Talk:Vancouver - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geografreak (talk | contribs) at 19:39, 5 December 2021 (→Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:39, 5 December 2021 by Geografreak (talk | contribs) (→Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Q: Why is Vancouver not a disambiguation page?

A: Please read the essay Vancouver, Why No Disambiguation?

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 6, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 8, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
October 19, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 23, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 22, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 13, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted
June 25, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 2, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 16, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Former featured article

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:

Template:WPCan10kPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Canada: British Columbia / Vancouver / Communities Top‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Vancouver (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Olympics: Paralympics Mid‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Paralympics task force. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Template:WP1.0

Template:Vital article Template:Hidden infoboxes 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).

Requests

Someone DELETE the paragraph in sports starting with "Vancouver has an adult obesity..." Obesity stats do not belong here Yahkgirl (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2021 (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)

It takes a lot of scrolling to get through all this content can it be simplified? Yahkgirl (talk) 22:08, 10 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 gives an elementary error in the first sentence. Curiocurio (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That's true, my bad. I found the source on Google Scholar and made the hasty assumption that it was therefore scholarly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Land claims are a notable current issue at the local level, especially in BC, and reflect an important aspect of local history. I've provided a better reference. Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There was rough consensus at Canadian Wikipedians' notice board not to include "unceded" in the lead. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That consensus applied only to communities where the use of the term "unceded" does not reflect NPOV. In Vancouver and most of BC, it does. Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree - I read that conversation carefully and there was a pretty even split between editors who felt it should be included in the lead and those who felt it shouldn't be. Furthermore policy isn't made by this kind of noticeboard discussion anyway. Policy is that each article cover aspects of the topic of that article with due weight. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Unceded should be left in because inside the municipality most Federal government media releases start with "... traditional unceded territory... " TheKevlar 00:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not follow what municipalities and government agencies do. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It is noteworthy regardless of what some Wikipedians claim. This is a question: Are we here to judge or record history? TheKevlar 20:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Sustainability

It is time to clean up and expand this section. There is a discussion at the Canadian Wikipedians noticeboard regarding this project. It is a multi-city effort where we will be doing the same for other major cities in Canada. TheKevlar 16:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sustainability is not a section expected at community articles according to WP:CCSG. If you want to start doing this across Canadian communities, I suggest you start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Canadian communities/Structure guideline and place a notice of said discussion here, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Canadian communities, and at Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board to catch a wider audience. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

BC place

Under the sports and recreation heading, the image and caption of BC place is outdated. It now has the retractable roof instead of the cloth dome which was prior to 2010. Nikolaih 18:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Vancouver. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

I want to change the picture from the skyline to a beautiful collage of the city's landmarks I made. I just want to enlighten people of the landmarks of the city. Thank you for your answer Geografreak (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories: