| Revision as of 17:46, 2 July 2021 editMagnolia677 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,279 edits →"Unceded" in the lead: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:12, 2 July 2021 edit undoCuriocurio (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,348 edits →"Unceded" in the lead: CommentTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
| :::It isn't the case that the entire province is unceded; more importantly, different groups have claims in different areas. Claims specific to a location should be discussed in that location's article. ] (]) 17:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC) | :::It isn't the case that the entire province is unceded; more importantly, different groups have claims in different areas. Claims specific to a location should be discussed in that location's article. ] (]) 17:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Why is a land claim notable in the article? ] (]) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC) | ::::Why is a land claim notable in the article? ] (]) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I think unceded is appropriate in the lead as politicians and many local institutions make opening acknowledgements. The sources could be improved though, as the Smithsonian Magazine reference isn't "scholarly" and makes an elementary error in the first sentence. ] (]) 19:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:12, 2 July 2021
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vancouver article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Vancouver is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 8, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Vancouver received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Template:Vital article Template:Hidden infoboxes
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vancouver article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 12 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seanlukas (article contribs).
Montage
Hello, I have noticed that a couple of the images in the montage are from nearly two decades ago now, and I find it more suitable to update the images to ones that were taken within the last decade. Here is my suggestion:
_-_1.JPG)
From top, left to right: Yaletown, Robson Square, Millennium Gate in Vancouver's Chinatown, University of British Columbia, Lions Gate Bridge, totem poles in Stanley Park.
--Ikon21 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think the Millennium Gate picture is too dark, and The Lions Gate bridge photo doesn't bring out the bridge clearly enough. Just personal preferences. Curiocurio (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed the Lion's Gate Bridge image. As for the chinatown gate, it was already included in the montage. --Ikon21 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- That's great! Curiocurio (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Montages are a bad idea. They typically show things that only locals know, with no explanation of their significance, and with images too small to help the reader learn anything. (NOTE: I have said this in several other city articles. Not singling out Vancouver.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you suggesting getting rid of montages altogether and replacing it with a single image or something? Montages provide the readers with a glimpse of the city's most famous sights and if an image from the montage were to catch somebody's eye, then they can go over to the caption and click on the article about the subject and learn more. --Ikon21 (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Get rid of montages all together. The article has plenty of other photos to catch a reader's attention. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikon21: "Did I check the Talk page?" No I hadn't, and didn't even know a discussion had been started, and now I can see why... because you waited a whole TWO DAYS for discussion on the montage before changing it. Classy. That's like TransLink level of consultation. sigh —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding of this, let's not start an edit war. Please keep the conversation a bit less in shambles. Look at San Francisco, see how they handled the inclusion of a montage. Actually, there is no reason to have a montage as this article has multiple pictures of various landmarks scattered, so audience may not be generally inclined to bother about these landmarks as would-be-tourists do. But there needs to be a consensus on how to deal with this, especially on which image to replace the montage with, like replacing the montage with an image of downtown Vancouver. Lemonreader (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Lemonreader: @HiLo48:, I have made a bold edit and a formal proposal below to switch to a single image. Input on this would be appreciated. TrailBlzr (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding of this, let's not start an edit war. Please keep the conversation a bit less in shambles. Look at San Francisco, see how they handled the inclusion of a montage. Actually, there is no reason to have a montage as this article has multiple pictures of various landmarks scattered, so audience may not be generally inclined to bother about these landmarks as would-be-tourists do. But there needs to be a consensus on how to deal with this, especially on which image to replace the montage with, like replacing the montage with an image of downtown Vancouver. Lemonreader (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikon21: "Did I check the Talk page?" No I hadn't, and didn't even know a discussion had been started, and now I can see why... because you waited a whole TWO DAYS for discussion on the montage before changing it. Classy. That's like TransLink level of consultation. sigh —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Montage too long
| Vancouver | |
|---|---|
| City | |
| City of Vancouver | |
| Skyline of downtown Vancouver |
The montage of this article -- while it may be aesthetically pleasing to some -- is far too long. This issue is especially true for mobile users, who make up more than half of our readers. The current infobox montage takes up almost the entire screen when reading on an iPhone with regular font and zoom. This causes the reader to have to scroll even further through the already long settlement infobox just to get to the text of the article.
I propose using only one image in the infobox. While this is a proposal that is unique and perhaps wouldn't suit other cities, it is evident that the first image of Vancouver's skyline, featuring the harbour in the foreground and the city's entire skyline in the background, is by far the most iconic and identifiable image of Vancouver in the current montage. The other images in the montage are quite distinctive in comparison, and would be far better served being moved to sections of the article specific to them.
There have been similar discussions at Talk:San Francisco over the years about the San Francisco infobox image. The consensus reached there was to only use one, iconic, and easily identifiable image, which is what I am proposing here (example on the right). — TrailBlzr (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with this. Montages typically show things that only locals know, with no explanation of their significance, and with images too small to help the reader learn anything. (NOTE: I have said this in several other city articles. Not singling out Vancouver.) Unfortunately though, I'm not sure the single image is all that much better. It's a great pic, but all cities have skylines, many of them on water. I'm not a local (planning to visit later this year, hence my interest), so I don't know what to suggest. Could you perhaps get a shot with snow on the nearby mountains? HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Seconded. A montage is nice, but not really needed in this article as unlike New York, which has more recognizable landmarks, Vancouver or San Francisco simply offer nothing of popular consciousness. Either way, a single image is best suited for this article. Lemonreader (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Change visible minority to ethnic minority
Discriminatory and inaccurate use of the term visible minority. This should be changed to the term Ethnic minority. White should also be changed to European, since White is a colonial term and ethnicity that does not represent non-Anglo Saxon Europeans. White is also a term that is used as both in the context of race, people can appear racially white and not be from Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.114.195.73 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done Statistics Canada as the source is not discriminatory and thus the term is accurate. StatCan uses the term "visible minority" and changing it to something else would be wrong. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
"Unceded" in the lead
Hi everyone, FYI as Magnolia677 pointed out, there is a discussion at the Canadian Wikipedians noticeboard regarding the use of "unceded" in the lead section of articles about Canadian cities. I have just commented there regarding Vancouver. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- In the case of Vancouver, as in most of BC, it is uncontroversial to characterize the land as unceded. Status of First Nations treaties in British Columbia provides some context; the BC Treaty Commission's FAQ provides some more. Cobblet (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- If the entire province is "unceded", this information would be more appropriate on the provincial article, instead of added to individual articles about places in the province. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't the case that the entire province is unceded; more importantly, different groups have claims in different areas. Claims specific to a location should be discussed in that location's article. Cobblet (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why is a land claim notable in the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think unceded is appropriate in the lead as politicians and many local institutions make opening acknowledgements. The sources could be improved though, as the Smithsonian Magazine reference isn't "scholarly" and makes an elementary error in the first sentence. Curiocurio (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why is a land claim notable in the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't the case that the entire province is unceded; more importantly, different groups have claims in different areas. Claims specific to a location should be discussed in that location's article. Cobblet (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- If the entire province is "unceded", this information would be more appropriate on the provincial article, instead of added to individual articles about places in the province. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use Canadian English
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Canada-related articles
- Top-importance Canada-related articles
- B-Class British Columbia articles
- Top-importance British Columbia articles
- B-Class Vancouver articles
- Top-importance Vancouver articles
- B-Class Canadian communities articles
- Top-importance Canadian communities articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages
- B-Class Olympics articles
- Mid-importance Olympics articles
- B-Class Paralympics articles
- Paralympics task force articles
- WikiProject Olympics articles