "It's 'Home Base' to Vancouver's most favourite son, Bryan Adams." favourite or famous??? --217.191.228.232 12:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Favourite to Bruce Allen, no doubt, who he made lots of money for. But not Vancouver's most famous son; that's very debatable (he's from North Van, and Michael J. Fox from Burnaby is "up there"; then there's Raymond Burr, but of course he's from New West). But in general the use of superlatives ("most favourite") doesn't seem like a good idea, unless "certified". And who's "most famous"? Depends on how old you are, what kind of music/film/books you like, how much of a camp-follower/fan you are.

And besides, it's not like Bryan is part of the street/social world of Gastown - yuppies or streetoids. Bruce Allen Talent is located in the old BCER building - strictly speaking not part of historic Gastown although that area of Hastings has been subsumed into it by the media's attempt to avoid the "Downtown Eastside" (a switch which gets the ire of the Gastown BIA) - and the studio at Powell and Columbia doesn't even have a storefront or sign on it. Now, if it had become the brew pub that Adams had wanted to turn it into, it would be high-profile and we could say that Bryan Adams was part of Gastown. Which is also "home base" to one hell of a lot of other entertainment industry people, too. Come to think of it, if we're including the offices in the BCER building, then on the one hand you've got Casting Workbook, which is a lynchpin of the film/TV industry, and also a number of "world-famous" (or is that "world-class?") internet pornography production companies.Skookum1 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph. Too much about one music studio in a relatively short article on Gastown. Readers can follow the link to find out more about The Warehouse Studio. Usgnus 17:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Islands

I disagree about adding British Columbia to every new island by default. If you look at List of islands of Canada, you'll see that very few islands list the province or other disambiguation name. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). Usgnus 23:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is to consider islands as geographical entities, like rivers or mountains. Would we say Thompson River, British Columbia or Mount Robson, British Columbia? Then why would we say Barnston Island, British Columbia instead of just Barnston Island? Usgnus 23:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of avoiding future disambig. links. Sea Island is a prime example of such a situation I wish to avoid. Or maybe I'm going overboard here... Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 08:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I say we deal with them when they come up. deadkid_dk 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Let's not change any existing article (unless necessary), but how about for new ones we add the "British Columbia" if needed only. Many times, there's either only one island of that name, or one island is much more significant than the other (e.g., Bowen Island). Usgnus 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Bloedel Floral Conservatory additions

Copyright addition to article by Wayne Ray 1991 WayneRay 22:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Also added additional in formation (edit asap) for the Van Dusen Botanical Garden. Roy Forster was my horticultural professor at Niagara Hort College in St. Catharines Ontario 1970-1972 before he moved to BC.

This is the article I had written and published several years ago that I edited into the original wiki article.

VANDUSEN DISPLAY GARDEN 5251 Oak Street Vancouver B.C. V6M 4H1 phone 604-266-7194

VanDusen Botanical Display Garden is located in the Shaughnessy district of Vancouver at the North West corner of 37th and Oak Street. The garden is open to the public every day of the year except Christmas. There are admission fees. In 1970 the Vancouver Foundation, the Government of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver signed an agreement to develop a public garden on part of the old Shaughnessy Golf Course. On August 30th, 1975, the garden was officially opened. The garden covers an area of some 55 acres. An early decision not to partake in scientific research enabled the channelling of funds and energy into garden construction and released the staff from the responsibility of building research collections or a herbarium. However, there is a specialized reference library in the Administration Floral Hall Building. The garden has several special attractions, including carved totem poles, large stone sculptures and a Korean Pavilion whose architecture is the focus for the Asian plant collection. Horticulturally, there is a large collection of Rhododendron hybrids, cultivars of Fagus sylvatica as well as collections of Sorbus, Fraxinus and Magnolia. There is a Heather garden and a major collection of Ilex acquifolium cultivars. The garden is designed to be used by people of all ages and backgrounds. Many of the plant collections are labelled and arranged to demonstrate botanical relationships or geographical origins. There are guided tours, lectures and workshops available.

 WayneRay 15:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Government and politics of Vancouver

I have some issues with this page, Government and politics of Vancouver that I have outlined in the talk page. What do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geedubber (talk • contribs) .

Hon's Wun-Tun House

I'm thinking of starting an article about the Hon's restaurant chain, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough or not. Do you guys think it's enough to merit its own article? (I remember the Province newspaper had a big article on Hon's and the history of the chain -- I'm trying to dig it up.) Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 07:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think so. deadkid_dk 07:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Update: I'm having trouble finding an official site (or something like it), except for their Robson location. Darn. And I can't find the Province article. The Richmond Hon's has a copy on their window; maybe I'll take my digital camera and take a photo of it instead. Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 07:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm concerned that it won't meet notability criteria, similar to the battle going on about the EUS article. Andrewjuren(talk) 08:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I thought about that too. While it doesn't seem to have an official site for the chain, it pops up a gazillion Google hits and has won a lot of awards (mostly from lifestyle newspapers and tourism departments). I remember there's a bit of history behind the chain, but you're right, it might not meet the notability criteria regardless. However, there's no denying the significance of Hon's in the Asian restaurant industry in Greater Vancouver. Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 08:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I support an article for Hon's - it is definitely a Vancouver institution. Anything that is prominently featured in more than one piece of Vanlit is a good candidate for an article. -Madeleine (not logged in)

We really need an article for Hons. Its everywhere. Canadianshoper 23:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I ate lunch there today, at the Richmond location. :) I can't seem to find the Hon's article from The Province but the Richmond branch has it on display on their window -- I'll take a photo of it the next time I stop in the Golden Village. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; unless we do articles for the now-defunct Dragon Inn chain, Dog'n'Suds, and any number of other chains including Blenz nad Mongolian Barbeque, all of which (to me, and I've lived here a hell of a long time) are Vancouver institutions. Hon's is popular because of the glad-handing press it gets, but to me that speaks to unimaginative restaurant reviews in the Straight and people's unwillingness to try other Chinese restaurants (such as Ho Tak Kee, a block away on Broadway near Hon's Quebec & Bway location). Then there's the On Lok, the Yuen Lock and the Pink Pearl; all Vancouver institutions but limited to one location only; does their not having a chain disqualify them from getting an article?Skookum1 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Had a quick look back up the list; seems like foodfair locations are somehow "institutions". So why not Tojo teriyaki-fry or any other popular Asian fastfood chain, all of which were launched here and thrive here? Hon's isn't special; its fans think it is, but.....Skookum1 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I think most of you folks aren't aware of the background of this noodle house. Dig a bit deeper and you will find some really interesting tidbits (pun intended) about Hons. Check the history of the owner and untangle the messy and lengthy trail... 30 years ago the CBC did a documentary on them (the five dragons) as did the Vancouver Sun in 2005, when the families settled a multi-million dollar lawsuit brought on by our Canadian government.

