![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Changed population from 2 mil to 2.5 mil.I added Greater Vancouver's population with Fraser vally regional districts population.When one adds both,Van-2.2 mil ,Fraser val-300,000=2.5 million.
As per comments on Talk:Demographics of Vancouver and Talk:Vancouver concerning demographics, the population section here could include an outline of the ethnic composition of the Lower Mainland's various communities; I'm thinking of the post-war Dutch and German, incl. Mennonite, belt from Langley through to Chilliwack (it overlaps into Mission a bit, w. Germans also in Maple Ridge historically); Mission was very ethnic, pre and post war (it had the largest Japanese population other than Richmond and Vancouver, as well as a large French Canadian element that never preserved French; and a mix of also anglicized Italians, Poles, Finns, Ukrainians, Norwegians, Doukhobours, Hungarians, First Nations etc moreso than elsewhere (other than parts of the Interior); also a strong British-from-Britain component. Needless to say multiculturalism seemed a bit odd and artificial when it came along as an official agenda; we already lived that way without being self-conscious about it, and foreign accents were so common you just accepted them (nearly always parents only, until the Sikhs came in large numbers in the late '60s). Anyway, the resilience of Dutch identity is worth note (not just meaning the Zalm, but a way of life and values, of the conservative variety rather than Dutch liberalism now associated with Holland) in Langley, Aldergrove, Abby, Sardis; likewise the Mennonites; non-Menonnite Germans on the other hand tend to completely assimilate, and aren't as religious for the most part. The valley is also the long-time historic focus of the Sikh community, particularly in Abbotsford which was and is the site of the first Gurdwara in BC, vintage 1900s; Newton, Abbotsford, Mission and Chilliwack have as significant Sikh communities as Punjabi Market, though not the marketing identity (well, except for Newton, almost...). Then of course there's the Persian community concentrated on the North Shore, and increasingly in the West End The particular character of old New West also has demographic issue in terms of its ethnic and class composition (btw its Chinatown was the largest on the mainland from the 1850s until the 1890s when it was destroyed in that city's Great Fire and never rebuilt; Barkerville's Chinatown may have been larger 1862-1870s but there are no exact figures). It's occurred to me while writing this, also, that in all demographics sections there should be some class/social geography such as New West's Queens Park being an upper-crust enclave, or North Burnaby vs South Burnaby - the concentration of Italians and Croatians in North Burnaby, the more complex mix in South Burnaby, the more swanky areas clustered around Burnaby Mountain and Cariboo Hill-Deer Lake. The transient student population of the city and the GVRD, Lower Mainland etc respectively might also be interesting to work out. Also the prison population of the valley towns (the prisons are major economic engines in Mission and Abbotsford, just as the BC Pen was at one time in New West; but less so in Maple Ridge and Kent). Skookum1 09:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I just created a map showing the strict definition of the Lower Mainland, using a NASA Visible Earth image which is public domain; I'm not a graphic artist/mapmaker and so it could maybe be better looking; I also haven't put city-names on it, only the boundary.
, and to show areas sometimes included (Hope, Chilliwack River, Howe Sound/Lions Bay)
. I can also make a basemap that has eneough room to show the Lower Mainland EcoRegion (which AFAIK includes the Sunshine Coast, but really is an MoE administrative definition/district) but I'll have to be reminded of what the differences are. On the existing map, the northern boundary could just be a straight line from West Vancouver-Howe Sound across northern Maple Ridge and Mission to Agassiz-Rosedale, but other than northern Mission I've followed pretty much the line of settlement and the line where the mountains "break" into the Lower Mainland; in a strict, quasi-legal sense, the northern boundary should probably coincide with the New Westminster Land District but I don't have that map handy so went with this for a draft. Comments on what else should be on this map welcome - I don't want to clutter it with city names - obviously Vancouver, Abbostford, and Chilliwack for orientation; but "who" else, and what else? I'll load the basemap here, which is an excerpt of a much larger map currently used for Monashee Mountains; my excerpt roughly coincides with a 1:400,000 map of SW BC produced by MoE which reaches over to and including Kamloops and Kelowna, and as far north as Clinton; I'll upload that to Wikimedia Commons so it's genrally available and will come back to post the link to that item here later. Skookum1 04:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the Vancouver-Kamloops sat-map mentioned above, as loaded into Wikimedia Commons. The cloud front above Logan Lake and the bits of cumulus - maybe thunderstorms - north of Kamloops I can't do much about short of pixel-by-pixel retouching edits; another source image may not have these bits of cloud cover; I'll check around. Skookum1 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Some folks keep changing the population in the lead sentence of the article from 2.2 M to 2.5 M. However, they do not change the reference, so the reference says the number is from the 2001 Census, which is incorrect. The higher number also conflicts with the article's section on Population which summarizes the population according to the 2001 Census. As I have said in more than one edit summary, if you want to change the population in the lead, fine, but you will have to change the reference to the 2006 Census. That isn't difficult, but you also have to change the entry in the Population section, which isn't so easy as you have to add the numbers. I know, I've tried. If you are not up to that, I would suggest we put a request to the folks at WikiProject Vancouver to see if someone can update it. Sunray 22:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Is Hope, British Columbia not considered part of the Lower Mainland? I always thought of it as the eastern edge of the Lower Mainland. Canuck85 ( talk) 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would definitely not include Hope in the Lower Mainland, by the terminology I grew up with the Lower Mainland would end somewhere around Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge (which as a kid we would already have considered the Fraser Valley), then the Fraser Valley (ie definitely wouldn't include Agassiz, Chilliwack, Harrison, etc as Lower Mainland), then the Fraser Canyon which would include Hope. I grew up in Coquitlam. I'm sure my relatives in the interior would have a different opinion though they referred to anything from say Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge onwards as 'down at the coast.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 ( talk) 19:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The coords given by BCGNIS are roughly on Boundary Road, and conform to the Vancouver-perception, which coming from Mission I can tell you is just plain wrong (as are many of Vancouver's perceptions about the rest of the Lower Mainland). Unofficial coords I'd place somewhere around Aldergrove or Abbotsford/Matsqui. I disagree with the BCGNIS comment about hte rest of the province considering "south of Whistler" to be in teh Lower Mainland, partly because people from Squamish and Whistler (where I've also lived) consider themselves outside of it. I'm hoping to find a historical description somewhere, i.e. from the term's early provenance in 19th C. histories of the province. For now the coords are at least cited; if someone feels OK about the OR needed to adjust them to somewhere suitable, like say those of Matsqui Village, that would be more accurate; there's no need to factor in Squamish/Whistler - the historical point there is before the building of Hwy 99 north of Horseshoe Bay all those places were decidedly in the "upper country", and you had to take a ferry toget there. Hope is definitely the eastern limit, though (see prevoius section). Skookum1 ( talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
"While earthquakes are common in British Columbia and adjacent coastal waters, most are minor in energy release or are sufficiently remote to have little effect on populated areas." This is inaccurate and fundamentally misleading. While recent earthquakes may have been small, the underlying plate tectonics (subduction zone) mean that very large earthquakes are inevitable. These would be much larger than those expected in California, for example. Here are some references to help you in correcting this. Muchado ( talk) 02:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone had biased this section around municipalities, but much of the LM is not in them, and within them and spanning their borders are various well-known placenames; I've expanded the list and ditched the artificial classification by regional district (as opposed to school district, forest district etc). As a region article, this page actually doesn't need this list, which could be a separate List of settlements in the Lower Mainland as it will be quite lengthy once fully expanded. Modern-day municipal agglomerations are only that, modern-day agglomerations, they do not reflect "communities" or even "settlements", but conveniences of governance; the actual settlements/communities are a reflection of the area's history and identity. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, let's not make an edit war out of this. I do not regard it as trivial to make it clear that communities may be regarded as part of the Lower Mainland without being on the mainland - yet mainland remains one criterion for inclusion - for neither Bowen Island nor Vancouver Island are included by any source yet found. Many people might easily wonder whether Sea Island, not being on the mainland, is in the Lower Mainland. There is no harm done by including this information as a point of clarification, and I have seen no reason to exclude it other than your assessment of its "triviality". -- JimWae ( talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to your example, Manhattan is not considered part of the mainland. I am NOT thinking of foreign speakers, but perhaps more of Americans arriving at YVR (which is surrounded by lots of salty water) wondering if they are in the Lower Mainland or not. There is no harm done in being clear about this AND I am NOT suggesting that YVR is not on the Lower Mainland. It's this kind of deletionism of relevant material that can make working on this project less than wonderful. -- JimWae ( talk) 20:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
repeat: I am NOT suggesting that YVR is not on the Lower Mainland - not in any way. I am specifiying that islands ARE included-- JimWae ( talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You are presenting arguments for the inclusion of islands. I do not disagree with inclusion of Sea Island, nor the several others. Should the article include the arguments or the statement? I am thinking that clarification is called for, for someone such as the New Yorker who would be considered ignorant if he said Manhattan was on the mainland. Our BC usage is a somewhat unusual stretch of the usage of "mainland". Even if the stretch is slight, clarity does no more harm than obscurity. -- JimWae ( talk) 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Mainland: a large mass of land that forms the main part of a country but does not include any islands belonging to the country. Mainland: the main land mass of a country or continent; as distinguished from an island or peninsula. We are not talking about continents here, so Montreal and Newfoundland (and Greenland for that matter) being part of North America are irrelevant. Ridiculing NYers does not help your argument-- JimWae ( talk) 22:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
