This page 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. |
The talk page has been archived in Archive 4. Langara College 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a source for the claim that Simon Fraser was held captive by First Nations people? Absent this, I will remove the assertion. Fishhead64 08:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the line claiming Vancouver has one of the largest gay communities in North America as it is simply untrue. There are dozens of cities in North America (Canada, United States and Mexico) with larger gay communities than Vancouver. I feel once again this is an example of Vancouver thinking too much of itself. My opinion after living in Vancouver is that it is a mediocrity of a city. I replaced the line with a statement that Vancouver's gay community is visible as there is a two-block stretch on Davie Street that is quite gay-ish, though depressing and shabby. Acapulco, Key West, Chelsea, The Castro or Ste. Catherine Est it is NOT.
You know, you could have been nice about it instead of using it as an opportunity to express your dislike of Vancouver. Zazaban 01:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue is that Vancouver has a fairly large and robust gay community in comparison to its size, although this is hard to back up with any substantial data for obvious reasons. I think that to any visitor or resident of the city this is fairly obvious. -D.L.
Is there any reason why this talk page needs to fall under Category:Wikipedia? Agent 86 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example. Any objections for Vancouver?
references
--
CyclePat
22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what are we looking at? I don't see the relevence of the time in Ottawa to this article. Mkdw talk 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected due to recent increases in vandalism to the article. Mkdw talk 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Every time an article is featured on the front page, it gets vandalised. We should expect no more or less. -- MrBobla 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone feel like weighing in on this issue? User:Kanaye is insisting that the union jack should not accompany Edinburgh on the list of sister cities, but has so far refused to make the case here. My main concern is the stability of the article - this has been edit warred over in the past, and there is no standard on similar articles to decide the issue. To me, it's a step sideways at best, and that having both flags is less provocative than either one or the other. In lieu of consensus or some other authoritative reason to make the change, I'm inclined to try and preserve the status quo of an article that myself and many others have put significant energy to get it featured. Anyway, I'm gettin' close to the 3RR on this one, and some input would be appreciated. Bobanny 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I’m sorry not to have replied sooner, seeing as I’m the main troublemaker and all. : ) My case for simplifying the list of sister cities is really as follows:
And by comparison British being used in a political sense:
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. I’d also like to add that comparing Scotland (or Wales or England) with Quebec really isn’t helpful, it‘s just not comparing like for like. Finally, if only one flag was used would anyone really care? Or even notice? Kanaye 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I really think this discussion has been much more prolonged than merited. I looked at some of the Scottish localities with twin cities, and found that the Scottish flag was unfailingly used. I also found the English flag used for English towns similarly twinned. Comparing the ancient realms of the UK with the provinces of Canada is not really analogous. There seems to be an unwritten convention, and this article should conform. Fishhead64 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
City/ Town twinning is ultimately a cultural tie, not a political one, so the Scottish saltire seems more appropriate. I don't think it's important at all, but two flags look bad indeed.-- Qyd 16:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
How about a table, allowing both to be included, but not looking messy?
City | Sovereign State | region thereof | Date of twinning |
---|---|---|---|
Odessa | Ukraine | File:Odessa-Oblast-flag.gif Odessa Oblast | 1944 |
Yokohama | Japan | Kantō region | 1965 |
Edinburgh | United Kingdom | Scotland | 1978 |
Guangzhou | People's Republic of China | Guangdong | 1985 |
Los Angeles | United States | California | 1986 |
Lofty 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the original, standard twinned cities table as applied on all other articles. This is blatant vandalism by User:Lofty - Scotland is a member country of the UK, not a "region". This is part of his ongoing persitent POV-pushing. Zero "consensus" was made before that preposterous "regions thereof" table was applied. -- Mais oui! 06:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How about this...?