Heck ... the Kennedys and the Rogers family made their fortunes in a similar fashion.

I hope to contribute to this article...but currently, I'm just so bogged down. Flytrap canada 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:Heck ... the Kennedys and the Rogers family made their fortunes in a similar fashion.

What, you mean they were bootlegging and refining sugar? Bobanny 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"The next station is..." templates

This ongoing discussion and development of the transit station template has been moved here to reduce the growing size of the main talk page. --Ckatz 23:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

COTM for May

Since it's the 27th of the month, I've updated the COTM template for May. The new COTM is Vancouver Art Gallery. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note about some of my Vancouver-area pics

I'm currently upgrading some of my old cell phone pics with digital camera-quality ones (which will also be made available on Wikimedia Commons). Stay tuned, and don't panic if some pics start changing. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 07:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

B-Line

I propose merging the B-Line article into either Coast Mountain Bus Company (preferred) or List of bus routes in Greater Vancouver. — Usgnus 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I found myself questioning the existence of this article as well. Merging with CMBC would make sense. →Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merged. --Usgnus 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Elementary Schools 2

After creating a couple of elementary school pages, I've realized that perhaps we should have a single page for all of them or just include them in the VSB page. The high schools in general have enough information for their own pages. As you may already know, some people think no schools should have articles. --Usgnus 19:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bridge article was copyvio

I just replaced the text of the article Westham Island Bridge as it was a copyvio of this page. If there's anyone on this project who is in charge of the bridge articles, they might want to check the others to see if similar copyvios have occurred. 23skidoo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

BC portal?

I'm just wondering, how many people here would be willing to contribute to a British Columbia portal? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 04:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I also remember someone suggesting a BC WikiProject. That might be something to think about too -- WikiProject Vancouver would have some brethren from the rest of the province. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 04:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It was me. I can't see why not. As it is there's all kinds of stuff getting put on the Vancouver page that's at least Lower Mainland in scope/context, if not beyond; and myself I'm not big on Vancouver-obsessing, possibly because I'm born and raised here and not as infatuated with it as people who've chosen to live here. BC is a lot more than Vancouver, and there's a lot to be put into and organized for Wiki. I've mostly been over in the Indigenous Peoples of North America project, the project page for which y'all should have a look at in terms of sweep and consensual organization and collective gathering-power. Tables of articles needed, articles in need of review, pretty perspective discussions on how to organize this or present that, we're even managing to overturn the prevailing American perspective on subjects like the Indian Wars (see Talk:Indian Wars and look towards the bottom). There's Project Alaska, and Project Oregon - no Project Washington or Project Alberta yet, but what say we beat them to it?Skookum1 05:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

*Ahem* :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on my WikiProject Sandbox right now, making a test page for a possible BC project. I'm wondering, is there a photo of the Ogopogo "statue" in Kelowna available for Wikipedia use (not fair use)? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested. --Usgnus 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible WikiProject BC

I made a possible opening page in my WikiProject Sandbox. Felt like playing around with the idea but I think there's potential here. Feel free to modify that page. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the look of Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon. It seems less intimidating than Vancouver's. --Usgnus 17:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I'll experiment with that format later tonight if I get the chance. You're right, it's less intimidating. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like everything about it (task like font size is too small, relations should be lower down), and I like a lot of what's in Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver, like the gallery and other images and the motivation section. --Usgnus 18:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For some reason WP:BC redirects to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. BC=Beginning contributors, perhaps? --Usgnus 18:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a little tweak on that. I'm gonna leave the page in my Sandbox for everyone to develop the Wikiproject before formally launching it. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 18:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that I revamped the test page for the WikiProject BC: Check it out and/or add your own edits to it here. Personally, I think it's very close to becoming a reality. (Feel free to add yourself to the participants list too, if you wish to contribute when it launches. :) ) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the WP:BC is a great idea, and tho I probably can't commit to being a member, I fully support it. heqs 07:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Then add your sig to the new Supporters and Fans table (or didn't I ask that already; OK, OK, not meaning to be impatient....)Skookum1 08:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver radio stations

I'm planning on going through the local radio station articles and reworking them to standardize certain aspects, mostly in the opening paragraphs. Before I begin, any preferences here on how to handle station history? The question comes to mind from looking at the Jack FM article. Jack FM adopted the CKLG call sign for marketing purposes, but the article has an extensive history of the old CKLG-AM (730 kHz) and its successors. Meanwhile, the article for MOJO 730 doesn't mention CKLG-AM's history at all. I feel that the best approach is to have each article represent a particular frequency, with the name being (as at present) the current call sign and band. Thus, the article for CKLG-FM would be about Jack FM in the present, with historical information about its predecessors on that frequency (CJAZ?), and any appropriate references to other influences (CKLG) and details. This would also be the best way of ensuring we don't lose historical information about defunct formats and stations. Thoughts? --Ckatz 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, the proposal above would keep the articles in line with the Radio Stations WikiProject (which I've just learned about). --Ckatz 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

New COTM for June

There was a tie for the new COTM for June 2006. I hope nobody minds, but I went with the Cloverdale Rodeo over the Vancouver Intl. Film Festival for COTM for June, mostly due to timeliness. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sample Tables for project strategy/coordination

The following sample tables are copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and are recommended for transferring the list on the obverse page into, to provide systematic coordination of various articles needing writing or review. I don't have time or I'd transfer some of the things listed in "Tasks" into tables like this, with each of the sections overleaf forming one table maybe (or by any theme, actually; e.g. parks and protected areas, industry and commerce, population and ethnography, geography and so on. Just above the tables on the Indigenous project page there are also a visual cataloguing of all the stubs related to the project.Skookum1 16:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put example expansions of this table concept on WikiProject-BC Draft/proposal page. I'm holding back on applying these to the "tasks" section on the project page overleaf until I hear from other participants in the project if they like the idea or not; some lists on the draft BC wikiproject page get quite long, so over there in the case of the Rivers section I've put that list/table on the talk page of the BC Rivers category page; and could do the same with mountain ranges, lakes, communities etc., all of which will be big lists when done. Here I'm thinking of the neighbourhoods, parks, civic bios and so on; same idea as the current task list, just gives it more organizational coherence. I think. Thoughts?Skookum1 20:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Assessed Status Uses Infobox Pending tasks Assessed by Put a link to the article here assessment date in DD Mon YY format Use the color scheme codes below for background color, and give assessment, or leave white with "not yet assessed" Yes, if article uses standard infobox for that category or type No, if it doesn't remark to elaborate further on box usage Explain further why your rating is what it is, or highlight additional areas of concern Put your userid here, linkable Codes and meanings (See "Status" column just above) Article progress grading scheme Status Cell Color Meaning of Status Needs opinion #FFFFFF This article has not yet been classified into the categories above. Please help by classifying this article. Not started #888888 The article hasn't been started yet. You can help by creating it. Stub #FF5555 The article is either a very short article or a stub that will need a lot of work to bring it to A-Class level. Start class #77BBFF The article has a decent amount of content, but it is still very weak in certain areas, and may lack a table. B-Class #FFFF66 The article is "almost there" but it may be missing one of the following: references, balance of content, NPOV or an important section. Alternatively, the English may need a comprehensive rewrite to make it flow. A-Class #FFDCF8 The article provides a well-written and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a Great Article. It includes a well-written introduction to the topic, and an appropriate series of headings to break up the article. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" literature rather than websites. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. FA #00CC00 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. I agree with classifying the articles, and doing it by category. I also agree that each larger category needs its own page: geography, history, government and politics, education and research, etc. These should be tied in with the task list. -- Usgnus 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Vancouver neighbourhoods standardisation Hi all: I just fleshed out the Hastings-Sunrise neighbourhood page, and I thought I'd make a few suggestions for some standard info to add to all the neighbourhood pages. I am not putting this here as an alternative to doing it myself ;-), but I don't see myself doing it all any time soon. I suggest that all the articles include the following: Provincial electoral district info[2] Federal electoral district info[3] Statistical info[4] And a link to the City's neighbourhood page in the links section (same link as above) Anyone else have any ideas of standard additions for all neighbourhoods? --Anchoress 10:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Canadian city naming convention To try to get a good consensus, I am posting at all Canadian regional wikiprojects: Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board#Canadian city naming convention. Thanks! -- Usgnus 21:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC) RC Palmer Secondary School I'm going ahead and write the first paragraph of RC Palmer Secondary School in Richmond. Is it okay if I start now? The reason is I'm from that school anyways... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curriegrad2004 (talk • contribs) By all means, go ahead. I suggest copying over one of the other high schools in Richmond and changing the information. -- Usgnus 16:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Damn, you figured out my method of writing school stubs... ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Vancouver School Board content ideas History: creation of the district, oldest schools, amalgamation with Point Grey, taking over the U-Hill schools. Trustees: who they are, how they are elected, how long they serve, the schools they are assigned to. Areas: the district is divided into four areas, each with its own superintendent. Schools are in a given area (perhaps list schools by area, with the elementary feeders grouped to the high school). Links to boundary maps. Separate areas for French immersion. District programs: French immersion (including expansion), Mandarin immersion, mini schools, IB, Montessori, etc. -- Usgnus 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC) New Participant May I join this Wikiproject? Sir Studieselot 22:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Of course, you don't need to ask. Add your name to the list. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC) July COTM Just updated the COTM: this month, it's Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Graphs I tried changing the lists into graphs where you can type the status of articles but it didn't work, instead, it made the whole section blank so I changed it back. How do you make it work? Sir Studieselot 03:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Vancouver municipal election, 2002 I created a page for the Vancouver municipal election, 2002. Take a look and see if you can improve it. Geedubber 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Is there an article for this? Is there an article about the Asiatic Exclusion League riots in Vancouver? I'm almost certain it would be here but apparently I can't find it. Perhaps the article uses a different name? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Hmm. That's odd, I thought there would have been, given the coverage of Chinese history in Canada (sloppily written and "shoddily facted" though it has been); The riots, in their time, were known as the Anti-Oriental Riots, and in a historical phrasing would be the Anti-Oriental Riots of 1907; whichever would be the better title. There are no other Wiki pages by that name, i.e. for other cities. Good resource materials for a blow-by-blow account (so to speak) are Alan Morley, Vancouver: Milltown to Metropolis, James Morton, In The Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia, Maj. J. S. "Skitt" Matthews, Early Vancouver (there's his own account, plus various eye-witness reports within the personal memoirs E.V. is full of), and details in various Vancouver Sun articles which may be searchable on-line; the recent stuff by Ian Mulgrew is a crock but Stephen Hume's and others are quite detailed, if not always impartial. The CCNC account on their website ]is sketchy and a-factual, like most of their historical jigglings. If you can't find Morton and Morley let me know and I'll type-copy 'em and put them in my BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum sandbox area, which ultimately will have various history resources, esp. from out-of-print books and public-domain historical maps; it's also a place for me to put my sundry a-cyclopedic ravings on Vancouveritis (sangria-fueled or otherwise) and similar stuff; (Early Vancouver I don't own anymore as I was in need of groceries and it was worth a hundred bucks; the full set is in the City Archives, what's in print - and rare but in VPL and elsewhere - is only the first two volumes, but it does include his main account of the Riots; btw he also has a full table of Musqueam/Squamish placenames which should be incorporated into the Vancouver pages somehow; love the name for Jericho Beach - Eeyulshun, which if I remember means something like "soft sand squishing through your toes"). I also recently wrote a partial account of the Riots for a Comments Forum on Tyee Books; they're offline due to some technical problems so I can't dredge the link right now, but once they're back up look for a Terry Glavin book/review by Charles Campbell, called Monkey Wrestles With Madness at http://thetyee/Books/ - my point with the explanation there, by the way, is that despite the popular Canadian myth/image of BCers being racist, the riots in 1907 (like those in 1885) were perpetrated largely by recent arrivals from Eastern Canada; BCers throughout the early period, as you'll find in both Morton and Matthews, were much more pragmatic as well as fractured on the issue of Chinese labour and immigration (which was THE issue in early politics, and it's not as simple as boiling