BC local usage of "Lower Mainland" is in opposition to the use of "mainland" as described in most (and, maybe, all) dictionaries. You cannot simply dismiss dictionaries here in favour of your personal preferences. Pointing out that islands are included in "Lower Mainland" adds clarity & does no harm to the article. I happen to have a copy of that New Yorker cover, but your bringing up the legendary "insularity" of New Yorkers is not relevant to this discussion. The comments directed at me personally also do you no good. When discussing usage of "mainland", citing usages of "continent" is quite indecisive. -- JimWae ( talk) 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It does not go against common usage to say Lake Champlain is a lake on the mainland, while Lake Ronkonkama is not. It DOES go against common usage (which is what dictionaries are an attempt to capture) to say that Sea Island is on the mainland. There is no absurdity in pointing out to the reader that the proper name "Lower Mainland" also includes islands. Simply ignoring the ordinary meanings of words as presented in dictionaries, and not specifying the BC usage is slightly unusual, does not serve the reader. I have nowhere suggested we give an exhaustive list of the islands, and you are repeatedly arguing against a position I have not even taken. -- JimWae ( talk) 20:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have never said any islands need be named, and have proposed only one example be given. An example is not necessary, but reasonable. Your "parabolic" remarks about naming all of them (and about continents [even Iceland is often considered part of Europe, and who doubts Vancouver Island is part of North America?] [you are using an incomplete analogy while calling my point specious]) is what is specious, as have been most of your remarks & personal comments directed at me. BC usage of "mainland" in "Lower Mainland" differs from common usage. It is not an "English idiom", it is a "BC idiom". Unless you can demonstrate it is a well-understood "English idiom", the divergence from dictionary usage is notable -- JimWae ( talk) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, this discussion is going nowhere but downhill. The closest I have ever come to commenting on you personally was when I said "Ridiculing NYers does not help your argument", which technically does not even say you actually did that. You have repeatedly tried to make this about me, my grasp of the English language, and my understanding of the world, and recently even irrationally accused me of dumping on a group of people for the way they use language. -- JimWae ( talk) 06:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
|
I propose adding to the lede a sentence such as:
Skookum1 has objected to this, and reverted me twice.
There are 3 issues here:
1. Your claim that it is a variance in standard usage is NONSENSE. It IS a standard usage when the term "mainland" refers to a region, not to a speicifrically-defined dictionary "mainland". Capitalized or not (and there are other, cismontane Canadian editors, who will assert that th BC-capitalized usage "the Mainland" is also incorrect and not "standard usage". YOu're trying to apply a strict geographic definition, but the fact is that the operative definition underlying the construction "Lower Mainland" is the STANDARD MEANING of "the mainland" referring to a REGION, i.e. anything that's not one of the coastal islands; i.e. your strict definition is a LANDFORM....but the source meaning is THE REGION. 2. There are different government usages defining administrative regions named for the region, e.g. the Ministry of Environment's definition does include the Sunshine Coast, which is on the mainland, but this is not part of the STANDARD USAGE of "Lower Mainland". The same is true of the RCMP's administrative region, and of the administrative affiliation known as Metro Vancouver (nb which is different from the notion of " Greater Vancouver", though also often misused to mean the region, while it is actually a NAME of a government and though including the term "Metro" includes areas which are not metropolitan at all (e.g. the rural areas of the Fraser Valley and also the montane wilderness overlooking the lowlands). 3.This entire discussion is picayune and rooted in your attempt to add a badly-worded redundancy to the article (which was not the same as what you're provided above) and falls in the CFWT category of wikipedian absurdities. Go ahead, no doubt your RFC will find some admin less interested in relevance than in dictionary-cherrypicking; you've completely dissed all the counter-examples I've provided and summarized them as a lengthy personal attack on myself. while claiming you're being attacked yourself; whereas really what you're doing is just making an inane argument insulting as well.... 4. The core point here is that there is MORE THAN ONE dictionary definition of "the mainland" (capitalized or otherwise), and that this is a NAME, NOT a definition. And the name is rooted in an historic (i.e. standard) usage, and THAT is already clearly stated in the article (i.e. that "Lower Mainland" is derived from it being the lower (in elevation and latitude/location) than the rest of "the Mainland". Meaning the Mainland not in the sense of the continent, but of the mainland portion of British Columbia. 5. As such, it by definition it includes non-land geographic objects such as lakes and rivers. It is NOT needed to say "even though it is a lake, Burnaby Lake is considered to be on the mainland and is part of the Lower Mainland" or "even though the Fraser River, it is considered to be on the mainland". Nor is it needed to state "even though Burnaby Mountain and Sumas Mountain are mountains and as such not lower in elevation, they are included within the Lower Mainland region". Again, the article ALREADY says the NAME is rooted in the concept of "the Mainland" as one of the major region-names in British Columbia; it does not need spelling out further for people "freshly arrived at YVR" that even though the airport is on Sea Island, they are landing in the Lower Mainland region; most of them are probably unaware they're even ON an island. 7. The confusion crated by government administrative regions which have their own, variant usages of "Lower Mainland", can be solved by a section on those usages, and/or in some cases entirely separate articles (as in the case of the Lower Mainland ecoregion, or the MoE's Lower Mainland Environment Region). 8. So now you've wasted a whole bunch of my time, you're now inviting other editors to waste THEIR time, and I guess hoping for an admin even less familiar with the region, or with the English language, than you are, to take your side in not just having your way with the article, but also giving me a wiki-spanking for daring to dispute you. 9. You brought up Douglas Island, but I'd already brought up other islands not accessible by bridge or ferry (Crescent, Matsqui, Herrling, Long, Echo etc.) and while there may be wording on some saying something like "even though it's an island it's considered to be part of the mainland", content like that on those articles is EQUALLY an absurdity and should be removed. 10. Your nit-picking on this, and your insistence on absurdity as valid content, is typical of the type of behaviour that drove me from Wikipedia a few months ago, taking my expertise in BC history and geography and various other matters with me; various editors have begged me to come back, which I have; now you'r driving me away again by wasting tons of my time and protesting my pithy tendencies when I'm confronted by tomfoolery. I do not suffer fools gladly, and right now I'm not very happy about having to explain FOR THE TENTH TIME why you're completely wrong and your proposed addition is a complete and utterly redundant absurdity. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the lead to the article clarifies the range of meaning for the expression Lower Mainland in an accurate way. I live on Vancouver Island. If you asked people here the question "Is YVR on the Lower Mainland?" I think 10 out of 10 would say yes. That some dictionary definition of "mainland" doesn't capture its meaning in the expression "Lower Mainland" is neither surprising nor useful. -- KenWalker | Talk 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not arguing that YVR is not on the "LOWER MAINLAND"; I FULLY agree it is. I am arguing (and have demonstrated) that YVR is not on the "mainland". I am also advocating explicitly remarking that non-mainland places ARE part of the "Lower Mainland". It is not absurd to state something just because some local people consider it "trivially obvious" -- especially not absurd when local usage differs from dictionary defs. -- JimWae ( talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Every dictionary defintion excludes islands from the mainland. It does not matter what arguments people present that would include islands as part of the mainland, the sources say otherwise. This is not about whether YVR is in the "Lower Mainland", it is about whether YVR is on the mainland - which no dictionary would support. Nothing need be said about river deltas to say that local usage of "Lower Mainland" also includes islands-- JimWae ( talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I must point out that Skookum1 has repeatedly made this an issue of personalities. After talking about Chinese & Koreans, he has repeatedly talked about my qualifications and supposed shortcomings. Now he has commented extensively on his own qualifications & his own psychological state. Everyone's psychological state would have less toxicity if we stay focussed on the topic actually being discussed -- JimWae ( talk) 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1> According to reliable sources ( dictionaries), an island (and even peninsulas) separated from a larger landmass would be excluded from being part of the mainland (but not necessarily from the continent). However, even Bowen Island is included in the Lower Mainland by HelloBC and the RCMP 2> there's plenty of salt water around YVR, Bowen Island, and Manhattan. 3> Would a resident of Manitoulin Island who said he just got back from the mainland be accused of speaking nonsense? 4>I just want the toxicity to end -- JimWae ( talk) 00:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Another wording: Several locations, such as Richmond, BC, are included in the Lower Mainland area, even though they are actually on islands and not part of the continuous mainland. -- JimWae ( talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Clear as in: 1> Vancouver Island is not part of the mainland, (nobody contested that, and it does not mention the Queen Charlotte's either) and 2>Richmond is not part of a large continuous extent of land. Agreed? -- JimWae ( talk) 05:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
1>So you presented a dictionary def that excludes islands as a demonstration that not every dictionary excludes islands?!? Btw, splitting the US & splitting North America are not the same thing (though I seem to recall there might be a canal of the
Red River of the North that splits the continent into 2 nearly-equally-sized pieces). 2>Your argument about split continents is just that - another argument that is original research. Nobody is arguing here that rivers split continents into 2 continents. We are not arguing here about peninsulas & it is not our job to argue about which dictionary definitions are the correct ones. 3>Many (perhaps all) dictionaries specify that islands are not part of the mainland AND many people use the term that way to specify that islands such as Manhattan are not on "the mainland". When usage of a term is at variance with both dictionaries AND widespread usage, it is a courtesy to the non-local reader to specify the difference in usage in the article--
JimWae (
talk)
19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Chill, guys. As a totally disinterested observer, who btw has never been to that part of the world, I think you are both right - but you are both expending a lot of time, energy, and feelings over one little word, which is a waste. Yes, technically an island of any size is not part of the "mainland" - however, just by looking at google maps, I can see that this Richmond place is not at all prominent as a disconnected island; it fits right into the mass of surrounding land area in that delta, like one slice of pizza in the whole pie.
