Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Instantnood (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 5 April 2007 (→Foo of mainland China categories). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1 2 3

Femicide

How would you feel if I changed the title of the link to Gendercide, which the actual title of the article it links to? --Slp1 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I just followed the lead of someone who added it to the Lepine article, and thought I'd include it here out of spite when it got reverted. Bobanny 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Harbour Centre

Hi Bobanny,

I noticed that you reverted my edit where I removed the claim that Harbour Centre has the highest Air Traffic Control Tower according to the Guinness World Records. However, it is in my opinion, that the previous editor has confused the Harbour Centre with the Vancouver Harbour Control Tower on top of Granville Square (approximately two blocks from Harbour Centre), which holds the highest Air Traffic Control Tower distinction.

Through my research for finding references for the Control Tower atop Granville Square (which I added just yesterday), I did not come across any references to it being in the Harbour Centre - only other individuals who were confused that it may be in the Harbour Centre where in fact, it is on top of Granville Square. Nonetheless, I will take a closer look at additional references to verify that the Control Tower is actually in the Harbour Centre and not Granville Square.

Cheers, Luke! 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Courier article on Misplaced Pages

I am working on a story about the WikiProject Vancouver for the Vancouver Courier newspaper. I would really like to get as much input for the story as possible so that I get a wide variety of opinions. You've been recommended as a good person to talk to by other Wikipedians. And since you're such an active member of the WikiProject Vancouver team, I really hope you'll be able to talk with me for maybe a half hour or so some time this week.

Please email me back with your answer at lavigne.chris(at)gmail.com.

Thanks for your time, Chris

Arrr matey 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. Nothing personal, but I don't like journalists. I notice from your contributions that you've only contacted a few of us, at least through this venue. You can find the complete list of WikiProject Vancouver members here. Bobanny 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It's a shame, though. I think you'd have a lot to offer as far as making the article a better reflection of the whole team. I have contacted other project members through direct email and have now spoken to some, too. Should you change your mind, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Cheers.

Arrr matey 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

More streets, more squares

If you have a min, please check out the latest merge request, which doesn't make a lot of sense, IMO: Category:Streets in Vancouver.--Keefer4 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.Bobanny 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Without addressing your thoughtful concerns, and with a cursory yet nonsensical address of mine, the decision was made to merge back. I have documented and responded to it at the Category talk:Streets and squares in Vancouver talkpage. (I see you've already noticed)..--Keefer4 | Talk 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've chimed in on the DRV log page for Category: Streets in Vancouver. Thanks for the pic, haven't been up there in years. Absolutely irrefutable for the cause of squares in this city-- which I'm pleased to say I'm usually not one.--Keefer4 | Talk 04:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't all for nought :).--Keefer4 | Talk 08:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that that business has passed, I nominated Streets and squares by city to be split. Maybe it's only the beginning. bobanny 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. What I'm )finding annoying in general with all of these things is simply a 'Daily newspaper'-like lack of wiki context/history on these discussions. At some point and after considerable thought I'm probably going to try and advocate a guideline ensuring that links to past deletion/review discussions are permanently posted at the article/cat talkpages and in subsequent review discussions. Sometimes they are, but there are a bodies of discussion/consensus precedents that seem to frequently get summarily dismissed and buried somewhere. I was trying to find, for example the discussion that created the combined streets and squares cat by city but couldn't (if one actually existed), and for that matter any earlier category discussions. Anyway, I'll make sure that this particular nomination won't be soon forgotten. Later.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Streets and squares by city was probably just created one day (Dec 4 2005, according to the history), and not the product of a discussion. But yeah, I agree with the lack of context problem, which is a communication issue for many organizations, especially volunteer projects like this where participation can be so fleeting. It also appears that maintaining categories is a pretty huge job, and I don't understand why the nominations are so often for individual categories, when a much broader discussion is needed, or reams of similar cats have the same issue (How many CfDs later and it's still "Ottawa roads" instead of "Roads in Ottawa" or "Streets in Ottawa.") bobanny 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Architecture book/paper

Hi; I'm "dunning" lot of my stuff, but two occurred to me as perhaps of interest to you. One is a paper by....Ed Gibson, I think the prof's name was - on local architectural styles and how to pick them out; old photocopy/gestetner from class in '79 or so. The other is one of the textooks for that course (Cultural Geography), Identifying American Architecture: A Pictorial guide to Styles and Terms, 1600-1945, John J-G. Bluemsnon, foreward by Sir Nikolaus Pevener, 214 photos, sort of landscape format booklet. I'm keeping only my BC specific stuff, and although Ed's is it does "go" with the Blumenson. I gather you're in Vancouver so if you'd like some resources to work with on architecture/building articles here, let me know maybe where I can drop if off or some other way I can contact you; my email is setup but I know you've chosen not to use that previously.Skookum1 21:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to find that Gibson paper again, now that I've offered it... ;-) It's turn up. In the meantime there's an article from yesterday's NYT which maybe is of interest to you re architecture - link is here.Skookum1 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver

The reason for my closing is that I interpreted the fact that ~90% of Category:Streets and squares by city follows the same naming as a naming standard. From recent reactions it seems that this standard is not all that consensually solid, so I would favor more debate on it. In the meantime, I'm overturning my deletion. HTH! >Radiant< 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea. Thanks! >Radiant< 08:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Foo of mainland China categories

It was a consensus recently reached to undelete and to keep category:economy of mainland China. Regarding the term mainland China, please refer to the evidence that I have presented earler at Misplaced Pages talk:categorisation. The term is not defined purely based on geography. It means the People's Republic of China (PRC) excluding Hong Kong and Macao. The term also excludes territories governed by the Republic of China (ROC), which the PRC claims. You may ask around your friends in Vancouver to testify this. — Instantnood 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (modified 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

Responses can always be surprising if you choose to ask only those who can be extremely biased. What to do with " international system " and the year 1648? — Instantnood 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)