This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Greater Victoria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
Why shouldn't this article be merged with Capital Regional District, British Columbia? Then a redirect could be used. Quite frankly, the conflations of these two pages and the Victoria, British Columbia page are a mess. Any objections if I go ahead and fix things? Fishhead64 07:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
(cc'd to
Talk:Victoria, British Columbia and
Talk:Capital Regional District)
1. Establish as definitively as possible what is considered
Greater Victoria.
2. Then decide whether its article is necessary or whether its theme duplicates much of what is in its component parts/CRD articles. I haven't done a thorough enough analysis yet. If anyone has any cites or thoughts, feel free to share them.
3. If it's established that the
Greater Victoria article is close enough to the
Capital Regional District article by geographic theme-- beyond noting the
Gulf Island differences &etc-- then I wouldn't hesitate to suggest a merge. This would create an article in the vein of
Greater Vancouver Regional District which, one might note, mentions the term 'Greater Vancouver' prominently. A merge does not mean that the material within the
Greater Victoria is gone, but that non-duplicate material would be incorporated, into the CRD article. An automatic REDIRECT would be created, thus allowing the term 'Greater Victoria' to forward to 'Captial Regional District'. Also, for added emphasis, an explanatory note within the final article would state the differences.
4. If it's established that the
Greater Victoria article isn't primarily duplication that could be included in the CRD in the same manner as
Greater Vancouver is forwarded/included in
Greater Vancouver Regional District, then it should be kept on its own merits.
5. This whole thing will probably take many days and weeks. That's just the nature of the beast.
My contention is that RD articles should only be about the administration of the RD, i.e. of the government and its services/facilities and that they and their categories should not be confused with bona fide regions. A lot of the geographic material that's in the CRD article properly belongs in the Greater Victoria article, and the distinction between Greater Victoria not including the southern Gulf Islands is a big distinction, as is the notion that Indian Reserves are not under the jurisdiction of the regional district, nor are provincial parks, nor is CFB Esquimalt. I haven't looked closely at the land boundary towards the CWRD and I"m not enough of an ex-Islander to be able to say whether or not Bamberton, Mill Bay, Shawnigan etc are Greater Victoria or not. Another consideration is that geographic regions have their own category-hierarchy, regional districts have a separate one. If a merge of a region with an RD is done here, it has implications elsewhere, and contradictions. The solution, to me, is to stop treating regional districts as if they were useful geographic subdivisions of BC and instead use them only to discuss what is in the parameters of a regional district, which as is well-known is extremely limited in comparison to other branches of government. They began to be used for Wikipedia largely beacuse they are coterminous with StatsCan's census areas, or rather StatsCan has chosen to use their boundaries for census purposes. This places an undue importance on them and hte mistaken assumption that they are regional govenrments in a stronger sense than they are, and they are utterly useless for categorizing where lakes, mountains etc are, and improper when used for First Nations material expressly because the latter are excluded from the municipal system of government (the exception between in Sehcelt and, presuambly, Nisga'a lands and other more recently-signed treaties). Another similar boundary-vs-reality parallel to Greater Victoria/CRD is just north - the Cowichan Valley Regional District includes lands on the Strait of Juan de Fuca that are not part of the Cowichan Valley region. Similarly the Fraser VAlley Regional District only includes about half of the Fraser Valley, and includes areas expressly not in the Frser Valley. The solution in the latter case is to treat Fraser Valley as the locus of geographic/cultural/historical information, and treat the FVRD article as it should be - an explanation of the Regional District's member governments and constituent EAs and any facilities of parks operated by the RD. And again, it is extremely unseemly to include First Nations material in Regional District articles and categories; provincial parks articles shoudl be categorized with by geographic region categories, or in a perhaps-worthwhile MoE/BC Parks regions category system. Placing a lot of things in RD articles adn categories that don't belong is like placing things in the Diocese of Kamloops or Diocese of New Westminster articles simply because they fall within that boundary. Much more relevant in BC are MoE regions, Forests Districts, et al. At things like LRMPs, RDs are only one of many jurisdictional stakeholders at hte table, and quite generally among the weakest and most toothless....that municipal-type powers of the Islands Trust in the Gulf Islands pre-empt RD authority in those areas, or bypass ir or however it works, is another consideration not just with the Capital Regional District but several others as well. Summing up, Greater Victoria is a place/space, the Capital Regional District is a municipal-type administration spanning it as well as other areas, but it's not a place..... Skookum1 ( talk) 20:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In reference to a discussion started at Talk:Seaspan Marine Corporation#Clarification required can any one living in Victoria tell us what tracks still exist west of the harbour apart from the E&N. Are there any facileties on the harbour front to load/unload rail cars from a car float? The track along Store Street appears to be past history. Map. If there is no car float loading/unloadig facilety in Victoria, where in Nanaimo is it located and where is the corresponding one located in the Vancouver area? Who actually operates/owns the car float. Peter Horn User talk 19:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
If there are people from Greater Victoria still around on Wikipedia, please see Talk:Saanich, British Columbia#Requested move, though my experience is that local input is derided by demands for global citations, and WP:CSG#Places is given short shrift or even denounced. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greater Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Greater Victoria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
Why shouldn't this article be merged with Capital Regional District, British Columbia? Then a redirect could be used. Quite frankly, the conflations of these two pages and the Victoria, British Columbia page are a mess. Any objections if I go ahead and fix things? Fishhead64 07:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
(cc'd to
Talk:Victoria, British Columbia and
Talk:Capital Regional District)
1. Establish as definitively as possible what is considered
Greater Victoria.