So it seems to me a bit pedantic to insist on saying it's "not part of the mainland" - technically, maybe so, but I rather doubt the inhabitants think of themselves as leaving the mainland when they cross any of numerous rather short bridges to get to Richmond. Not something worth getting heated up about, guys; it's just as correct to describe the place either way, so - why not agree on a description that doesn't use the M-word, and devote your minds to subjects more worthy of your time and energy? Just sayin' . . . . Textorus ( talk) 08:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that, if you zoomed out with Google Earth to a few thousand meters height, and the islands in question weren't distinguishable from the coastline, then most people would consider them part of a "mainland" without qualification. If, however, they seem to be separated by a lot of water, a non-local would probably not consider them "mainland" and hence be confused by the name "Lower Mainland." The argument here is focused on the dictionary and on local usage. However, the article needs to be useful to the entire English-speaking world, and the arguments here seem very locally focused. Perhaps it would be best to discuss whether or not clarifying text is needed to prevent confusing non-locals?
I can't state a strong opinion, though; frankly, the degree of vitriol and incivility I'm reading in Skookum's comments is impossible to ignore and prejudices my opinion to the point where I'm not sure I could decide based solely on the facts. Skookum, your lack of decorum does you a disservice, because the way you are saying things is so overshadowing what you are saying that you may be losing hearts and minds that would otherwise agree with your logic. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand and I'm tempted to go looking for a heavy hand to get it stopped or just box all this up myself. Can everyone please recall that the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss improving the article? We can dicsuss attitudes and outcomes with individual editors in their own spaces, I'm trying to do that right now though all the efforts might not be visible. This is just not the place to be getting into personal discussions on behaviour. And no, it doesn't matter who started it, what matters is stopping it, which everyone has to do on their own. Are there more comments on the substantive issue of the "mainland" terminolgy? The consensus I read is pretty much that the current wording does not need to be altered in the manner proposed. Any thoughts? Franamax ( talk) 04:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If the two of you are going to just keep repeating the same arguments back and forth at each other, and not listen to the input of any third parties that want to try and build a consensus, why bother with the RFC in the first place? This isn't remotely productive. The world will not end if the article explains that the term "mainland" is not used in the strict dictionary sense, nor will it end if some non-locals of a particularly pedantic bent get confused by the region's use of the term. This is a little thing. So I have to wonder, what is it about this particular issue that justifies a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners attitude toward your respective positions? I understand that you both have strong feelings on this issue, and for this article. However, we are not discussing a BLP violation, we're not debating adding a falsehood to the article, it's simply not a big deal.
This should be a minor disagreement!
If there is consensus that the change is a good idea—meaning that more editors than not agree it's a good idea, it should go in. That's why an RFC was properly called on the issue. Unfortunately, I suspect that other editors may have been scared off by the sheer volume of argument between JimWae and Skookum1. Conversely, if there is not consensus to add this change, it should not go in at this time. Consensus can change, and if future editors express that the article needs this wording in order to be accessible and useful by the world's English-speaking population, it may need to be added later even if it's not justified now.
But any way you look at it, it's up to all of us as Wikipedians, not just the two of you, to reach consensus on how best to improve this article. That won't happen through pages of petulant statements that boil down to "No way!" "Yes way!" Please, I beg you, step back, cool down, and let the rest of us discuss this too! // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 20:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Guys - Our personal interpretations of geography or semantics don't count here on Wikipedia. If nobody can quote a a reliable source on this very minor point to justify changing the article as it was written, give it a rest. This argument is longer than the article now, and that is totally a waste of everybody's time and attention. Textorus ( talk) 22:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Fine, JimWae, why don't you put a small footnote there - and Skookum you leave it alone - and then everybody can just move on to things that actually matter, like building an encyclopedia. Textorus ( talk) 22:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that I've been looking at this page more closely, I am finding a number of points confusing (note, I'm not from the region but have visited and passed through a number of times--I live in Seattle, but at less than fully versed in BC's geographic terminology). The first sentence reads "The Lower Mainland is a name commonly applied to the region surrounding Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada." I understand basically what is meant here, but "surrounding Vancouver" seems a strange choice of words. Isn't Vancouver's location basically at the western end of the Lower Mainland? "Surrounded", on the north? Barely. On the west? Not at all? Another way to phrase it, that sounded better to me, I found here: Metropolitan governing, p. 149. First there's a definition of Lower Mainland (paraphrased): "bounded on south by US border, on north by mountains, on east, at Hope, by similar mountain ranges, western extremity, including the city of Vancouver, the gulf waters... The Lower Mainland represents the economic center of the province." And then the role of Vancouver in the Lower Mainland (similar to the Lower Mainland for province, it seems): "this Vancouver-centered "Lower Mainland" forms one coherent "city region"." That phrase, Vancouver-centered, seemed better than "region surrounding Vancouver". It's a minor wording issue, I realize.
Anyway, I thought about a better way to describe the Lower Mainland, tersely, for the lead. My first thought was that the Lower Mainland is basically the broad, fertile plains of the lower Fraser River and its tributaries' lower reaches, extending into the foothills here and there, and bounded on the south by the US border at the 49th parallel (which rather arbitrarily divides this broad and fertile plain). This thought led me to the Fraser Valley page, which seemed to be exactly this broad plain centered on the lower Fraser River. But I soon found complications. Searching further, it seemed that both terms, Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley, have a history of being used for planning regions and regional districts. If I understand right, there was a "Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board" (LMRPB) from 1949 to 1968, which included Greater Vancouver and the whole region east to Hope. Later, this was split into two planning regions, Greater Vancouver RD and Fraser Valley RD. There's probably more to it than this, but what effect does this history and changing geographical focus have on the terms Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley? Am I correct in the idea that "Fraser Valley" typically refers to the populated plains outside (mostly east) of Greater Vancouver? And the term "Lower Mainland" usually referring to both Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley? Anyway, my main point and question here is: Perhaps this page would benefit from explaining a bit more on the history and geographic scope of all these terms. I'm not even sure if the planning regions and regional districts have had much of an effect on the meaning of the terms. But my searching around on the terms brought up mostly stuff about regional planning and such. Another source with info of this kind: Planning Canadian Regions, p. 308, also check out page 333.