City | Sovereign State | subnational locality | Year of twinning |
---|---|---|---|
Odessa | Ukraine | File:Odessa-Oblast-flag.gif Odessa Oblast | 1944 |
Yokohama | Japan | Kantō region | 1965 |
Edinburgh | United Kingdom | Scotland | 1978 |
Guangzhou | People's Republic of China | Guangdong | 1985 |
Los Angeles | United States | California | 1986 |
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lofty ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Lofty 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
In this context, sovereignty is a specific term in international law that Scotland doesn't claim (also see the entry on Country for a relevant discussion). Some examples I've looked are Macau, (two flags under Lisbon's sister cities), and San Juan, (Puerto Rican flag only on the Honolulu article). However you count 'em, there are enough exceptions to preclude any supposed convention or consensus on Wikipedia. No sign of consensus emerging in this discussion either as far as I can see, but at least the debate has been brought out into the open with this. Bobanny 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Vancouver from Featured article review per WP:FAR instructions regarding 3-month wait on recent promotions. The FAR is archived here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vancouver. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute about whether the flag of Scotland or the Union Jack and the flag of Scotland should be used in the Affiliated cities section of the article. 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
rv sneaky blanket reversion lacking edit summary by Mkdw - restoring twinned cities section to its prior condition - no consensus has been reached at Talk
persistant vandal Lofty
rv blatant vandalism by User:Lofty
It's totally unecessary to have both flags, or to describe the twinned city as "Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom". "Edinburgh, Scotland" with the Scottish flag is descriptive enough and factually accurate- including an additional flag or expanded wording would surely only be necessary if there was some possibility of confusion with another "Edinburgh, Scotland". Not the case here, I think. Both flags + more words is a) ugly and unparsimonious; b) smacks strongly of a political statement. I'm glad Mais Oui recognises the appropriateness of reverting to the status quo whilst controversial changes are being discussed, rather than unilaterally making changes without discussion or consensus, as is sometimes the case here on Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is truely amazing... There is no need for any flag in the twin-cities section. Cities are twinned with cities, not with countries. What additional information do you think is presented by displaying the little flag next to the city and country name? For a more humorous reflection on this, but still making a good point, take a look at WP:FLAGS.
Mais oui! and Mkdw — you both need to stop the reverts on this article, and the mud-slinging at WP:3RR. If you continue you'll both end up blocked for disruption. Discuss here and leave the article alone (or it'll get protected) until consensus is achieved.
Thanks/ wangi 14:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
(Names of nations could be dropped since the pages are linked.) -- Ckatz chat spy 17:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"The City of Vancouver was one of the first cities in Canada to enter into an international twinning arrangement. There are has created special arrangements for cultural, social and economic benefits with Odessa (1944), Yokohama (1965), Edinburgh (1978), Guangzhou (1985), and Los Angeles (1986)."
Just out of curiosity: who in this discussion is Scottish? I know I'm not, except maybe distantly on my Norwegian, Irish or English sides (there's others). What I'm wondering is why it is that Lofty is making such a big issue of this, as no one else anywhere else in Wikipedia seems to be. I mean, exactly whose tub to thump is this anyway? I'd say it might be left to any Scots among us to decide, if it's come down to the righteousness which Lofty has invoked. Skookum1 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that Vancouver is to be featured on Feb. 7 (Weds.). I suggest as many of as possible remain vigilant that day for any editorial "amendments" which may be made as a result of the article's higher profile. Cheers! Fishhead64 01:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have visited this page before, and it still had that "Featured-Article" star in the corner. Pages can be featured twice?-- Surfaced 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't stargate filmed in Vancouver? That's worth mentioning Tourskin.
