Template:VP Participate

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: British Columbia / Vancouver / Communities Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related This page is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This page is supported by WikiProject Vancouver. This page is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Archives

2006– Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov Feb 2007 Mar 2007– Current

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

1) I would like to know why the neutrality of the "Burrard Bridge" article is now contested. I, not a Vancouverite, am principal editor of it, who reshaped what was there, clarifying the engineering, historical, and site information (inserting illustrative photogaphs). I also separated and put in chronological order reports on ongoing developments regarding the bicycle lane issue. I'm happy to see that subsequent contributions to that history have followed the format. I visit it from time to time to make sure that notes added are all *documented* with links to independent press, civic and other public sources. Contents of these will disagree among themselves and vary in accuracy, neutrality, relevance. Such is the nature of public discussion. That way the article serves as an updated history of a public planning situation of a kind that occurs in many countries, also as a good Wiki source for those who want information about current developments there. Query: therefore, what in the *editing of this article* is considered non-neutral?

(I also deleted vanitas photos, leaving those in text that are illustrative of the text. Thus the old complaint about that on the Discussion page is out of date.)

2) Why does it have a "Low Importance" ranking? What would the Project require of an article on this Bridge, demonstrably important to Vancouver in many ways, to give it a better ranking? Alethe (talk)

This is currently a redirect to West Point Grey and it shouldn't be; its source-use is the physical point, where Wreck Beach is, but to my surprise BCGNIS has only Point Grey Beach, which has me wondering exactly where that is. But "Point Grey" is also in common use for at least on electoral riding, and also for a well-known school, and isn't just West Point Grey, i.e. insofar as within the City of Vancouver goes; the physical Point Grey of course isn't, although that usage was also generally applied to hte whole headland approaching Point Grey - which indeed why West 10th and the area north of it are caleld Point Grey; the "West" was added because the Alma-Jericho area was also part of Point Grey....and then there was Point Grey (municipality) wasn't there? Also NB South Vancouver (city) needs making.....cites from local atlases and book on teh point and other uses are needed to make that redirect into a proper article and if it's not a disambig then Point Grey (disambiguation) seems called for.Skookum1 (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing from the mention of the Spanish and George Vancouver is the rendezvous off Point Grey, and how Spanish Banks got its name; this is iconic in Vancouver history - and isn't it one of the murals in the Ledge? Or the Courthouse? I'll see what I can find to cite it, should just be in teh Vancouver Expedition article already.Skookum1 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, with this edit, your wikiproject banner was eliminated from your instructions by a member of WPCANADA who is not on your membership rolls. Do you assent to the change, or should that be reverted? {{vancouverproject}} still exists, and will continue to function, but it was completely removed from your instructions (instead of the two coexisting). 76.66.202.72 (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. -- œ^™ 06:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPCanada appears to be implicitly wanting people to replace your banner per Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment ; where your banner is listed under other sections with  Done to indicate total replacement of other banners. 65.93.12.108 (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Vancouver articles have been nominated to be renamed Greater Vancouver, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 19

65.95.14.34 (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Vancouver Canucks (WHL) the predecessor of the Vancouver Canucks (NHL) ? the WHL team stopped playing in 1970, when the NHL team was formed. There are comments at the WHL team talk page that indicates that it switched over/rebuilt, with some people remaining in place as transition. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Vancouver Canucks#Early Years for the whole story. Mkdw^talk 23:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my fellow Vancouver Wikipedians. I think it would be great if we all could get together to celebrate Wikipedia's 10th anniversary on Jan. 15. I am trying to work out a meeting location in Vancouver; other Lower Mainland locations are possible depending on responses. We can discuss the meetup at this page at the official organizing area: [1] Please RSVP if you are interested! I am told that swag such as t-shirts and buttons will be involved. Hope to see you there! The Interior(Talk) 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like fun, I'm interested. -- œ^™ 16:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why this article is classified as "low importance". In reality, this is a program that has changes many youth's lives in Vancouver. Also, I would like to know how this article can be improved to meet the standards of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.49.125 (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reversed User:arctic.gnomes hyphen->dash changes to the {{VancouverNeighbourhoods}} template, but can't seem to get to be able to "revert" the titles of the various neighbourhood articles that have been affected by the misapplication of ENDASH, wholesale, across too much of Wikipedia, by non-RM mandated moves, supposedly "uncontroversial" when really they are, very much so. Arctic.gnome's stated rationale was that when a hyphen usage infers "and" or "to" then the endash should be substituted, but these aren't "and/to" situations, and a key section of ENDASH which nobody seemed to carry out or respect, though giving Bible-writ weight to other sections, and committing mass executions of hyphens by the thousands, all unwarranted, is that hyphenated names are to remain hyphenated; that passage has been amended to specify placenames, but it was already the intent of user:Ozob who authored the section that all hyphenated placenames are meant. And these are not usages as in "Grandview and Woodland" or "Hastings and Sunrise" or "Renfrew and Collingwood", not in the slightest; these neighbourhood names are derived from school-names, e.g. Hastings Park and Sunrise Elementaries; "Woodland" is not even a neighbourhood so how can it be "and" to anything?? These are just names concocted by the city for the offically-mandated neighbourhoods, they are not "Renfrew neighbourhood and Collingwood neighbourhood" in origin. As many know, I have a similar bitch about the hyphenization of regional district names, but will post about that separately; all these were moved without RMs and without discussion by this WikiProject or anywhere else in WP:CAnada, and the mis-citing of DASH has become nearly a religion and it's got to stop, and its damage reversed....all "dashed items" in Category:Neighbourhoods in Vancouver should be moved back forthwith; if someone insists they should be "dashed", let them launch an RM instead of me having to fix something taht never should have been broken....Skookum1 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get an admin to delete the redirects so you can move the page back to the hyphenated titles. You can use Template:Db-move for this, but I strongly suggest talking to arctic.gnome about it first. -- œ^™ 21:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, no answer yet....according to what I've been told, if they were speedied without an RM, the proper procedure is to move them back and, and only then, should the dashes have been proposed by RM. He just cited MOS, but he mis-cited MOSDASH as too many people have done.Skookum1 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to me this term means a local expression, or sentiment/attitude/peculiarity, it doesn't mean an architectural/planning style-label about how great a place the West End is.....There's no book on "Vancouverisms" (i.e. about the culture/verbal context of the place) but kinda makes me wish there were so there'd be a reason to dab this obscure and not-slightly promotional usage (promoting a planning agenda, and certain firms) to Vancouverism (urban planning).Skookum1 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I note that there are 1199 talk pages in the above category. As this represents about two thirds of all the articles in the Project, I'm wondering what utility the category has to the project and what it means. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions may shed some light: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2006_December_31#Category:Miscellaneous_Vancouver_categories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2006_October_21#Category:Miscellaneous_Vancouver_articles. Apparantely the category is used to keep track of talk pages that have not yet been sorted into a category for a specific adjacent city. Although that was from back in 2006 and I'm unsure if this is still the case.. Indeed this should probably be renamed to something like Category:Unsorted WikiProject Vancouver articles. -- œ^™ 04:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water Street, Vancouver has been prodded for deletion. Curiously, an American editor has rated it as low importance for Vancouver. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable. -- œ^™ 07:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]