all of it down to "racism" - read Morton, is all I've been saying lately, and give your head a good scratch). Not relevant to Vancouver but to this discussion I had occasion to look up the Cumberland Strikebreaking Riots of 1910, which were anti-Chinese as much as anti-Dunsmuir (Dunsmuirs being an old BC family and, like other local wealth, always pragmatic about cheap Chinese labour); Cumberland was once the West Coast of North America's second-largest Chinatown; mind you, so were Barkerville's and Lillooet's and Yale's in their day, too.....Skookum1 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure why you look to Morley and Matthews given your comment about how shoddy this history has been covered. Primary sources, sure, but both those guys, I think, are unreliable. (FYI, There's a great article in the latest Canadian Historical Review on Matthews and hobos during the depression by Todd McCallum). I'm also not sure I'd agree with your comment about racism, and racial violence, being an import from easterners - there is an element of truth there, but I think it has more to do with the demands of development at the time than what those eastern bastards brought with them. Anyhow, enough nitpicking. Thanks for all the sources - the Morton book sounds intriguing. I beefed up the Vancouver section of Asiatic Exclusion League. Feel free to give me feedback or make yer own changes. The Canadian section could probably be a non-stub now, but frankly, I don't think seperating Can. and the US is a good idea in this case. Seems to be more of a west coast thing than country-specific, and obviously our AEL was a knock off of the one down south anyway.Bobanny 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) HELP REQUIRED FROM ALL WIKIPROJECT VANCOUVER MEMBERS I am working on an article for the Student Price Card due to the fact that it's pretty common to see the logo on shop doors now around most of the shopping malls. The article needs serious clean up and contributions. If you can help, please do so. Thank You Spyco 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Major expansion of New Westminster page; please add/emend/edit I just through-wrote this from memory over morning coffee and be adviwsed it's just an outline in spots. There's various comment-outs that I'll refer/change to later but if someone else knows the details raised, feel free to jump right in and make the changes. I realize now I forgot to put in a section on the Great Fire of 1898 which is a requisite part of the history, so will dig some stuff and pix up later about that, as well as pix of Govt House, the Pen, and a city map; almost thinking a History of New Westminster article will eventually be required; but then we're still working on History of Vancouver and History of British Columbia, so let's leave well enough alone for now....Skookum1 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Question re Sport in Vancouver category Is this category for teams in the whole GVRD, or just Vancouver proper? Noted the SFU Clan are listed, so I'm thinking the New Westminster Salmonbellies and Coquitlam Adanacs (when and if that gets written) should be in the same cat; or should they be in the Sport in British Columbia cat?Skookum1 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Put them in Category:Sport in Vancouver. --Usgnus 23:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Thx; did anyway, but good to get confirmation.Skookum1 00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Ditto what Usgnus said. Unless someone thinks it should say "Sport in Greater Vancouver" or something. Should be fine the way it is right now. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Historical photos usage issues/idea Please see Talk:New Westminster, British Columbia#Historical photos issues.Skookum1 00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Dawson Creek, British Columbia Dawson Creek, British Columbia is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) August COTM I updated the COTM -- it's the Port of Vancouver with the most support votes for August. Vancouver Collaboration of the Month Every month, a Vancouver- or Greater Vancouver-related topic, stub or nonexistent article is picked to be the Vancouver Collaboration of the Month. The current COTM is Francesco Aquilini for March, 2006. (Archived nomination discussion and suggestions for this article.) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Need help I've just added the transit table, and I can't get the text to show. I'm not to used to wikicode table syntax...Selmo 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Oddd... I've tried a few things (in preview) with no success. I'm wondering if there's something in the code of the Skytrain Stations template that's mucking up the box. When I replaced the "Skytrain" template with the "Schools" template, the table formatted correctly. Any code whiz-kids willing to take a look bugs in the template code? --Ckatzchatspy 04:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC) That was weird. It should be all set now. --Usgnus 05:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Millenium Line station articles I've benn cleaning up some of these articles. Most of them require a few grammatical corrections. Selmo 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) WP Vancouver naming conventions I think we should leave things the way they are and not use TransLink for disambiguating. --Usgnus 01:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC) SkyTrain/Canada Line/Evergreen Line category. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to merge all of the rapid transit stations into a category like [[Category:Rapid transit stations in Greater Vancouver]]. ---- Selmo (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Then in your sense, we should move all the malls of a city into a category like [[Category:Malls in Greater vacnouver]]? --User:GamePlayer623 Do you mean the existing Category:Shopping malls in Greater Vancouver? --Usgnus 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Oh, I never realized it was there. Sorry, I'll check next time. --GamePlayer623 04:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Evergreen Line is not rapid transit and should go in Category:Light rail stations in Greater Vancouver or stay in Category:TransLink (Vancouver). Or rescope and call it Category:TransLink stations in Greater Vancouver. --Usgnus 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC) That's a good idea. I also thought we could create a SkyTrain stations category and subcat that. ---- Selmo (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean Category:SkyTrain stations would be a parent cat to Category:Rapid transit stations in Greater Vancouver? The benefit of Category:TransLink stations in Greater Vancouver is that we could include Lonsdale Quay and UBC Loop. --Usgnus I meant to make Category:SkyTrain stations to be a child cat to Category:Rapid transit stations in Greater Vancouver. It sounds good to me to make Category:TransLink stations in Greater Vancouver as well. -- Selmo (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The problem with creating Category:SkyTrain stations and making it a child of Category:Rapid transit stations in Greater Vancouver is that all the rapid transit stations in Greater Vancouver may end up being SkyTrain stations. Besides, Category:Rapid transit stations in Greater Vancouver is not particularly big right now. --Usgnus 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Vancouver move? See Talk:Vancouver (disambiguation)#Requested move. --Usgnus 05:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Survey and discussion is closed and now being archieved. Mkdw 06:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC) GVRD, BC to GVRD? Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia → Greater Vancouver Regional District … Rationale: There is no other Greater Vancouver Regional District in the world. Per WP:NAME, use the best-known, simplest, unambiguous title for the article. Greater Vancouver Regional District already redirects to Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia. — Usgnus 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Result was move. Afterward, I moved FVRD as well. --Usgnus 03:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Davie Village Davie Village, Vancouver, Canada → Davie Village … Rationale: Davie Village already redirects to the article. Why do we need such a long name? … Please share your opinion at Talk:Davie Village, Vancouver, Canada. — Usgnus 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Result was move. --Usgnus 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) September COTM The September COTM is Vancouver International Film Festival. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Vancouver/BC as part of Pacific Northwest Please see discussion "Name Dispute" at Talk:Pacific Northwest.Skookum1 00:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC) UBC and addresses I've been reading over a few UBC related articles, and I've noticed that the addresses use University Endowment Lands, though Canada Post uses Vancouver instead. Some articles like University Hill Secondary and Elementary use UEL as the city in the address, therefor could be misinformation. -- Selmo (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Downtown Eastside Hi all! I'd like to do some work on the DTES since I live and work in this area. I'm also part of a team of researchers who specifically observe and study the people of DTES. I want to present it accurately and unbiased of course. I would love the opportunity to help out with this specific part of Vancouver. There is so much history here and landmark events we'd be remiss not to include it. It is indeed the poorest postal code/area of all of Canada and there are a lot of unique 'firsts' and individuals here. OneWomanArmy Hi OneWomanArmy. I also live and am doing research related to the area. I've heard the "poorest postal code" claim for years, and wonder if it can be verified. I believe someone once told me that the postal code boundaries had been tweaked at one point and that claim no longer holds. There's also been a lot of yuppies moving into the new condos sprouting up in the 'hood, (revitalization? gentrification?) and it would be interesting to know how the demographics are changing, especially since the city writ large will change a lot in terms of development leading up to the olympics. I've also heard that there are more social service organizations per square foot here than anywhere else in the country. That wouldn't surprise me either. Bobanny 17:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Nice to meet you Bo. Well, it's definitely the poorest area of the entire country. That CAN be proven. I'm holding in my hand the 2005 report from Vancouver Coastal Health. It's about 30-something pages regarding the health and social profile of this area. I believe they release one every year. Out of all of BC the DTES (designated as Community Health Area 2)has the highest percentage of people who have Grade 9 and under. There's a lot of interesting stats in this report.OWA 03:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) assessment department Over at WikiProject Organized Labour we recently set up an assessment department which gives us a tool for keeping track of how we are progressing. I see from the conversation above that you have started in this direction. If the project is interested, I would be willing to set up a similar department here. In addition to providing details about article status, it also includes the project in the larger efforts taking place at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team.--Bookandcoffee 17:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) sounds good to me, and I can't imagine anyone would object. Make it so, No. 1.Bobanny 17:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC) I'm going to start on this over the next day or so. Now would be a good time to voice any concerns. :)--Bookandcoffee 18:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC) started Well, there's the start. Two important notes: the red-linked Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Vancouver articles by quality statistics on the project page is normal. It should be updated by the bot at 0300 UTC after which it will be a nice little assessment infobox. Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/Assessment#Importance scale needs to be updated. I deliberately left the Organized Labour text in the scale as an example - but I don't spend enough time at this project to be well qualified for writing new criteria. This should be done soon, so people know how to rate articles. I've tagged a handful of articles to make sure things are working, and I'll check in over the next few days. --Bookandcoffee 22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Portal I was thinking that we should do a Vancouver portal. What do you guys think? -- Selmo (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Historical Photos As far as I can tell, images are considered public domain if they were taken prior to 1923 (US) or are older than 50 years plus the life of the author (Canada). Seems to me that this means a lot of old scanned photos from City of Vancouver Archives, Library and Archives Canada, McCord Museum, BC Archives, VPL Special Collections databases are fair game here. I understand the value of striving for original photos on Wiki, but we can't really go back in time to get the photos we want for articles with significant historical content. These archives don't seem to address the issue head-on on their websites as it relates to Wiki's purposes, but why would they when they want to control usage of these photos and have people buy them. I've already added an old photo to Deadman's Island (Vancouver), but was previously only linking to photos. Unless someone knows that this is somehow a violation of something or other, I want to eventually add old photos to certain articles to enrich them, using this tag: {{PD-old-50}} If anyone else wants to do this, note Wiki's guidelines, adding the link and details on the photo's page, etc. Also see the discussion here: Talk:New Westminster, British Columbia#Historical photos issues. I'm pretty sure that the non-profit angle won't work, not because Wiki's a for-profit project, but because it's not a registered non-profit society or charity with "the Man" in Victoria. Anyway, if anyone knows of a reason why such images would get deleted, let me know, so I don't waste my time. thanks, Bobanny 21:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Merge Template:vancouverproject and Template:Vancouverproject-gvrd The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. merge -- Selmo (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC) I honestly don't see the point of having two seperate tags just for the sake of saying the subject dosen't have anything to do with the city of Vancouver, but the Greater Vancouver regional district. Not only does this add overhead for a rather trivial reason, but some articles have both tags placed on the same talk page. -- Selmo (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Survey Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ Support - there are a number of WikiProjects that use only one banner, but have additional class options within that banner. Two good examples are {{TrainsWikiProject}} and {{WPBeatles}}.--Bookandcoffee 15:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Support - Templates must be kept to a minamin to reduce confusion and make pages look neater.Canadianshoper 05:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Neutral - as the original creator, I'm fine with whatever you guys decide. However, I think the GVRD template should become the "main" template if the merging goes ahead. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Support - It makes sense to merge the two tags. I'd recommend that the consolidated template have a simple name like Template:VancouverProject, with the understanding that it applies to the entire GVRD. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Comment - It would be fairly simple to include a "city" class in the single template, so people could (if so inclined) still designate which city the article was about. It would show up as a GVRD tag, with additional text at the bottom noting the city. --Bookandcoffee 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Comment: You know... I kind of like that idea. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Support - There's an awful lot of overlap, and Vancouver services the burbs in a lot of ways, so I find the 2 tag system redundant. Personally, I don't see why we don't just amalgamate in real life.Bobanny 03:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Comment I began to update Template:Vancouverproject-gvrd to reflect consensus. -- Selmo (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. {{Vancouver importance scale}} The Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/Assessment Department was recently set up - but the {{Vancouver importance scale}} still needs to be updated. It is currently just a copy from WP:UNION and completely irrelevant. If no one wants to update it I’ll just blank the criteria next week some time.--Bookandcoffee 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC) HongCouver article for deletion I nominated HongCouver for deletion. Go here to express your support. (Or disagreement, if you really must). After 5 days, the Lords of Wiki make the call to delete or keep.Bobanny 20:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Anyone who wants to get their 2 cents in and hasn't, the time is almost up. So far 8 people say delete/merge, and 2 say keep. Bobanny 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) After three weeks of deletion review and votes of 10,2,3 the article was deleted. Mkdw 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Task forces? Now that the project banner refers to individule cities, perhaps we can create task forces for each one. -- Selmo (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Project directory Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC) I've reviewed our Vancouver Project entry in the directory. Looks good. Mkdw 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Archive 1 The talk pages up until November 2, 2006 for WikiProject Vancouver have now been archived in Archive 1. Mkdw 23:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Modified. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Arts and Culture Assessment Department Buildings and Structures City Services Events Geography GVRD History Neighbourhoods NavBox User:Buchanan-Hermit created a NavBox for Vancouver Neighbourhoods. {{VancouverNeighbourhoods}} People Upgrade Nomination Sam Sullivan requires its web references to be formatted using {{cite web}} before being moved to the A List. John Turvey requires a picture before being moved to the A List. I added some photos and spruced up the text and formatting for L. D. Taylor; I think it's ready for the A-list.Bobanny 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Upgraded, though it could use some more references and section specific citations. Mkdwtalk 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Schools NavBox WikiProject Education has some excellent school related templates (Navigational Templates, Info Templates, School Templates). Mkdw 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Canuck89 created a NavBox for Vancouver Schools on the main page. Universities and Colleges Elementary and Secondary Stubs King George Skytrain Station. For me the current article fails to capture the true history of King George Station. When originally constructed, the station, like Gateway, was to be at the center of a large condominium project, including a number of residential towers connected by town homes. When the station was completed this project was underway. Today, just east of the station, off East Whalley Ring Rd., there is a single tower connected to a line of town homes. However, like Gateway, the project was suddenly terminated before the start of 1996. For years the tiny showcase structure remained on the gone-to-seed lot, displaying the weathered artists’ rendering of this forgone project. Only in 2005, with the commencement of the Infinity project, has the site’s potential been realized, now in conjuncture with the Central City Shopping Center. The project, however, remains contained to the square of block bordered by King George Highway, 100 AVE, East Whalley Ring Road, and Fraser Highway, whereas the original King George project extended east of the Ring Road. As to the line’s possible extension to Guilford to ease traffic, if the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge project goes ahead, a project which calls for Light Rail service over the new bridge from Coquitlam to Surrey, further extension of the Expo Line in this direction is questionable, unless Translink proposes a grandiose circular linkage between the two lines. Mchelada 21:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Suggestions Active/Inactive List Our participants list is becoming quite extensive. In some other city WikiProjects I have seen them do a week week roll call and then have two categories for their participants. Active and Inactive. We may want to consider doing this soon. Langara College 18:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Might be a good idea. Mkdwtalk 02:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Work has begun on this new system. Mkdwtalk 01:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Welcoming New Members Template I realized that we should probably have a welcome template for new WikiProject participants, to gain some sense of community, so I created {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/welcome}}. I wrote it up relatively quickly, so if you can think of ways to improve the template, go ahead by all means. I just want to find some way of welcoming the WikiProject's newcomers. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Help Request Featured Article Vancouver has been nominated several times to become a featured article but has never been approved for various reasons. This project seems to be winding down and I think it would be a good objective to try and get Vancouver to be a featured article. Mkdwtalk 12:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Agreed. We just recently made it through the Good Article hurdles, and I don't believe this article is far from Featured Article quality (see (Detroit and Seattle for examples of featured cities). It's mostly technical things that need to be done, IMO.Bobanny 15:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Vancouver has been nominated to become a featured article. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Vancouver. Please go to the link and show your support. At this time users may oppose the article for various reasons. We can try and actively fix the article as users comment on what needs improving. Something that can be done immediately would be to track when all the citations were added and adding a 'date retreived' to the citation. Anyone up for the working man's barnstar? Mkdwtalk 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) The article mainly requires changes to its citation format. Many of the citations should be chaged to {{cite web}}. Langara College 18:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Vancouver seems to be facing a lot of trouble pertaining to the Flora section. Would anyone be able to improve this secton accurately? Lily Towerstalk 10:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC) The biggest remaining weakness that I can see is not enough citations in certain sections, and as far as I can tell, that's all that's wrong with the flora section.Bobanny 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Vancouver has many citation formating problems in general that could be fixed. A date retreived and using {{cite web}} would be the final area needing improvement. 142.35.144.2 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC) FA update for Vancouver: I did a whole bunch of work on this beast today, and we're definately down to the nitty-gritty. Here's what I've noted that still needs doing (as of Nov 11 pm): #Someone will need to go through and make all the footnotes consistent. Alot have been done in the {{cite web}} format (thanks, Selmo and others), but some are still outstanding. There's still some stuff in the article that need references: 300 sushi restaurants in Vancouver, Vancouverites are more likely to dine out than similar creatures, the area (km2)of Vancouver and the 50 creeks and streams that no longer exist (both in the last paragraph of geography), the entire "Flora" section (except that it used to be a rainforest -- mwahahaha! >:), and the punk rock section. There's some other places where it looks like a citation is needed, but is covered by a nearby one, like housing prices i think, that should be repeated in the appropriate spot for clarification. #The in-text footnote numbers should all be moved to the end of their respective sentences. No, this isn't a mandatory format rule as someone suggested, but it's a lot cleaner stylistically. It definately has to be consistent throughout the article, which it currently isn't. These are all done now.Bobanny 09:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC) For bonus points, see if you can find the slightly-inappropriate-but-kind-of-funny wikilink I snuck into the article. The citations are the most important thing. The quality generally, in my humble opinion, is very high in all the other areas, and I think this review process has done wonders for the article. Thanks everybody, Bobanny 06:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC) I agree. This project has been very beneficial to this project and the article itself, along with several other Vancouver related articles that have been improved. Thank you for your continued patience in regards to the reorganizational efforts ongoing to this project. Mkdwtalk 00:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Congratulations Congratulations to all those who put forth their efforts on making the article Vancouver a featured article. On November 22, 2006 the article officially became a featured article. The success and attempt brought this project back together. We did it! Mkdwtalk 00:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Every who helped should get a barnstar some other WikiProject award. -- Selmo (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Yay! Congrats! Kla'quot 06:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Future for WikiProject Vancouver Our attempt to become a Featured Article has been rewarding not only in our increased attention to the article and clean up, but also recognition and exposure to the rest of the Wikipedia community. I would like, with your help, to redefine what the intensions and plans for this WikiProject are in a Five Point Plan. Successfully complete Vancouver's FAC. We are very close to completion, but I suggest we focus on this goal before attempting others. On November 22, 2006 the article Vancouver became a featured article. Nominate Vancouver for Wikipedia Version 1.0. Once Vancouver has become a featured article, this automatically makes it eligible on all criteria. Vancouver now satisfies all criteria for Wikipedia Verson 1.0. Nomination reviews are not going up yet, but Vancouver will be ready. Mkdwtalk 09:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Reorganization of the WikiProject. We have used WikiProject Ottawa as our template. However, our WikiProject has increased its mandate to areas such as Vancouver related articles, GVRD and its associated articles. WikiProject London is perhaps Wikipedia's most successful city WikiProject. They have spent a well rounded effort to improve their articles to which many are featured status. Their success has come from concentrating their efforts rather than distribution. I also feel that this project will become more of a community through all working together on a similar task. Hopefully with our collective colaborting, our work will not become tiresome and we will have the chance to make this project one of the best. This new direction will allow this project to move in its own direction as originally discussed when the starting template was establshed. Expansions of the Vancouver Portal. This article should be easy to fill and would be nice to have on its way. Continued work on Vancouver related articles to Featured Status. We have several well written articles that could be close, and would only require minor touch ups. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Comment/Suggestion As a part of the WikiProject reorganization the Collaboration concept was not able to motivate and organize people as its intension. I feel that this Five Point Plan should be the basis of decision for the future of the project. It will allow our participants to see the direction of the project, the tasks at hand, and allow for completion of one article before moving on. I noticed that the WikiProject London does not have a collaboration section, but a Showcase in replacement. Mkdwtalk 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC) I am merging redundant and repeaticious information on the WikiProject page. It is still under construction and will be completed in the next couple of days. As for the images, there are some current problematic formating issues that will be resolved with the creation of a banner on top. Mkdwtalk 21:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC) For the talk page organization, posting under headings is certainly a great idea but it's tough for newcomers, as it's hard to find the news posts, and it's hard to archive. Are we going to organize the archive section also? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC) The discussion page prior to this one I was finding to be highly ineffective for new-comers as questions and content was being asked and posted multiple times over. Some form of organization will be needed. New posts are indeed hard to find but posting them at the bottom goes back to the initial problem of having repeative content. Ideally I would like to stay away from having multiple discussion pages for individual topics as that is even worse than scanning a single page for new content. Unless we have a means to automatically highlight new content from the last 24 hours, we will need to have someone overlook the discussion page and organize and monitor new content on a daily basis. We could also reduce the amount of sections on this page to Admin, WikiProject, Assessment, Help Requests, and Misc. Mkdwtalk 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Vancouver Portal Everyone deserves a well needed rest from our intense dealings with Vancouver's FAC. With Vancouver becoming a featured article we as a group can now look to the future of this WikiProject and our collaborative efforts as a closer community. We're up to a challenge and we have one a head of us that will not only be formative but creative and fun. As we all know the Vancouver Portal has barely been touched. It's improvement will benefit Vancouver related articles as being a directory and 'headquarters' for all the articles. Not to mention it will eleviate the need for this WikiProject to closely sort and list all articles pertaining to Vancouver, when really this WikiProject should do that, but not be the primary source for readers. Perhaps then this WikiProject will become more heavily focused on its tasks rather than a reader's research resource. The London Portal is a featured portal and should be our example for quality, integrity, and future planning of our own portal. Mkdwtalk 09:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Work on this project will be collaborated on its talk page Portal_talk:Vancouver. If you like, join the Portal taskforce, an ongoing effort to improve the portal. -- Selmo (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Er, need a better way to organize this. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Eh? A taskforce is what all WikiProjects use to organize the collaberation of portals. -- Selmo (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Collaboration of a topic, not really portals. But I am okay with it, what I meant was how you did it does not look organized. I'll format it. Oh by the way, the "T" in task force shouldn't be capitalized. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I'm bad a formatting anything. Oh well. -- Selmo (talk) Selmo, I understand you're upset that I replaced the Selected Page with the Showcase concept. All I wanted to do was get a head start on the Portal so people could start contributing to it. Much of the work I did mainly had to do with formatting and adjusting the open source code of the portal. Most of the content had just been copied from a template provided by the Portal WikiProject. I assumed since none of the template had been adjusted to make it unique to Vancouver that it was open for adjustment such as the colour scheme and how, if we did, use a Selected Article concept rather than a Showcase idea. I was wrong about that and I apologize. However, I feel out of my mistake you attacked my contributions. Rather than getting in an editing award, perhaps you along with the other editors can come to a concensus. The merging of the Vancouver Assessment template and the Showcase Nomination template. The Assessment template is expressly for inputing a rating and importance assessment to an article. Merging it with the Showcase template which is used to mark articles that are nominated for Showcase seems to have no logical reasonings. The templates both do completely opposite objectives and merging them together would only create problems and a lot more work rewriting the code. Not to mention you'd have one template doing two jobs which anyone would suggest should be broken into two. Showcase Director. Your idea of nominating a Showcase director was a good idea, and I believe you misread my intensions. I was not trying to self appoint myself rather than just used my name for the time being until we got the show up and running. I did appoint Vancouver as the first showcase since it received its FA lately and was the obvious choice. Again, I was working under the assumption I was getting a head start since no one had really put detailed content on the portal. However, when you removed your suggestion and self appointed yourself the Picture Showcase director, I see it that you're frustrated. I'm not entirely sure if the idea of having a 'task force' for the portal page is really the answer. Better communication and collaboration would have been my preference over creating a list of people in charge of the portal and its edits etc. Wikipedia was built on the foundations that anyone can edit and that all editors are on equal grounds. I'll admit I'm rather confused and frustrated by this, and some with your unfriendly edit summaries to my content. The award I gave you, I meant all the things I said and I hope you won't fail this WikiProject in those respects. If my presence on the Portal is a disadvanatge then I will happily leave, because for me I'm more interested in doing what is best for the project than myself. Mkdwtalk 05:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Thank you. I apologize for the edit summeries, but I'm glad we're back on the same page. -- Selmo (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Today's Featured Article I'm trying to get Vancouver on Wikipedia's main page as one of their 'Today's Featured Articles. You can view its nomination and show your support if you wish at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Vancouver. Mkdwtalk 09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Misc. WikiCouncil Directory Our entry in the WikiProject Council Directory is complete and up-to-date. Mkdw 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) HongCouver The article HongCouver went through a deletion review. On October 30, 2006 the review ended and a final decision was made; delete. You can find the full details of the review here. Please do not edit or contribute further to the deletion review as it is closed and being kept for archival purposes only. Mkdw 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC) New UserBox I thought our WikiProject should have a userbox that had a picture of Vancouver like some of the other WikiProjects out there so I made: {{User:Mkdw/Vancouver}} Mkdw 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC) New Vancouver Landmarks Infobox I'm curious as to what exactly is a Vancouver Landmark, as this navbox applies? Tourist attractions, heritage buildings, common Vancouver perceptions, etc? I'm not really too sure here. Luke! 