For such a significant portion of the local economy and culture - the film industry gets surprisingly little mention in the Vancouver article (who doesn't see the ubiquitous film trailers in and around town). I wouldn't mind an extra sentence or two on the topic, perhaps in the economy section, or maybe just a simple link as suggested above in the "see also" section? thoughts much appreciated TCB007 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see any mention of the extreme damage to Stanley park by the two recent winter storms. [6] [7] [8] Shenme 16:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I edited the comments which portrayed the Westside as more conservative than it actually is, I think. All its MPs represent the Liberal Party of Canada (well, except Emerson, of course, but he's a special case). Most (but not all) of its MLAs represent the provincial Liberal Party, which is a defacto coalition of moderates. Fishhead64 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
--location== location needs to be fixed. article is locked so I can't do it. delete this after
The opening paragraph is very misleading and needs to be changed:
"With a population of 2,180,737 (2006 estimate),[1] it is the largest metropolitan area in western Canada and the third largest in the country.[2] The population of Vancouver proper is 587,891"
Changes that need to be made:
Thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.150 ( talk • contribs)
We don't refer to New York's metropolitan population (even though people think of New York as the amalgam of New York and surrounding areas):
Vancouver should be different because it is different. Other cities are also different, if you look at more than just population stats. You're comparing apples and oranges, and it would be more confusing to over-emphasize administrative divisions for people who want to learn about Vancouver. What you're suggesting is to dumb it down so people can make pat comparisons.
Here's some reasons why your points don't apply:
You seem to want to make a point about size more than clarity, but at the expense of precision. For the record, no, Vancouver pales compared to a lot of CMAs, and even the population of the entire province is smaller than that of the Greater Toronto Area. Bobanny 03:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't find the stats misleading at all. Forget the 'way' other wikipedia articles are. Are you confused by the sentence, "With a population of 2,180,737 (2006 estimate),[1] it is the largest metropolitan area in western Canada and the third largest in the country.[2] The population of Vancouver proper is 587,891". Unless you don't know what a metropolitian area is or the proper of a city is I don't see how as a sentence its confusing. Furthermore if you don't know what those two things are, the poluation is the least of your troubles I think. I also think its better to use metropolitan area and Vancouver proper because on all maps the city shows up as Vancouver. The Vancouver Greater Regional District is only a term really used and widely known by other Vancouverites. Take a look on any world atlas and you will see what I mean by confusion of Vancouver and Greater Vancouver Regional District. Furthermore the sentence if you read it carefully does not say Vancouver proper is the largest city in western Canada.
Mkdw
talk
10:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
The talk page has been archived in Archive 4. Langara College 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a source for the claim that Simon Fraser was held captive by First Nations people? Absent this, I will remove the assertion. Fishhead64 08:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the line claiming Vancouver has one of the largest gay communities in North America as it is simply untrue. There are dozens of cities in North America (Canada, United States and Mexico) with larger gay communities than Vancouver. I feel once again this is an example of Vancouver thinking too much of itself. My opinion after living in Vancouver is that it is a mediocrity of a city. I replaced the line with a statement that Vancouver's gay community is visible as there is a two-block stretch on Davie Street that is quite gay-ish, though depressing and shabby. Acapulco, Key West, Chelsea, The Castro or Ste. Catherine Est it is NOT.
You know, you could have been nice about it instead of using it as an opportunity to express your dislike of Vancouver. Zazaban 01:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue is that Vancouver has a fairly large and robust gay community in comparison to its size, although this is hard to back up with any substantial data for obvious reasons. I think that to any visitor or resident of the city this is fairly obvious. -D.L.
Is there any reason why this talk page needs to fall under Category:Wikipedia? Agent 86 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example. Any objections for Vancouver?
