Talk:Vancouver - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 0xDeadbeef (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 12 February 2023 (rm article distinctions, prepare for bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:30, 12 February 2023 by 0xDeadbeef (talk | contribs) (rm article distinctions, prepare for bot)(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

Template:Vital article

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:

Please 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 / The 10,000 Challenge 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.
	This article was created or improved during The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada, which started in November 2016 and is ongoing. You can help!!

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

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 6, 2004, April 6, 2008, April 6, 2009, April 6, 2011, April 6, 2017, and April 6, 2018.

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)

That is fair enough, I see and accept the value in having only one skyline photograph for the infobox. Personally I am a big fan of multiple images in the skyline as I feel it is more informative of a city as it reflects the diversity of locations, attractions, history and culture of that place which in turn presents a more fully representative identity of the community in question. I think that is why it has become so common place for city articles. However even I recognize the limitations of this position and that usually 'less is more'.--Discott (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi! currently in the montage, there are two pictures of the Vancouver skyline, which is a little excess don't you think? And UBC and West Vancouver are not really part of the City of Vancouver. There is already a page for Metro Vancouver where those images could be placed. Could the montage please be changed so that they include the very well known landmarks such as the ones I put here? Or just straight up use this wonderful montage which is already used on simple Misplaced Pages. Thanks! 2001:569:7E7F:8000:D8EC:1231:30DE:DEF5 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is more of a request for discussion rather than a specific edit request, so I'm seeing the template to answered. Don't let that stop discussion on which images to use in the montage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The previous consensus has been not to have a montage at all. Part of the reason is that they don't work well on cell phones. Curiocurio (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't get what exactly doesn't work well on cell phones. A photo montage does not bother and does not make the mobile experience worse just because we need to scroll a bit more. In fact, the infobox itself, even without any images, is already long and requires the user to scroll to get to the text of the article the same way as with a photo montage. The solution would be a collapsible infobox on mobile devices and the user would have the option of seeing it only if they wanted to. The use of just one image in the infobox does not really solve the problem, in addition, typical images perpetuate stereotypes about cities and often show only tourist or natural points that sometimes are not even part of the city exactly. The most appropriate would be a set of photos of different areas of the city because that would be a more faithful representation. We should also have some standardization of this across all pages about locations, not a consensus decided by a few users on each article's discussion page. 200.242.43.202 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Done: I added these changes in. It was very clear what they wanted to change about the article. 2 photos were not even of the Vancouver city proper.(UBC is not part of the city, and North Vancouver is a separate city). 2 other photos were also depicting the same skyline. Thanks to 2001:569:7E7F:8000:D8EC:1231:30DE:DEF5 for providing links to the better images! Deathying (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Mary Ellen Smith not first woman in prov legislature in Canada

Smith was third woman MLA in Canada, not the first. Alberta elected two in 1917 - Louise McKinney and Roberta MacAdams 68.150.222.51 (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Title should be Vancouver B.C.

According to wikipedia "Vancouver, Washington" was incorporated in 1867. Gastown was the name of this town before it was renamed some 20 years later in 1886 to Vancouver, British Columbia according to wikipedia "Vancouver".

Let us be consistent. There are at least two Vancouvers and the reader should easily identify which one is being addressed. Regor23 (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The name only really would cause confusion for people in the Portland area, in Seattle I've only ever heard The Washington one be specified. I think most people in the world would assume a major world city and not a large Portland suburb when they see Vancouver. Always beleive in hope (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion of this topic on the talk page under "Frequently Asked Questions". Curiocurio (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The picture of Vancouver’s skyline is from 2006

Can we get an updated skyline photo from 2023? Why are all the pictures of Vancouver from the day this wiki page was made 17 years ago? 70.79.137.94 (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Categories: