![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Note: I intentionally did not make this a disambiguation page, as I believe it should be a general page to refer to the area that includes both the City and the District of North Vancouver. -- Webgeer 18:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Population figures recently added should be checked and given a source. The User is a local lad with an edit history that is a very mixed bag of lightweight vandalism. -- Wetman 19:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think this article should be a disambiguation page. It can create confusion between the City and the District. Canadianshoper 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the following material which was added by an anonymous editor (IP 24.80.196.98). It's certainly nothing against the editor, the anonymity, or the content - just that I don't think it belongs in this particular article. The new text is an expansion of what is already touched on in the preceding paragraph, and as such too specific for an article that is meant to be more of an overview of the combined North Vancouvers.
I've also left a note on the IP talk page, and I'll put a copy of the text on the talk page for the
CNV article. I'd move it directly into the CNV article, but there isn't such a section yet on that page. Plus, the text could use a bit of a rewrite and some verification to make it sound more formal and neutral. --
Ckatz
06:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
"surrounded by the District of North Vancouver on three sides" triangles can be surrounded on three sides. Other things can not. The writer means bordered. this entry is unsigned so SineBot can have something to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 ( talk) 10:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I always appreciate the effort put into articles like this and after I read the discussion I appreciate that effort even more.
But a couple of comments:
As a resident of North Vancouver (sic) I feel that I can speak for many residents in saying that the the issue of two municipalities hardly deserves the prominent mention it has at the head of this article. Perhaps occasionally in conversation--usually only because of some fine distinction--will someone ask whether we are in "The District" or "The City", but rarely. Will someone put this issue out of sight at the bottom of the article. It's only important to politicians.
I also question why Capilano Canyon receives the prominence it gets here and suspect commercial meddling with the article. Bundle this under tourism links.
-- 75.157.205.225 ( talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The section on amalgamation between City and District of North Vancouver needs work.
There have been at least two amalgamation referenda that I'm aware of with the most recent 1968. It passed in the District but not the City. [1]
The current District view (based on personal discussions with members of the 2009 Council) is that while amalgamation would likely be a good thing, no move to a plebiscite is likely until it is felt City residents want amalgamation. Since the provincial government as a matter of policy ONLY supports amalgamation when both parties agree, no change is expected for the foreseeable future. In the meantime both municipalities cooperate on a wide variety of projects.
CouncilWatcher ( talk) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
References
![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Note: I intentionally did not make this a disambiguation page, as I believe it should be a general page to refer to the area that includes both the City and the District of North Vancouver. -- Webgeer 18:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Population figures recently added should be checked and given a source. The User is a local lad with an edit history that is a very mixed bag of lightweight vandalism. -- Wetman 19:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think this article should be a disambiguation page. It can create confusion between the City and the District. Canadianshoper 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the following material which was added by an anonymous editor (IP 24.80.196.98). It's certainly nothing against the editor, the anonymity, or the content - just that I don't think it belongs in this particular article. The new text is an expansion of what is already touched on in the preceding paragraph, and as such too specific for an article that is meant to be more of an overview of the combined North Vancouvers.
I've also left a note on the IP talk page, and I'll put a copy of the text on the talk page for the
CNV article. I'd move it directly into the CNV article, but there isn't such a section yet on that page. Plus, the text could use a bit of a rewrite and some verification to make it sound more formal and neutral. --
Ckatz
06:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
"surrounded by the District of North Vancouver on three sides" triangles can be surrounded on three sides. Other things can not. The writer means bordered. this entry is unsigned so SineBot can have something to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 ( talk) 10:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I always appreciate the effort put into articles like this and after I read the discussion I appreciate that effort even more.
But a couple of comments:
As a resident of North Vancouver (sic) I feel that I can speak for many residents in saying that the the issue of two municipalities hardly deserves the prominent mention it has at the head of this article. Perhaps occasionally in conversation--usually only because of some fine distinction--will someone ask whether we are in "The District" or "The City", but rarely. Will someone put this issue out of sight at the bottom of the article. It's only important to politicians.
I also question why Capilano Canyon receives the prominence it gets here and suspect commercial meddling with the article. Bundle this under tourism links.
-- 75.157.205.225 ( talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The section on amalgamation between City and District of North Vancouver needs work.
There have been at least two amalgamation referenda that I'm aware of with the most recent 1968. It passed in the District but not the City. [1]
The current District view (based on personal discussions with members of the 2009 Council) is that while amalgamation would likely be a good thing, no move to a plebiscite is likely until it is felt City residents want amalgamation. Since the provincial government as a matter of policy ONLY supports amalgamation when both parties agree, no change is expected for the foreseeable future. In the meantime both municipalities cooperate on a wide variety of projects.
CouncilWatcher ( talk) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
References