references
--
CyclePat
22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what are we looking at? I don't see the relevence of the time in Ottawa to this article. Mkdw talk 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected due to recent increases in vandalism to the article. Mkdw talk 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Every time an article is featured on the front page, it gets vandalised. We should expect no more or less. -- MrBobla 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone feel like weighing in on this issue? User:Kanaye is insisting that the union jack should not accompany Edinburgh on the list of sister cities, but has so far refused to make the case here. My main concern is the stability of the article - this has been edit warred over in the past, and there is no standard on similar articles to decide the issue. To me, it's a step sideways at best, and that having both flags is less provocative than either one or the other. In lieu of consensus or some other authoritative reason to make the change, I'm inclined to try and preserve the status quo of an article that myself and many others have put significant energy to get it featured. Anyway, I'm gettin' close to the 3RR on this one, and some input would be appreciated. Bobanny 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I’m sorry not to have replied sooner, seeing as I’m the main troublemaker and all. : ) My case for simplifying the list of sister cities is really as follows:
And by comparison British being used in a political sense:
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. I’d also like to add that comparing Scotland (or Wales or England) with Quebec really isn’t helpful, it‘s just not comparing like for like. Finally, if only one flag was used would anyone really care? Or even notice? Kanaye 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I really think this discussion has been much more prolonged than merited. I looked at some of the Scottish localities with twin cities, and found that the Scottish flag was unfailingly used. I also found the English flag used for English towns similarly twinned. Comparing the ancient realms of the UK with the provinces of Canada is not really analogous. There seems to be an unwritten convention, and this article should conform. Fishhead64 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
City/ Town twinning is ultimately a cultural tie, not a political one, so the Scottish saltire seems more appropriate. I don't think it's important at all, but two flags look bad indeed.-- Qyd 16:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
How about a table, allowing both to be included, but not looking messy?
City | Sovereign State | region thereof | Date of twinning |
---|---|---|---|
Odessa | Ukraine | File:Odessa-Oblast-flag.gif Odessa Oblast | 1944 |
Yokohama | Japan | Kantō region | 1965 |
Edinburgh | United Kingdom | Scotland | 1978 |
Guangzhou | People's Republic of China | Guangdong | 1985 |
Los Angeles | United States | California | 1986 |
Lofty 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the original, standard twinned cities table as applied on all other articles. This is blatant vandalism by User:Lofty - Scotland is a member country of the UK, not a "region". This is part of his ongoing persitent POV-pushing. Zero "consensus" was made before that preposterous "regions thereof" table was applied. -- Mais oui! 06:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How about this...?
City | Sovereign State | subnational locality | Year of twinning |
---|---|---|---|
Odessa | Ukraine | File:Odessa-Oblast-flag.gif Odessa Oblast | 1944 |
Yokohama | Japan | Kantō region | 1965 |
Edinburgh | United Kingdom | Scotland | 1978 |
Guangzhou | People's Republic of China | Guangdong | 1985 |
Los Angeles | United States | California | 1986 |
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lofty ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Lofty 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
In this context, sovereignty is a specific term in international law that Scotland doesn't claim (also see the entry on Country for a relevant discussion). Some examples I've looked are Macau, (two flags under Lisbon's sister cities), and San Juan, (Puerto Rican flag only on the Honolulu article). However you count 'em, there are enough exceptions to preclude any supposed convention or consensus on Wikipedia. No sign of consensus emerging in this discussion either as far as I can see, but at least the debate has been brought out into the open with this. Bobanny 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Vancouver from Featured article review per WP:FAR instructions regarding 3-month wait on recent promotions. The FAR is archived here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vancouver. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute about whether the flag of Scotland or the Union Jack and the flag of Scotland should be used in the Affiliated cities section of the article. 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
rv sneaky blanket reversion lacking edit summary by Mkdw - restoring twinned cities section to its prior condition - no consensus has been reached at Talk
persistant vandal Lofty
rv blatant vandalism by User:Lofty
It's totally unecessary to have both flags, or to describe the twinned city as "Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom". "Edinburgh, Scotland" with the Scottish flag is descriptive enough and factually accurate- including an additional flag or expanded wording would surely only be necessary if there was some possibility of confusion with another "Edinburgh, Scotland". Not the case here, I think. Both flags + more words is a) ugly and unparsimonious; b) smacks strongly of a political statement. I'm glad Mais Oui recognises the appropriateness of reverting to the status quo whilst controversial changes are being discussed, rather than unilaterally making changes without discussion or consensus, as is sometimes the case here on Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is truely amazing... There is no need for any flag in the twin-cities section. Cities are twinned with cities, not with countries. What additional information do you think is presented by displaying the little flag next to the city and country name? For a more humorous reflection on this, but still making a good point, take a look at WP:FLAGS.