Must run now, will check back later. Pfly ( talk) 02:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Back. I was mainly wondering if the lead would benefit from having a general geographic description of the region. As it is, the lead basically says "surrounding Vancouver" and provides a relatively vague definition based on cities and towns. However those not familiar with the region are unlikely to know where Horseshoe Bay is, or the other places named: Whistler, Mission, and Hope. The satellite map is useful, of course, but it doesn't tell you where these places are. The thing that stands out most on the map is that the area outlined is (mostly) non-mountainous, developed urban or farmland, with a major river running through its length, with a straight line southern boundary crossing the farmland plains. I thought it would be useful to provide a geographic description along the lines of: "The Lower Mainland is approximately equivalent to the broad and fertile plains surrounding the lower Fraser River, extending into the foothills in places, and bounded to the south by the US border." Obviously that wording is not great. But something to that effect? Is there a name for those broad, fertile plains, which extend south into the US and the lower Nootsack River? Some other online book I was reading today (I forget which) had some info on how the Lower Mainland produces the vast majority of BC's agricultural products. Obviously there's a connection between the fertile plains and the large population. But the only names I can think of, like "Fraser Valley", seem to have been coopted for urban planning type uses. Pfly ( talk) 04:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
[undent]Yeah, in terms of a physiogeographic label it's apt, though doesn't include the mountains overlooking the Lower Mainland, which pretty much are considered part of it (Grouse/Seymour, the Golden Ears, the "Coquitlam Range" (unofficial but you often hear it) etc. As for it being a physical region rather than a formal grouping of municipalities, bang on - "Lower Mainland municipalities" is certainly a term you hear, but it's not the municipalities nor their borders that define the place; it's a physical/cultural space, and note my emendations to the mentions of the RDs; they include areas outside the Lower Mainland (particularly the FVRD, which includes Boston BAr which is decidedly NOT part of the Lower Mainland). BC's "traditional regions" are not that hard to bottle once you're familiar with the place; Bearcat once averred that they could not be formally defined, but that's not really the case to locals; when you hit the summit on Highway 3, for example (the Sunday Summit, which is east of Allison Pass) there's no doubt that's the beginning of the Similkameen Country; as soon as you head up Highway 8, which follows the Nicola River, i.e. from Spences Bridge, you're in the Nicola Country and no longer in the Fraser Canyon. Some of these divisioins literally "turn on a dime"; in other cases some areas are in two or more other areas, e.g. Lillooet considers itself part of the Cariboo, and the Bridge River Country has been called the West Cariboo and, of late (and incorrectly IMO) "the South Chilcotin" (and the Chilcotin is sometimes reckoned as a subarea of the Cariboo, though it's not really, especially away from the Fraser) but the Lillooet Country also spans the Pemberton and Gates Valleys, which are NOT part of the Cariboo and in more recent times are an extension of the Sea to Sky Country, which is a modern appellation that evolved since the creation of the RMOW (Resort Municipality of Whistler) in the 1970s....the term in fact comes from about 1982 or so, I remember it being spawned (IMO they "stole" it from the Ski-to-Sea race in Whatcom County...). But the other traditional regions - the Shuswap, the Okanagan, the Boundary, the Kootenay, - and the Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland - they're extremely boundary-specific though undocumented as such formally; they're the underlying geo-units beneath many of the RD names (e.g. Bulkley-Nechako and Columbia-Shuswap) and electoral districts (Boundary-Similkameen) and tourism districts (Thompson-Okanagan) or in weather reporting (the Thompson-Shuswap)...it gets fuzzy, to some people the Shuswap is part of the Okanagan, likewise the Similkameen and/or the Boundary, and the Boundary technically includes Osoyoos historically (it existed long before the rest of the Okanagan was settled); and there's items like "the Kamloops Country", which is that part of the Thompson centred on Kamloops but west and northwest of the Shuswap; and "the North Thompson" which is very linear, along that river, or "the Clearwater Country", which is mostly what's up the Clearwater River and the immediate environs of Clearwater - by all accounts (I've never been in there) a staggeringly beautiful area btw. And some areas away from settled parts of the province just get referred to by their landform, e.g. the Stikine Ranges. It gets a bit more dicey when these names get "extended" as is the case with Lower Mainland being used to include, say, the Sunshine Coast and Bowen Island....in its historical, proper sense, Lower Mainland does NOT include "offshore islands"...someone on Bowen or in Sechelt might say, for example, "I can't handle life in the Lower Mainland anymore"...but the Ministry of Environment Lower Mainland Region, meaning that its offices are in the Lower Mainland and t hat's the centre of its regional focus, includes both those places. In some reckonings Bowen gets referred to as a Gulf Island, though that's sort of modern and it's true there's a cultural affinity between it and Gabriola and Saltspring and Quadra etc, but if anything I'd say "Howe Sound Islands"....the Howe Sound region seems, to me, to be everything BUT Gibsons/Langdale, which are part of the Sunshine Coast, and includes Woodfibre, i.e. not just the east coast of the Sound plus the islands....and Horseshoe Bay and Whytecliffe, which are parts of West Vancouver, are part of it too....the landform articles like Fraser Lowland, Nahwitti Lowland, etc. need articles, and that's where geological information can be....regional information - climate, fauna, general settlement info - is what belongs on "traditional region" pages, and because StatsCan uses the RDs for counting heads, that stuff belongs on the regional district pages; but regional district pages should NOT be used as if they were geogrpahic regions; they're governments, and fairly weak ones at that....gotta go, ttyl. Skookum1 ( talk) 19:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I looked in http://www.nosracines.ca which is an amazing resource, and just did a general search; haven't looked through all the pages of results yet but even the first items are provocative: here. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The preceding discussion (ahem) led me to making up a draft List of islands in the Fraser River and its tributaries, which I guess could just be lifted from Talk:Fraser_River#List_of_islands_in_the_Fraser_River_.5Band_its_tributaries.5D, though I know there are other islands upriver, and in the Thompson, that have yet to be added (though only a few, other than the dozens of mostly-unnamed ones in the Robson Valley). Note that around 50 of those listed are in the Fraser proper, rather than in Harrison Lake or on side-oxbows like Hatzic Lake and the lower Stave River; there are at least that many again unnamed islands, some of which might only be construed as rock bars or sandbars; and there are one or two in Pitt Lake, likewise in Stave Lake. NB Sheridan Hill in Pitt Meadows was historically an island until dyking changed that, there are similar examples elsewhere. Court's out on whether Matsqui Island or Lulu Island is the largest, I haven't done a map-comparison yet...and NB the western shore of Lulu Island is still a long ways from the open waters of Georgia Strait... Skookum1 ( talk) 03:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This section is missing a major natural hazard, volcanism. It should have been added in the article a long time ago when earthquakes and landslides were mentioned. This has to be one of the least subjects discused in BC articles other than ones about volcanology. It is a large geologic hazard that perhaps lots of people ignore or do not know about. It's like oh it last erupted thousands of years ago it will never cause problems in my life. Volcanism in British Columbia may be less frequent than earthquakes and landslides, but it can be just as destructive and as far as I am aware of, there is no good prediction of volcanic activity in British Columbia. Just because a volcano has not erupted for hundreds or thousands of years does not mean it will not do something in the future. In fact, a great majority of potentially active volcanoes on Earth are unmonitored, and of the historically active volcanoes on Earth, less than one fourth are monitored. Only 24 volcanoes on Earth are thoroughly monitored for activity. At least 75% of the largest explosive eruptions on Earth since 1800 occurred at volcanoes that had no previous historical eruptions. As a result, the Canadian Cascade Arc volcanoes pose a major threat to the Lower Mainland because none have erupted in historical time, they are not monitored closely enough and they are capable of producing large explosive eruptions, typical of subduction zone volcanism. This goes for Mount Garibaldi, Mount Price, Mount Cayley and Mount Meager. As pyroclastic material falls from ash columns, it would probably melt surrounding glaciers and ice fields to create floods and lahars. These would in turn flow down river valleys to areas that are populated, especially those in the Lower Mainland. Even without explosive activity, the eruption of lava would also melt glacial ice to produce floods. An area for such activity would probably be the Mount Cayley volcanic field because some volcanoes are situated under the Powder Mountain Icefield. I do not have the time to add volcanic hazard content right now but whenever I have time I will hopefully add something in the article. Volcano guy 09:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lower Mainland. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/science/v-print/story/34512.htmlWhen 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) 16:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Changed population from 2 mil to 2.5 mil.I added Greater Vancouver's population with Fraser vally regional districts population.When one adds both,Van-2.2 mil ,Fraser val-300,000=2.5 million.
