Template:VP Participate

For organizational purposes, the discussion page has been modified to group topics together to eliminate repeated posts. When creating a new heading please use triple === (rather than the conventional ==) under the appropriate category heading. Be sure to remember to sign your message, comment, or contribution with ~~~~. Each category is in alphabetical order except Help Request and Misc. (which will be at the end).

Since wendrabot was slow, I moved last month's discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver/November 2006. However, I need to change this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archive/November 2006 as this is the standard. -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Portal has come a long way and our objective to greatly improve it, and possibly have it become a featured portal is becoming more realistic. The Portal is undergoing a peer view. See Wikipedia:Peer_review/Portal:Vancouver. Mkdw^talk 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we can sort the categories and perhaps add some infoboxes and navigational boxes, the portal would be ready for a Featured Portal review. Mkdw^talk 11:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Portal is now a featured portal candidate. Please see Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Vancouver and show your support. Mkdw^talk 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show your honest opinion about how well you believe the portal meets the featured portal criteria. This is not a partisan votestacking process. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think Mkdw was trying the rig the process by announcing its candidacy here. Bobanny 06:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the announcement, it's the "and show your support" that indicates campaigning. In any event, the process is moving along. Rfrisbie^talk 13:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'showing support' can mean addressing feedback generated by the process or voting honestly even if you don't believe it to be ready to be featured as part of the process to get it there. Accusations of 'votestacking' is hardly assuming good faith. Bobanny 17:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I apologize. I look forward to seeing project members' critiques on the nomination page and/or improvements to the portal. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intention, and what I thought would be the obvious assumption in the context, was for the readers of this Portal to visit the review, comment (whether it be good or bad), and possibly improve upon the recommendations of said review. I don't truly see how I can force people to vote positively in regards to their own opinion and is completely against the foundation of Wikipedia. Thank you to everyone who interpreted what I said in its rightful context and assumed 'good faith'. Mkdw^talk 18:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article called List of Vancouver roads, in the spirit of what was done with Ottawa and Toronto. It will hopefully be helpful to those who want to complete articles on the major thoroughfares of the city. I gather something similar was done for Burnaby, but of course I can't find it now. Fishhead64 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to have all of the SkyTrain station articles merged into one list. None of them are notable enough to stand on there own. Many other station articles have in the past, been nominated for deletion. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- That's an excellent idea. I can't imagine any editors getting too excited about working on a single station article, and it would seem that to make any one of them comprehensive enough to warrant a whole article, you'd have to get into describing the number of fare machines and location of the garbage cans. I suggest pulling them all together into a list, which looks to be common practice for other cities, and there are lots of examples to draw on. It could be organized by line, include any distinctive characteristics, location, and a fair number of photos (of which the station articles seem to have an abundance). It would be a more useful complement to the main SkyTrain article than all the separate articles, IMO. I started something similar with Stanley Park to try and build an inventory without having to clutter the article too much. Bobanny 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great idea! There are way too many skytrain articles that don't have any notability by themselves. Right now, there isn't enough info that exists about each station themself.Canadianshoper 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article deserves a B or an A — what do you think? Vranak

B at the most. I would personally give it a 'Start" except for the fact that the article is lengthy. The article itself is littered with external links and reads like an advertisement mentioning several non-notable aspects of UBC. Many of the links lead to student run operations. Also there are not nearly enough references and the few that are there are not properly formatted. You may want to try a Wikipedia:Peer Review to gain some more pointers on the article as a whole, and will also be a manditory step before going for a good article review. I also think the pictures are relatively weak and could be bigger. Mkdw^talk 07:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I agree. UBC is more about geography than a bunch of silly clubs. Vranak

Queen Elizabeth Elementary School (New Westminster) has been "prod"-ed. In case there's anything that can redeem it, at the moment I would say it's possibley best placed as a line in a table inSchool District 40 New Westminster Rich Farmbrough, 22:40 7 January 2007 (GMT).

I have deleted the deletion tag.Canadianshoper 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left this comment at the talk page for the Vancouver COTM, but I suspect that as no one's looking at the COTM page, no one is looking at the talk page either. Is this collaboration on its last legs? There are few participants and nothing has really happened in a month and a half. Agent 86 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take this time to thank everyone who worked on the Portal:Vancouver. We finally made it a featured portal. This featured review is comparable to the one Vancouver underwent and we passed with a 10-1 support/oppose vote. That one oppose vote was especially difficult and I am comforted in the fact that our portal was not the only one having problems with that individual. Thank you all again and we're now closing the gap on being one of the most accomplished city wikiprojects! Mkdw^talk 06:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Portal:Vancouver is Wikipedia's 29th most viewed portal according to WikiCharts. The portal is one rank above the Portal:War, 17 ranks above the Portal:Ukraine, 25 ranks above the Portal:United States, and 67 ranks above the Portal:Christianity. Way to go!Mkdw^talk 07:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Jeffpw 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your list is out-of-date. To keep it more up-to-date, you can transclude the following page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/List of city WikiProjects. ^BlankVerse 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that out-of-date. It includes all the ones on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/List of city WikiProjects plus their Canadian parent provincial WikiProjects. Mkdw^talk 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, Marsden-Donnelly harassment case is at Deletion Review again. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Marsden-Donnelly_harassment_case. Kla'quot 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]