2. Then decide whether its article is necessary or whether its theme duplicates much of what is in its component parts/CRD articles. I haven't done a thorough enough analysis yet. If anyone has any cites or thoughts, feel free to share them.
3. If it's established that the
Greater Victoria article is close enough to the
Capital Regional District article by geographic theme-- beyond noting the
Gulf Island differences &etc-- then I wouldn't hesitate to suggest a merge. This would create an article in the vein of
Greater Vancouver Regional District which, one might note, mentions the term 'Greater Vancouver' prominently. A merge does not mean that the material within the
Greater Victoria is gone, but that non-duplicate material would be incorporated, into the CRD article. An automatic REDIRECT would be created, thus allowing the term 'Greater Victoria' to forward to 'Captial Regional District'. Also, for added emphasis, an explanatory note within the final article would state the differences.
4. If it's established that the
Greater Victoria article isn't primarily duplication that could be included in the CRD in the same manner as
Greater Vancouver is forwarded/included in
Greater Vancouver Regional District, then it should be kept on its own merits.
5. This whole thing will probably take many days and weeks. That's just the nature of the beast.
My contention is that RD articles should only be about the administration of the RD, i.e. of the government and its services/facilities and that they and their categories should not be confused with bona fide regions. A lot of the geographic material that's in the CRD article properly belongs in the Greater Victoria article, and the distinction between Greater Victoria not including the southern Gulf Islands is a big distinction, as is the notion that Indian Reserves are not under the jurisdiction of the regional district, nor are provincial parks, nor is CFB Esquimalt. I haven't looked closely at the land boundary towards the CWRD and I"m not enough of an ex-Islander to be able to say whether or not Bamberton, Mill Bay, Shawnigan etc are Greater Victoria or not. Another consideration is that geographic regions have their own category-hierarchy, regional districts have a separate one. If a merge of a region with an RD is done here, it has implications elsewhere, and contradictions. The solution, to me, is to stop treating regional districts as if they were useful geographic subdivisions of BC and instead use them only to discuss what is in the parameters of a regional district, which as is well-known is extremely limited in comparison to other branches of government. They began to be used for Wikipedia largely beacuse they are coterminous with StatsCan's census areas, or rather StatsCan has chosen to use their boundaries for census purposes. This places an undue importance on them and hte mistaken assumption that they are regional govenrments in a stronger sense than they are, and they are utterly useless for categorizing where lakes, mountains etc are, and improper when used for First Nations material expressly because the latter are excluded from the municipal system of government (the exception between in Sehcelt and, presuambly, Nisga'a lands and other more recently-signed treaties). Another similar boundary-vs-reality parallel to Greater Victoria/CRD is just north - the Cowichan Valley Regional District includes lands on the Strait of Juan de Fuca that are not part of the Cowichan Valley region. Similarly the Fraser VAlley Regional District only includes about half of the Fraser Valley, and includes areas expressly not in the Frser Valley. The solution in the latter case is to treat Fraser Valley as the locus of geographic/cultural/historical information, and treat the FVRD article as it should be - an explanation of the Regional District's member governments and constituent EAs and any facilities of parks operated by the RD. And again, it is extremely unseemly to include First Nations material in Regional District articles and categories; provincial parks articles shoudl be categorized with by geographic region categories, or in a perhaps-worthwhile MoE/BC Parks regions category system. Placing a lot of things in RD articles adn categories that don't belong is like placing things in the Diocese of Kamloops or Diocese of New Westminster articles simply because they fall within that boundary. Much more relevant in BC are MoE regions, Forests Districts, et al. At things like LRMPs, RDs are only one of many jurisdictional stakeholders at hte table, and quite generally among the weakest and most toothless....that municipal-type powers of the Islands Trust in the Gulf Islands pre-empt RD authority in those areas, or bypass ir or however it works, is another consideration not just with the Capital Regional District but several others as well. Summing up, Greater Victoria is a place/space, the Capital Regional District is a municipal-type administration spanning it as well as other areas, but it's not a place..... Skookum1 ( talk) 20:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In reference to a discussion started at Talk:Seaspan Marine Corporation#Clarification required can any one living in Victoria tell us what tracks still exist west of the harbour apart from the E&N. Are there any facileties on the harbour front to load/unload rail cars from a car float? The track along Store Street appears to be past history. Map. If there is no car float loading/unloadig facilety in Victoria, where in Nanaimo is it located and where is the corresponding one located in the Vancouver area? Who actually operates/owns the car float. Peter Horn User talk 19:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
If there are people from Greater Victoria still around on Wikipedia, please see Talk:Saanich, British Columbia#Requested move, though my experience is that local input is derided by demands for global citations, and WP:CSG#Places is given short shrift or even denounced. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greater Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)