Mais oui! and Mkdw — you both need to stop the reverts on this article, and the mud-slinging at WP:3RR. If you continue you'll both end up blocked for disruption. Discuss here and leave the article alone (or it'll get protected) until consensus is achieved.
Thanks/ wangi 14:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
(Names of nations could be dropped since the pages are linked.) -- Ckatz chat spy 17:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"The City of Vancouver was one of the first cities in Canada to enter into an international twinning arrangement. There are has created special arrangements for cultural, social and economic benefits with Odessa (1944), Yokohama (1965), Edinburgh (1978), Guangzhou (1985), and Los Angeles (1986)."
Just out of curiosity: who in this discussion is Scottish? I know I'm not, except maybe distantly on my Norwegian, Irish or English sides (there's others). What I'm wondering is why it is that Lofty is making such a big issue of this, as no one else anywhere else in Wikipedia seems to be. I mean, exactly whose tub to thump is this anyway? I'd say it might be left to any Scots among us to decide, if it's come down to the righteousness which Lofty has invoked. Skookum1 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that Vancouver is to be featured on Feb. 7 (Weds.). I suggest as many of as possible remain vigilant that day for any editorial "amendments" which may be made as a result of the article's higher profile. Cheers! Fishhead64 01:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have visited this page before, and it still had that "Featured-Article" star in the corner. Pages can be featured twice?-- Surfaced 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't stargate filmed in Vancouver? That's worth mentioning Tourskin.
For such a significant portion of the local economy and culture - the film industry gets surprisingly little mention in the Vancouver article (who doesn't see the ubiquitous film trailers in and around town). I wouldn't mind an extra sentence or two on the topic, perhaps in the economy section, or maybe just a simple link as suggested above in the "see also" section? thoughts much appreciated TCB007 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see any mention of the extreme damage to Stanley park by the two recent winter storms. [6] [7] [8] Shenme 16:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I edited the comments which portrayed the Westside as more conservative than it actually is, I think. All its MPs represent the Liberal Party of Canada (well, except Emerson, of course, but he's a special case). Most (but not all) of its MLAs represent the provincial Liberal Party, which is a defacto coalition of moderates. Fishhead64 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
--location== location needs to be fixed. article is locked so I can't do it. delete this after
The opening paragraph is very misleading and needs to be changed:
"With a population of 2,180,737 (2006 estimate),[1] it is the largest metropolitan area in western Canada and the third largest in the country.[2] The population of Vancouver proper is 587,891"
Changes that need to be made:
Thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.150 ( talk • contribs)
We don't refer to New York's metropolitan population (even though people think of New York as the amalgam of New York and surrounding areas):
Vancouver should be different because it is different. Other cities are also different, if you look at more than just population stats. You're comparing apples and oranges, and it would be more confusing to over-emphasize administrative divisions for people who want to learn about Vancouver. What you're suggesting is to dumb it down so people can make pat comparisons.
Here's some reasons why your points don't apply:
You seem to want to make a point about size more than clarity, but at the expense of precision. For the record, no, Vancouver pales compared to a lot of CMAs, and even the population of the entire province is smaller than that of the Greater Toronto Area. Bobanny 03:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't find the stats misleading at all. Forget the 'way' other wikipedia articles are. Are you confused by the sentence, "With a population of 2,180,737 (2006 estimate),[1] it is the largest metropolitan area in western Canada and the third largest in the country.[2] The population of Vancouver proper is 587,891". Unless you don't know what a metropolitian area is or the proper of a city is I don't see how as a sentence its confusing. Furthermore if you don't know what those two things are, the poluation is the least of your troubles I think. I also think its better to use metropolitan area and Vancouver proper because on all maps the city shows up as Vancouver. The Vancouver Greater Regional District is only a term really used and widely known by other Vancouverites. Take a look on any world atlas and you will see what I mean by confusion of Vancouver and Greater Vancouver Regional District. Furthermore the sentence if you read it carefully does not say Vancouver proper is the largest city in western Canada.
Mkdw
talk
10:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)