As per comments on Talk:Demographics of Vancouver and Talk:Vancouver concerning demographics, the population section here could include an outline of the ethnic composition of the Lower Mainland's various communities; I'm thinking of the post-war Dutch and German, incl. Mennonite, belt from Langley through to Chilliwack (it overlaps into Mission a bit, w. Germans also in Maple Ridge historically); Mission was very ethnic, pre and post war (it had the largest Japanese population other than Richmond and Vancouver, as well as a large French Canadian element that never preserved French; and a mix of also anglicized Italians, Poles, Finns, Ukrainians, Norwegians, Doukhobours, Hungarians, First Nations etc moreso than elsewhere (other than parts of the Interior); also a strong British-from-Britain component. Needless to say multiculturalism seemed a bit odd and artificial when it came along as an official agenda; we already lived that way without being self-conscious about it, and foreign accents were so common you just accepted them (nearly always parents only, until the Sikhs came in large numbers in the late '60s). Anyway, the resilience of Dutch identity is worth note (not just meaning the Zalm, but a way of life and values, of the conservative variety rather than Dutch liberalism now associated with Holland) in Langley, Aldergrove, Abby, Sardis; likewise the Mennonites; non-Menonnite Germans on the other hand tend to completely assimilate, and aren't as religious for the most part. The valley is also the long-time historic focus of the Sikh community, particularly in Abbotsford which was and is the site of the first Gurdwara in BC, vintage 1900s; Newton, Abbotsford, Mission and Chilliwack have as significant Sikh communities as Punjabi Market, though not the marketing identity (well, except for Newton, almost...). Then of course there's the Persian community concentrated on the North Shore, and increasingly in the West End The particular character of old New West also has demographic issue in terms of its ethnic and class composition (btw its Chinatown was the largest on the mainland from the 1850s until the 1890s when it was destroyed in that city's Great Fire and never rebuilt; Barkerville's Chinatown may have been larger 1862-1870s but there are no exact figures). It's occurred to me while writing this, also, that in all demographics sections there should be some class/social geography such as New West's Queens Park being an upper-crust enclave, or North Burnaby vs South Burnaby - the concentration of Italians and Croatians in North Burnaby, the more complex mix in South Burnaby, the more swanky areas clustered around Burnaby Mountain and Cariboo Hill-Deer Lake. The transient student population of the city and the GVRD, Lower Mainland etc respectively might also be interesting to work out. Also the prison population of the valley towns (the prisons are major economic engines in Mission and Abbotsford, just as the BC Pen was at one time in New West; but less so in Maple Ridge and Kent). Skookum1 09:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I just created a map showing the strict definition of the Lower Mainland, using a NASA Visible Earth image which is public domain; I'm not a graphic artist/mapmaker and so it could maybe be better looking; I also haven't put city-names on it, only the boundary.
, and to show areas sometimes included (Hope, Chilliwack River, Howe Sound/Lions Bay)
. I can also make a basemap that has eneough room to show the Lower Mainland EcoRegion (which AFAIK includes the Sunshine Coast, but really is an MoE administrative definition/district) but I'll have to be reminded of what the differences are. On the existing map, the northern boundary could just be a straight line from West Vancouver-Howe Sound across northern Maple Ridge and Mission to Agassiz-Rosedale, but other than northern Mission I've followed pretty much the line of settlement and the line where the mountains "break" into the Lower Mainland; in a strict, quasi-legal sense, the northern boundary should probably coincide with the New Westminster Land District but I don't have that map handy so went with this for a draft. Comments on what else should be on this map welcome - I don't want to clutter it with city names - obviously Vancouver, Abbostford, and Chilliwack for orientation; but "who" else, and what else? I'll load the basemap here, which is an excerpt of a much larger map currently used for Monashee Mountains; my excerpt roughly coincides with a 1:400,000 map of SW BC produced by MoE which reaches over to and including Kamloops and Kelowna, and as far north as Clinton; I'll upload that to Wikimedia Commons so it's genrally available and will come back to post the link to that item here later. Skookum1 04:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the Vancouver-Kamloops sat-map mentioned above, as loaded into Wikimedia Commons. The cloud front above Logan Lake and the bits of cumulus - maybe thunderstorms - north of Kamloops I can't do much about short of pixel-by-pixel retouching edits; another source image may not have these bits of cloud cover; I'll check around. Skookum1 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Some folks keep changing the population in the lead sentence of the article from 2.2 M to 2.5 M. However, they do not change the reference, so the reference says the number is from the 2001 Census, which is incorrect. The higher number also conflicts with the article's section on Population which summarizes the population according to the 2001 Census. As I have said in more than one edit summary, if you want to change the population in the lead, fine, but you will have to change the reference to the 2006 Census. That isn't difficult, but you also have to change the entry in the Population section, which isn't so easy as you have to add the numbers. I know, I've tried. If you are not up to that, I would suggest we put a request to the folks at WikiProject Vancouver to see if someone can update it. Sunray 22:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Is Hope, British Columbia not considered part of the Lower Mainland? I always thought of it as the eastern edge of the Lower Mainland. Canuck85 ( talk) 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would definitely not include Hope in the Lower Mainland, by the terminology I grew up with the Lower Mainland would end somewhere around Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge (which as a kid we would already have considered the Fraser Valley), then the Fraser Valley (ie definitely wouldn't include Agassiz, Chilliwack, Harrison, etc as Lower Mainland), then the Fraser Canyon which would include Hope. I grew up in Coquitlam. I'm sure my relatives in the interior would have a different opinion though they referred to anything from say Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge onwards as 'down at the coast.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 ( talk) 19:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The coords given by BCGNIS are roughly on Boundary Road, and conform to the Vancouver-perception, which coming from Mission I can tell you is just plain wrong (as are many of Vancouver's perceptions about the rest of the Lower Mainland). Unofficial coords I'd place somewhere around Aldergrove or Abbotsford/Matsqui. I disagree with the BCGNIS comment about hte rest of the province considering "south of Whistler" to be in teh Lower Mainland, partly because people from Squamish and Whistler (where I've also lived) consider themselves outside of it. I'm hoping to find a historical description somewhere, i.e. from the term's early provenance in 19th C. histories of the province. For now the coords are at least cited; if someone feels OK about the OR needed to adjust them to somewhere suitable, like say those of Matsqui Village, that would be more accurate; there's no need to factor in Squamish/Whistler - the historical point there is before the building of Hwy 99 north of Horseshoe Bay all those places were decidedly in the "upper country", and you had to take a ferry toget there. Hope is definitely the eastern limit, though (see prevoius section). Skookum1 ( talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
"While earthquakes are common in British Columbia and adjacent coastal waters, most are minor in energy release or are sufficiently remote to have little effect on populated areas." This is inaccurate and fundamentally misleading. While recent earthquakes may have been small, the underlying plate tectonics (subduction zone) mean that very large earthquakes are inevitable. These would be much larger than those expected in California, for example. Here are some references to help you in correcting this. Muchado ( talk) 02:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone had biased this section around municipalities, but much of the LM is not in them, and within them and spanning their borders are various well-known placenames; I've expanded the list and ditched the artificial classification by regional district (as opposed to school district, forest district etc). As a region article, this page actually doesn't need this list, which could be a separate List of settlements in the Lower Mainland as it will be quite lengthy once fully expanded. Modern-day municipal agglomerations are only that, modern-day agglomerations, they do not reflect "communities" or even "settlements", but conveniences of governance; the actual settlements/communities are a reflection of the area's history and identity. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, let's not make an edit war out of this. I do not regard it as trivial to make it clear that communities may be regarded as part of the Lower Mainland without being on the mainland - yet mainland remains one criterion for inclusion - for neither Bowen Island nor Vancouver Island are included by any source yet found. Many people might easily wonder whether Sea Island, not being on the mainland, is in the Lower Mainland. There is no harm done by including this information as a point of clarification, and I have seen no reason to exclude it other than your assessment of its "triviality". -- JimWae ( talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to your example, Manhattan is not considered part of the mainland. I am NOT thinking of foreign speakers, but perhaps more of Americans arriving at YVR (which is surrounded by lots of salty water) wondering if they are in the Lower Mainland or not. There is no harm done in being clear about this AND I am NOT suggesting that YVR is not on the Lower Mainland. It's this kind of deletionism of relevant material that can make working on this project less than wonderful. -- JimWae ( talk) 20:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
repeat: I am NOT suggesting that YVR is not on the Lower Mainland - not in any way. I am specifiying that islands ARE included-- JimWae ( talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You are presenting arguments for the inclusion of islands. I do not disagree with inclusion of Sea Island, nor the several others. Should the article include the arguments or the statement? I am thinking that clarification is called for, for someone such as the New Yorker who would be considered ignorant if he said Manhattan was on the mainland. Our BC usage is a somewhat unusual stretch of the usage of "mainland". Even if the stretch is slight, clarity does no more harm than obscurity. -- JimWae ( talk) 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Mainland: a large mass of land that forms the main part of a country but does not include any islands belonging to the country. Mainland: the main land mass of a country or continent; as distinguished from an island or peninsula. We are not talking about continents here, so Montreal and Newfoundland (and Greenland for that matter) being part of North America are irrelevant. Ridiculing NYers does not help your argument-- JimWae ( talk) 22:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
BC local usage of "Lower Mainland" is in opposition to the use of "mainland" as described in most (and, maybe, all) dictionaries. You cannot simply dismiss dictionaries here in favour of your personal preferences. Pointing out that islands are included in "Lower Mainland" adds clarity & does no harm to the article. I happen to have a copy of that New Yorker cover, but your bringing up the legendary "insularity" of New Yorkers is not relevant to this discussion. The comments directed at me personally also do you no good. When discussing usage of "mainland", citing usages of "continent" is quite indecisive. -- JimWae ( talk) 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It does not go against common usage to say Lake Champlain is a lake on the mainland, while Lake Ronkonkama is not. It DOES go against common usage (which is what dictionaries are an attempt to capture) to say that Sea Island is on the mainland. There is no absurdity in pointing out to the reader that the proper name "Lower Mainland" also includes islands. Simply ignoring the ordinary meanings of words as presented in dictionaries, and not specifying the BC usage is slightly unusual, does not serve the reader. I have nowhere suggested we give an exhaustive list of the islands, and you are repeatedly arguing against a position I have not even taken. -- JimWae ( talk) 20:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have never said any islands need be named, and have proposed only one example be given. An example is not necessary, but reasonable. Your "parabolic" remarks about naming all of them (and about continents [even Iceland is often considered part of Europe, and who doubts Vancouver Island is part of North America?] [you are using an incomplete analogy while calling my point specious]) is what is specious, as have been most of your remarks & personal comments directed at me. BC usage of "mainland" in "Lower Mainland" differs from common usage. It is not an "English idiom", it is a "BC idiom". Unless you can demonstrate it is a well-understood "English idiom", the divergence from dictionary usage is notable -- JimWae ( talk) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, this discussion is going nowhere but downhill. The closest I have ever come to commenting on you personally was when I said "Ridiculing NYers does not help your argument", which technically does not even say you actually did that. You have repeatedly tried to make this about me, my grasp of the English language, and my understanding of the world, and recently even irrationally accused me of dumping on a group of people for the way they use language. -- JimWae ( talk) 06:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
|
I propose adding to the lede a sentence such as:
Skookum1 has objected to this, and reverted me twice.
There are 3 issues here:
1. Your claim that it is a variance in standard usage is NONSENSE. It IS a standard usage when the term "mainland" refers to a region, not to a speicifrically-defined dictionary "mainland". Capitalized or not (and there are other, cismontane Canadian editors, who will assert that th BC-capitalized usage "the Mainland" is also incorrect and not "standard usage". YOu're trying to apply a strict geographic definition, but the fact is that the operative definition underlying the construction "Lower Mainland" is the STANDARD MEANING of "the mainland" referring to a REGION, i.e. anything that's not one of the coastal islands; i.e. your strict definition is a LANDFORM....but the source meaning is THE REGION. 2. There are different government usages defining administrative regions named for the region, e.g. the Ministry of Environment's definition does include the Sunshine Coast, which is on the mainland, but this is not part of the STANDARD USAGE of "Lower Mainland". The same is true of the RCMP's administrative region, and of the administrative affiliation known as Metro Vancouver (nb which is different from the notion of " Greater Vancouver", though also often misused to mean the region, while it is actually a NAME of a government and though including the term "Metro" includes areas which are not metropolitan at all (e.g. the rural areas of the Fraser Valley and also the montane wilderness overlooking the lowlands). 3.This entire discussion is picayune and rooted in your attempt to add a badly-worded redundancy to the article (which was not the same as what you're provided above) and falls in the CFWT category of wikipedian absurdities. Go ahead, no doubt your RFC will find some admin less interested in relevance than in dictionary-cherrypicking; you've completely dissed all the counter-examples I've provided and summarized them as a lengthy personal attack on myself. while claiming you're being attacked yourself; whereas really what you're doing is just making an inane argument insulting as well.... 4. The core point here is that there is MORE THAN ONE dictionary definition of "the mainland" (capitalized or otherwise), and that this is a NAME, NOT a definition. And the name is rooted in an historic (i.e. standard) usage, and THAT is already clearly stated in the article (i.e. that "Lower Mainland" is derived from it being the lower (in elevation and latitude/location) than the rest of "the Mainland". Meaning the Mainland not in the sense of the continent, but of the mainland portion of British Columbia. 5. As such, it by definition it includes non-land geographic objects such as lakes and rivers. It is NOT needed to say "even though it is a lake, Burnaby Lake is considered to be on the mainland and is part of the Lower Mainland" or "even though the Fraser River, it is considered to be on the mainland". Nor is it needed to state "even though Burnaby Mountain and Sumas Mountain are mountains and as such not lower in elevation, they are included within the Lower Mainland region". Again, the article ALREADY says the NAME is rooted in the concept of "the Mainland" as one of the major region-names in British Columbia; it does not need spelling out further for people "freshly arrived at YVR" that even though the airport is on Sea Island, they are landing in the Lower Mainland region; most of them are probably unaware they're even ON an island. 7. The confusion crated by government administrative regions which have their own, variant usages of "Lower Mainland", can be solved by a section on those usages, and/or in some cases entirely separate articles (as in the case of the Lower Mainland ecoregion, or the MoE's Lower Mainland Environment Region). 8. So now you've wasted a whole bunch of my time, you're now inviting other editors to waste THEIR time, and I guess hoping for an admin even less familiar with the region, or with the English language, than you are, to take your side in not just having your way with the article, but also giving me a wiki-spanking for daring to dispute you. 9. You brought up Douglas Island, but I'd already brought up other islands not accessible by bridge or ferry (Crescent, Matsqui, Herrling, Long, Echo etc.) and while there may be wording on some saying something like "even though it's an island it's considered to be part of the mainland", content like that on those articles is EQUALLY an absurdity and should be removed. 10. Your nit-picking on this, and your insistence on absurdity as valid content, is typical of the type of behaviour that drove me from Wikipedia a few months ago, taking my expertise in BC history and geography and various other matters with me; various editors have begged me to come back, which I have; now you'r driving me away again by wasting tons of my time and protesting my pithy tendencies when I'm confronted by tomfoolery. I do not suffer fools gladly, and right now I'm not very happy about having to explain FOR THE TENTH TIME why you're completely wrong and your proposed addition is a complete and utterly redundant absurdity. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the lead to the article clarifies the range of meaning for the expression Lower Mainland in an accurate way. I live on Vancouver Island. If you asked people here the question "Is YVR on the Lower Mainland?" I think 10 out of 10 would say yes. That some dictionary definition of "mainland" doesn't capture its meaning in the expression "Lower Mainland" is neither surprising nor useful. -- KenWalker | Talk 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not arguing that YVR is not on the "LOWER MAINLAND"; I FULLY agree it is. I am arguing (and have demonstrated) that YVR is not on the "mainland". I am also advocating explicitly remarking that non-mainland places ARE part of the "Lower Mainland". It is not absurd to state something just because some local people consider it "trivially obvious" -- especially not absurd when local usage differs from dictionary defs. -- JimWae ( talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Every dictionary defintion excludes islands from the mainland. It does not matter what arguments people present that would include islands as part of the mainland, the sources say otherwise. This is not about whether YVR is in the "Lower Mainland", it is about whether YVR is on the mainland - which no dictionary would support. Nothing need be said about river deltas to say that local usage of "Lower Mainland" also includes islands-- JimWae ( talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I must point out that Skookum1 has repeatedly made this an issue of personalities. After talking about Chinese & Koreans, he has repeatedly talked about my qualifications and supposed shortcomings. Now he has commented extensively on his own qualifications & his own psychological state. Everyone's psychological state would have less toxicity if we stay focussed on the topic actually being discussed -- JimWae ( talk) 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1> According to reliable sources ( dictionaries), an island (and even peninsulas) separated from a larger landmass would be excluded from being part of the mainland (but not necessarily from the continent). However, even Bowen Island is included in the Lower Mainland by HelloBC and the RCMP 2> there's plenty of salt water around YVR, Bowen Island, and Manhattan. 3> Would a resident of Manitoulin Island who said he just got back from the mainland be accused of speaking nonsense? 4>I just want the toxicity to end -- JimWae ( talk) 00:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Another wording: Several locations, such as Richmond, BC, are included in the Lower Mainland area, even though they are actually on islands and not part of the continuous mainland. -- JimWae ( talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Clear as in: 1> Vancouver Island is not part of the mainland, (nobody contested that, and it does not mention the Queen Charlotte's either) and 2>Richmond is not part of a large continuous extent of land. Agreed? -- JimWae ( talk) 05:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
1>So you presented a dictionary def that excludes islands as a demonstration that not every dictionary excludes islands?!? Btw, splitting the US & splitting North America are not the same thing (though I seem to recall there might be a canal of the
Red River of the North that splits the continent into 2 nearly-equally-sized pieces). 2>Your argument about split continents is just that - another argument that is original research. Nobody is arguing here that rivers split continents into 2 continents. We are not arguing here about peninsulas & it is not our job to argue about which dictionary definitions are the correct ones. 3>Many (perhaps all) dictionaries specify that islands are not part of the mainland AND many people use the term that way to specify that islands such as Manhattan are not on "the mainland". When usage of a term is at variance with both dictionaries AND widespread usage, it is a courtesy to the non-local reader to specify the difference in usage in the article--
JimWae (
talk)
19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Chill, guys. As a totally disinterested observer, who btw has never been to that part of the world, I think you are both right - but you are both expending a lot of time, energy, and feelings over one little word, which is a waste. Yes, technically an island of any size is not part of the "mainland" - however, just by looking at google maps, I can see that this Richmond place is not at all prominent as a disconnected island; it fits right into the mass of surrounding land area in that delta, like one slice of pizza in the whole pie.