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Yup. I suppose it could be subjective, but it's generally those really obvious Vancouver things, that when you see them in a movie, you say, "hey, that's Vancouver!" But would something not-so-touristy, like the safe-injection site count? I dunno...Bobanny 07:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Use of Heritage photos in articles Pls see Talk:Hotel Vancouver (Demolished) re my intent to use BC Archives pics, as per information from User:Bobanny that while BC Arch and VPL and others claim copyrights, copyright in fact expires 50 years after the photographer dies. Lots of articles, especially on vanished buildings and towns elsewhere in BC, and of notable individuals, could be seriously enhanced by the inclusion of such pictures, which turn out to be public-domain even though BC Arch pretends otherwise (the Nat'l Archives is honest and puts "copyright expired" on some of their collection).Skookum1 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC) I'm not entire sure what you're asking us here. If on the site or book of B.C. Hertiage Archives and VPL says its copyrighted, we cannot challenge those copyright claims and use their content in Wikipedia. Mkdwtalk 03:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Hmm. Asserting copyright and actually having it are two very different things (I know, I'm a photographer and musician). From what Bobanny said (I'll find the relevant talk page and section and link it here later) they don't have the right to assert copyright over material whose copyright has expired; which is why the Nat'l Archives apparently doesn't even try. "Owning the negative" apparently isn't even enough; the difference in the case of BC Archives (not the VPL) is that they may be under "Crown Copyright" (which is exempt from the 50-years rule), even though the bulk of works in question were not crown-commissioned; only purchased/inherited/donated; to me "Crown Copyright" means things like government publications, from maps to hansard to reports ad nauseam, not to archival documents donated from private estates and collections. I'll check with Bobanny, who researched this, comes back with. Many of the images so claimed were old postcards and news copy and family-owned prints that wound up becoming archived; I can't see them being "Crown Copyright". As a historical writer outside of Wikipedia, the issue has piqued my interest, as many writers and publishers in BC might be being charged copyright licensing fees by the government which the government (or the VPL) doesn't actually have the right to charge....maybe after any such decision, i.e. in court, over that, it might be that the collections, or the relevant parts of it, would be forced officially into the public domain. My understanding now is that under the Berne Convention, which governs copyright, a photographer or other artist can claim copyright simply by writing it on the back of the print, or retaining possession of the negatives; but no one else can do the same with the same materials, unless it was a commercial commission (in which case the photographer surrenders the copyright, if only partially i.e. specific use, or usually does).Skookum1 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC) The law is pretty straight forward about what counts as a public domain image. This is what it says on the City of Vancouver Archives website: The revisions to the Copyright Act (Bill C-32 An Act to Amend the Copyright Act) came into effect January 1, 1999. Under the old law, photographs were protected for 50 years from the time the photography was taken. The new law is the life of the creator plus 50 years. Photographs already in the public domain prior to January 1, 1999 will remain in the public domain (i.e. photographs taken up to December 31, 1948).[5] A photograph is therefore in the public domain according to the date it was taken, and copyright over the image cannot be claimed by government or anyone else once something is public domain (American law looks to be more complicated because it has to do with date of publication as well as creation). Most archives with digitized image collections online are not forthcoming with this information, and some give the impression that they hold the copyright, presumably because they don't want to discourage people from obtaining permission and paying a fee to use the image. BC Archives is blatantly misleading because their online photos are contained within a border that claims copyright like this one, for example, which should be cropped off before being uploaded to Wikipedia. The federal Library and Archives Canada website is the only one that is upfront in labeling images whose copyright has expired. VPL has this disclaimer: In some cases the Vancouver Public Library, Special Collections, owns the physical print only and may not own copyright or other intellectual property rights to materials in its collection. Any possible copyright infringement is your responsibility.[6] (my emphasis) In other words, when they are claiming to hold the copyright for an old photograph, it is the physical photograph or negative they own, not the image itself. If you order an actual photo from them, you agree to not reproduce the image without permission and other conditions of usage and pay whatever permission fee they ask and are bound by that agreement, but this is not the case with online images. Therefore, there are a lot of historical photos available that we can use from these online databases: City of Vancouver Archives Library and Archives Canada Vancouver Public Library Special Collections British Columbia Archives Glenbow Archives (Alberta) The McCord Museum of Canadian History also has Vancouver images, but they embed the copyright right on the image, so you'd have to alter it to make it usable on Wikipedia. According to the above information, absolutely I would challenge misleading copyright claims to public domain images in lieu of a legal reason that I'm overlooking (so if there's any lawyers out there...). Photos add a lot to articles, and historical photos in particular often contain information or illustrate the subject beyond what words alone can do, so I encourage people to take advantage of these sources. When uploading a photo to Wikipedia, you should note in the image description section the url of the online image and credit the source and their catalogue number, as a courtesy and to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. The most suitable copyright tag is {{PD-old-50}}. This tag is not on the drop down list on the image upload page, but covers Canada and the US for images published before 1923 (English Wikipedia must satisfy US laws because that's where the server is located). {{PD-Canada}} can also be used (and covers any Crown Copyright issues, as far as I can tell) but you must still explain on the description the use rationale under US law. Hope this helps..Bobanny 12:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks Bobanny; I may show this to a lawyer acquaintance in fact, although I don't think copyright is their area. My own position on this, in an ideal-world sense, is that the government has not right to copyright history, be it images of the past or the text of documents or anything else. The article on the Second Hotel Vancouver is totally missing something if there's no image of the building's architecture, or its lavish interior. And it's not like you can go down there and take a picture of it on your Minolta, is it?Skookum1 19:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC) New look Hi guys! I am a Wikipedian from Burnaby :) I just did some massive formatting work on the Project page. I added a sidebar, and organized informations into it. For the talk page, I created a section for every month and moved appropriate talks into it. Then I setted up the automatic page archival bot. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your help. I have repaired the last of the links on the sidebar that were leading to the China template and resized the box to match accordingly. Mkdwtalk 09:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Deletion review of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case The article on the 1997 Rachel Marsen sexual harassment case at SFU was recently speedy deleted, and is now up for deletion review. You can add comments here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_17#Marsden-Donnelly_harassment_case. Kla'quot 08:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Now it's on AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsden-Donnelly harassment case Kla'quot 06:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC) AfD has closed as keep but... there's now discussion of speedy-deleting this article again. See Talk:Rachel Marsden. Kla'quot 09:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Project Banner I think our project banner is too fat (can't think of other words :P). Can I trim it? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC) ROLL CALL - All Read Our list of participants and how long this WikiProject has been operating has become fairly lengthy. I will be making a list based upon the edit history of this discussion, the main project page, and various other significant articles in the past month of names of people still edting and on the participants list. Users in the inactive list are users who have not made a contribution to Wikipedia in general for several months. However, to save me some time, you can also just post your name on this roll call. The participants section on the main wikiproject page will list all the active Vancouver WikiProject Members. A new page of inactive, on leave, and former WikiProject members will be created and linked under the participants section. Mkdwtalk 08:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Please check to see if your name is already listed and in the right section. Active User:Bobanny User:Luckyluke User:Lily Towers User:Selmo User:Langara College User:Ckatz User:Wikilo12 User:Tony Fox User:Flytrap_canada User:Supercraft99 User:RichMac User:Starbuck-2 User:LegolasGreenleaf User:Thankyoubaby User:Buchanan-Hermit User:GeeCee User:Dogbreathcanada User:Bookandcoffee User:Skookum1 User:Zhatt User:FlyingPenguins User:maclean25 User:Arch26 User:Stormscape User:smileydude66 User:Carson Lam User:Spyco User:Sunray User:Theorb User:Colin_Keigher User:Sewing User:Canadianshoper User:PeregrineAY User:Clayoquot Inactive User:wombatman User:Jeffsumm User:LeeLau User:Bnewbold User:pissedpat User:CaviaPorcellus User:Bormalagurski User:Canuck89 User:Phillipe83 User:Andrewjuren User:Ardenn User:shanebee User:Usgnus User:Corktin User:WikiMB User:Crazyjoeda User:PN123 User:CanucksRule