So it seems to me a bit pedantic to insist on saying it's "not part of the mainland" - technically, maybe so, but I rather doubt the inhabitants think of themselves as leaving the mainland when they cross any of numerous rather short bridges to get to Richmond. Not something worth getting heated up about, guys; it's just as correct to describe the place either way, so - why not agree on a description that doesn't use the M-word, and devote your minds to subjects more worthy of your time and energy? Just sayin' . . . . Textorus ( talk) 08:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that, if you zoomed out with Google Earth to a few thousand meters height, and the islands in question weren't distinguishable from the coastline, then most people would consider them part of a "mainland" without qualification. If, however, they seem to be separated by a lot of water, a non-local would probably not consider them "mainland" and hence be confused by the name "Lower Mainland." The argument here is focused on the dictionary and on local usage. However, the article needs to be useful to the entire English-speaking world, and the arguments here seem very locally focused. Perhaps it would be best to discuss whether or not clarifying text is needed to prevent confusing non-locals?
I can't state a strong opinion, though; frankly, the degree of vitriol and incivility I'm reading in Skookum's comments is impossible to ignore and prejudices my opinion to the point where I'm not sure I could decide based solely on the facts. Skookum, your lack of decorum does you a disservice, because the way you are saying things is so overshadowing what you are saying that you may be losing hearts and minds that would otherwise agree with your logic. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand and I'm tempted to go looking for a heavy hand to get it stopped or just box all this up myself. Can everyone please recall that the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss improving the article? We can dicsuss attitudes and outcomes with individual editors in their own spaces, I'm trying to do that right now though all the efforts might not be visible. This is just not the place to be getting into personal discussions on behaviour. And no, it doesn't matter who started it, what matters is stopping it, which everyone has to do on their own. Are there more comments on the substantive issue of the "mainland" terminolgy? The consensus I read is pretty much that the current wording does not need to be altered in the manner proposed. Any thoughts? Franamax ( talk) 04:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If the two of you are going to just keep repeating the same arguments back and forth at each other, and not listen to the input of any third parties that want to try and build a consensus, why bother with the RFC in the first place? This isn't remotely productive. The world will not end if the article explains that the term "mainland" is not used in the strict dictionary sense, nor will it end if some non-locals of a particularly pedantic bent get confused by the region's use of the term. This is a little thing. So I have to wonder, what is it about this particular issue that justifies a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners attitude toward your respective positions? I understand that you both have strong feelings on this issue, and for this article. However, we are not discussing a BLP violation, we're not debating adding a falsehood to the article, it's simply not a big deal.
This should be a minor disagreement!
If there is consensus that the change is a good idea—meaning that more editors than not agree it's a good idea, it should go in. That's why an RFC was properly called on the issue. Unfortunately, I suspect that other editors may have been scared off by the sheer volume of argument between JimWae and Skookum1. Conversely, if there is not consensus to add this change, it should not go in at this time. Consensus can change, and if future editors express that the article needs this wording in order to be accessible and useful by the world's English-speaking population, it may need to be added later even if it's not justified now.
But any way you look at it, it's up to all of us as Wikipedians, not just the two of you, to reach consensus on how best to improve this article. That won't happen through pages of petulant statements that boil down to "No way!" "Yes way!" Please, I beg you, step back, cool down, and let the rest of us discuss this too! // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 20:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Guys - Our personal interpretations of geography or semantics don't count here on Wikipedia. If nobody can quote a a reliable source on this very minor point to justify changing the article as it was written, give it a rest. This argument is longer than the article now, and that is totally a waste of everybody's time and attention. Textorus ( talk) 22:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Fine, JimWae, why don't you put a small footnote there - and Skookum you leave it alone - and then everybody can just move on to things that actually matter, like building an encyclopedia. Textorus ( talk) 22:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that I've been looking at this page more closely, I am finding a number of points confusing (note, I'm not from the region but have visited and passed through a number of times--I live in Seattle, but at less than fully versed in BC's geographic terminology). The first sentence reads "The Lower Mainland is a name commonly applied to the region surrounding Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada." I understand basically what is meant here, but "surrounding Vancouver" seems a strange choice of words. Isn't Vancouver's location basically at the western end of the Lower Mainland? "Surrounded", on the north? Barely. On the west? Not at all? Another way to phrase it, that sounded better to me, I found here: Metropolitan governing, p. 149. First there's a definition of Lower Mainland (paraphrased): "bounded on south by US border, on north by mountains, on east, at Hope, by similar mountain ranges, western extremity, including the city of Vancouver, the gulf waters... The Lower Mainland represents the economic center of the province." And then the role of Vancouver in the Lower Mainland (similar to the Lower Mainland for province, it seems): "this Vancouver-centered "Lower Mainland" forms one coherent "city region"." That phrase, Vancouver-centered, seemed better than "region surrounding Vancouver". It's a minor wording issue, I realize.
Anyway, I thought about a better way to describe the Lower Mainland, tersely, for the lead. My first thought was that the Lower Mainland is basically the broad, fertile plains of the lower Fraser River and its tributaries' lower reaches, extending into the foothills here and there, and bounded on the south by the US border at the 49th parallel (which rather arbitrarily divides this broad and fertile plain). This thought led me to the Fraser Valley page, which seemed to be exactly this broad plain centered on the lower Fraser River. But I soon found complications. Searching further, it seemed that both terms, Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley, have a history of being used for planning regions and regional districts. If I understand right, there was a "Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board" (LMRPB) from 1949 to 1968, which included Greater Vancouver and the whole region east to Hope. Later, this was split into two planning regions, Greater Vancouver RD and Fraser Valley RD. There's probably more to it than this, but what effect does this history and changing geographical focus have on the terms Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley? Am I correct in the idea that "Fraser Valley" typically refers to the populated plains outside (mostly east) of Greater Vancouver? And the term "Lower Mainland" usually referring to both Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley? Anyway, my main point and question here is: Perhaps this page would benefit from explaining a bit more on the history and geographic scope of all these terms. I'm not even sure if the planning regions and regional districts have had much of an effect on the meaning of the terms. But my searching around on the terms brought up mostly stuff about regional planning and such. Another source with info of this kind: Planning Canadian Regions, p. 308, also check out page 333.
Must run now, will check back later. Pfly ( talk) 02:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Back. I was mainly wondering if the lead would benefit from having a general geographic description of the region. As it is, the lead basically says "surrounding Vancouver" and provides a relatively vague definition based on cities and towns. However those not familiar with the region are unlikely to know where Horseshoe Bay is, or the other places named: Whistler, Mission, and Hope. The satellite map is useful, of course, but it doesn't tell you where these places are. The thing that stands out most on the map is that the area outlined is (mostly) non-mountainous, developed urban or farmland, with a major river running through its length, with a straight line southern boundary crossing the farmland plains. I thought it would be useful to provide a geographic description along the lines of: "The Lower Mainland is approximately equivalent to the broad and fertile plains surrounding the lower Fraser River, extending into the foothills in places, and bounded to the south by the US border." Obviously that wording is not great. But something to that effect? Is there a name for those broad, fertile plains, which extend south into the US and the lower Nootsack River? Some other online book I was reading today (I forget which) had some info on how the Lower Mainland produces the vast majority of BC's agricultural products. Obviously there's a connection between the fertile plains and the large population. But the only names I can think of, like "Fraser Valley", seem to have been coopted for urban planning type uses. Pfly ( talk) 04:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
[undent]Yeah, in terms of a physiogeographic label it's apt, though doesn't include the mountains overlooking the Lower Mainland, which pretty much are considered part of it (Grouse/Seymour, the Golden Ears, the "Coquitlam Range" (unofficial but you often hear it) etc. As for it being a physical region rather than a formal grouping of municipalities, bang on - "Lower Mainland municipalities" is certainly a term you hear, but it's not the municipalities nor their borders that define the place; it's a physical/cultural space, and note my emendations to the mentions of the RDs; they include areas outside the Lower Mainland (particularly the FVRD, which includes Boston BAr which is decidedly NOT part of the Lower Mainland). BC's "traditional regions" are not that hard to bottle once you're familiar with the place; Bearcat once averred that they could not be formally defined, but that's not really the case to locals; when you hit the summit on Highway 3, for example (the Sunday Summit, which is east of Allison Pass) there's no doubt that's the beginning of the Similkameen Country; as soon as you head up Highway 8, which follows the Nicola River, i.e. from Spences Bridge, you're in the Nicola Country and no longer in the Fraser Canyon. Some of these divisioins literally "turn on a dime"; in other cases some areas are in two or more other areas, e.g. Lillooet considers itself part of the Cariboo, and the Bridge River Country has been called the West Cariboo and, of late (and incorrectly IMO) "the South Chilcotin" (and the Chilcotin is sometimes reckoned as a subarea of the Cariboo, though it's not really, especially away from the Fraser) but the Lillooet Country also spans the Pemberton and Gates Valleys, which are NOT part of the Cariboo and in more recent times are an extension of the Sea to Sky Country, which is a modern appellation that evolved since the creation of the RMOW (Resort Municipality of Whistler) in the 1970s....the term in fact comes from about 1982 or so, I remember it being spawned (IMO they "stole" it from the Ski-to-Sea race in Whatcom County...). But the other traditional regions - the Shuswap, the Okanagan, the Boundary, the Kootenay, - and the Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland - they're extremely boundary-specific though undocumented as such formally; they're the underlying geo-units beneath many of the RD names (e.g. Bulkley-Nechako and Columbia-Shuswap) and electoral districts (Boundary-Similkameen) and tourism districts (Thompson-Okanagan) or in weather reporting (the Thompson-Shuswap)...it gets fuzzy, to some people the Shuswap is part of the Okanagan, likewise the Similkameen and/or the Boundary, and the Boundary technically includes Osoyoos historically (it existed long before the rest of the Okanagan was settled); and there's items like "the Kamloops Country", which is that part of the Thompson centred on Kamloops but west and northwest of the Shuswap; and "the North Thompson" which is very linear, along that river, or "the Clearwater Country", which is mostly what's up the Clearwater River and the immediate environs of Clearwater - by all accounts (I've never been in there) a staggeringly beautiful area btw. And some areas away from settled parts of the province just get referred to by their landform, e.g. the Stikine Ranges. It gets a bit more dicey when these names get "extended" as is the case with Lower Mainland being used to include, say, the Sunshine Coast and Bowen Island....in its historical, proper sense, Lower Mainland does NOT include "offshore islands"...someone on Bowen or in Sechelt might say, for example, "I can't handle life in the Lower Mainland anymore"...but the Ministry of Environment Lower Mainland Region, meaning that its offices are in the Lower Mainland and t hat's the centre of its regional focus, includes both those places. In some reckonings Bowen gets referred to as a Gulf Island, though that's sort of modern and it's true there's a cultural affinity between it and Gabriola and Saltspring and Quadra etc, but if anything I'd say "Howe Sound Islands"....the Howe Sound region seems, to me, to be everything BUT Gibsons/Langdale, which are part of the Sunshine Coast, and includes Woodfibre, i.e. not just the east coast of the Sound plus the islands....and Horseshoe Bay and Whytecliffe, which are parts of West Vancouver, are part of it too....the landform articles like Fraser Lowland, Nahwitti Lowland, etc. need articles, and that's where geological information can be....regional information - climate, fauna, general settlement info - is what belongs on "traditional region" pages, and because StatsCan uses the RDs for counting heads, that stuff belongs on the regional district pages; but regional district pages should NOT be used as if they were geogrpahic regions; they're governments, and fairly weak ones at that....gotta go, ttyl. Skookum1 ( talk) 19:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I looked in http://www.nosracines.ca which is an amazing resource, and just did a general search; haven't looked through all the pages of results yet but even the first items are provocative: here. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The preceding discussion (ahem) led me to making up a draft List of islands in the Fraser River and its tributaries, which I guess could just be lifted from Talk:Fraser_River#List_of_islands_in_the_Fraser_River_.5Band_its_tributaries.5D, though I know there are other islands upriver, and in the Thompson, that have yet to be added (though only a few, other than the dozens of mostly-unnamed ones in the Robson Valley). Note that around 50 of those listed are in the Fraser proper, rather than in Harrison Lake or on side-oxbows like Hatzic Lake and the lower Stave River; there are at least that many again unnamed islands, some of which might only be construed as rock bars or sandbars; and there are one or two in Pitt Lake, likewise in Stave Lake. NB Sheridan Hill in Pitt Meadows was historically an island until dyking changed that, there are similar examples elsewhere. Court's out on whether Matsqui Island or Lulu Island is the largest, I haven't done a map-comparison yet...and NB the western shore of Lulu Island is still a long ways from the open waters of Georgia Strait... Skookum1 ( talk) 03:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This section is missing a major natural hazard, volcanism. It should have been added in the article a long time ago when earthquakes and landslides were mentioned. This has to be one of the least subjects discused in BC articles other than ones about volcanology. It is a large geologic hazard that perhaps lots of people ignore or do not know about. It's like oh it last erupted thousands of years ago it will never cause problems in my life. Volcanism in British Columbia may be less frequent than earthquakes and landslides, but it can be just as destructive and as far as I am aware of, there is no good prediction of volcanic activity in British Columbia. Just because a volcano has not erupted for hundreds or thousands of years does not mean it will not do something in the future. In fact, a great majority of potentially active volcanoes on Earth are unmonitored, and of the historically active volcanoes on Earth, less than one fourth are monitored. Only 24 volcanoes on Earth are thoroughly monitored for activity. At least 75% of the largest explosive eruptions on Earth since 1800 occurred at volcanoes that had no previous historical eruptions. As a result, the Canadian Cascade Arc volcanoes pose a major threat to the Lower Mainland because none have erupted in historical time, they are not monitored closely enough and they are capable of producing large explosive eruptions, typical of subduction zone volcanism. This goes for Mount Garibaldi, Mount Price, Mount Cayley and Mount Meager. As pyroclastic material falls from ash columns, it would probably melt surrounding glaciers and ice fields to create floods and lahars. These would in turn flow down river valleys to areas that are populated, especially those in the Lower Mainland. Even without explosive activity, the eruption of lava would also melt glacial ice to produce floods. An area for such activity would probably be the Mount Cayley volcanic field because some volcanoes are situated under the Powder Mountain Icefield. I do not have the time to add volcanic hazard content right now but whenever I have time I will hopefully add something in the article. Volcano guy 09:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lower Mainland. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/science/v-print/story/34512.htmlWhen 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) 16:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)