Talk:Vancouver/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

Contents

Nuclear Weapons Free?

I've been living here on & off since 1983, and while the Welcome-to-Vancouver signs used to say nuclear-free, they don't now (unless I missed it somehow). I believe this statement to be inaccurate, can someone produce any evidence to support it?

Hi Tim. I was the one to add the Nuclear Weapons Free stuff to the article. (Incidentally, it's nuclear weapons free -- not nuclear free, since nuclear power and certainly nuclear research are fair game.) Anyways, my intent was to show that the city itself claims to be weapons free (I cited Council action on the issue and everyone has seen the signs), but also to point out (as you recognize) that it's difficult to know one way or the other if the city's claim is true. I think that's all pretty factual, so which statement in the article isn't working for you? Please take a crack at the wording if it's misleading. Thanks! --Ds13 06:30, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
Oops on the weapons, right - actually we're not nuclear-free at all with TRIUMF out there at UBC :) Anyhow, I remember back in the Eighties when this was controversial - remember the "Peace Marches"? - and the signs coming into town used to advertise the status. I'm pretty sure the signs no longer do, so it seems like they've been explicitly changed. If so, does the status stand? We've been through like 3 city governments since the Eighties. Note to self to actually pay attention to what the sign says next time I'm driving into town. Tim Bray 06:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There was a motion that was unanamously passed by the City Budget committee to put these signs back up as recently as 2003 [1]. I recently remember seeing a couple of them around. So I think they are going back up.
It should be noted that this is was primarily just a symbolic policy and has very little legal meaning. They have no jurisdiction over the harbour, military operations, or the airport. Other than a few foreign ships in the harbour it is hard to imagine a scenario in which nuclear weapons were to be brought into the City of Vancouver. There does seem to be one meaningful aspect, the zoning bylaw [2] prohibits the any building used for manufacturing any components for nuclear weapons. This is probably enforceable, although somewhat meaningless as most of the electronics manufacturing in the area happens in Richmond or other suburban municipalities.
These types of policies are virtually never recinded. What City council in their right mind would ever want to explicitly recind this policy. It would gain them nothing, but piss off some very vocal voters.
Like the policy, the signs are entirely symbollic as well. So the fact that they come and go has more to do with wear and tear on the signs and the interest in the current council on replacing them, than any "official" status of the policy. -- Webgeer 17:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that although Vancouver was one of the first, there are over 100 municipalities in Canada and thousands over the world (including quite a few in the US) that are declared NWFZs). The Province of British Columbia was officially declared a NWFZ in 1992 [3]. I think the most relevant statement is that Vancouver was one of the first, and a comment that this is symbollic. I have edited the main page to reflect this. -- Webgeer 18:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I like your edit, with one small loophole in your phrasing/assumption. Consider that military ships in the harbour are just one way for nuclear weapons to find themselves in the City (consider roads, helipads, etc.) ie, the policy is mostly symbolic, but not simply because of lack of harbour jurisdiction over military ships. --Ds13 19:25, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
It is hard to imagine a scenario where anyone would try to move nuclear weapons through any part of Canada on roads or by helicopter. Theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely, whereas Navy ships that do have nuclear weapons (US wont confirm the absence) regularly enter Canadian waters. -- Webgeer 19:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yup, practically speaking, you're right; very few nuclear weapons are likely to be flown through Vancouver airspace anymore. (Maybe cargo on its way to arctic U.S. silos; I don't know.) But for some related trivia... this wasn't so unimaginable in the early 80s. The Canadian Air Force CF-101 Voodoo jets (precursors to the current CF-18s) used nuclear air-to-air missles as their primary armaments and regularly flew throughout B.C. until 1984. --Ds13 21:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Aggregated Old Discussions

I've done a copy edit on this article, but there is more to be done. I want to add a reference to First Nations history in the Vancouver area--it didn't just start when the English began to settle the place.

I've changed the former reference to the "Richmond-Airport-Vancouver light rail line." As far as I know the decision has not been made that it will be light rail. I've changed the corresponding article (a stub), but it will need renaming. Sunray 09:06, 2003 Dec 9 (UTC)

Note that although Expo 86 was about Transportation and Communications, it was not called "Man in Motion." You may be confusing it with Rick Hansen's 1987 "Man in Motion World Tour." Sunray 06:36, 2003 Dec 11 (UTC)

Do we really need the list of municipalities in the GVRD here? There's already a fully linked up list of them on the GVRD page, which links from here in an obvious way. Maybe replace the list with a link to that page? seglea 19:32, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Since they are already included elsewhere, lets just link to that. Sunray 06:33, 2003 Dec 20 (UTC)

To the person that added: "please change that because it doesn't mean anything interesting. Talk of their spiritual believing instead." This is a wiki. If you think something should be changed, go ahead. By all means add something about the spiritual beliefs of the First Nations. On the other hand, it is not a good idea to put editorial comments into the article itself--potentially confuses the reader, IMO. Sunray 17:47, 2003 Dec 27 (UTC)

Added a brief description of the social and spiritual life of the First Nations. Sunray 07:47, 2003 Dec 31 (UTC)

I believe Vancouver's rush hour is bad, but can the claim of ranking "worst in North America" really be backed up by a study or reference? (unsigned)

I doubt it. Look at LA and New York for starters. Exploding Boy 02:24, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sister cities

What exactly is the nature of the "special arrangements" the City of Vancouver has with Los Angeles, Yokohama, Edinburgh, etc.? (This is alluded to in the article, but no details are given.) Trade privileges? Citizen or council perks? Planning? What would Vancouver do for or with these cities that they would not with, say, Toronto or Surrey or Seattle? -- Ds13 03:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, "sister cities" usually means, in practice, that high schools and universities in the cities participate in student exchanges and pen-pal programs. I believe it's a social convention, rather than something more formal.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:49, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Expo 86

I beleive that Expo 86 had the theme of 'World in Motion - World in Touch'.

"It contains the second largest Chinatown in North America, (after San Francisco)": Can anybody cite recent sources of this information and/or define "largest"? I've read conflicting information in travel articles suggesting New York City's Chinatown is the largest but none of them are authoritative.

Picture

Tim's pic of Vancouver
Enlarge
Tim's pic of Vancouver

Above is a picture I took and if people think it's good enough to use, it's appropriately licensed. (Oops, forgot to sign) Tim Bray 05:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great pic, Tim. Can you downsize it? Sunray 07:14, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
Is downsizing it really necessary when it can be thumbnailed (like so →)? I rather like the level of detail it provides.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:11, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I renamed it per Saxifrage's request to Image:Vancouver%2C_aerial_view_from_the_South.jpg I could easily resize it to whatever people think is best. You guys are the WP-style gurus, I'm just a photog :) Tim Bray 00:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone miss the picture of Vancouver that was there prior to May? It showed the city with its backdrop of mountains and water and seemed much more representative than the one that is there now (complete with the caption: "Manhattan of Canada"). Anyone who knows Vancouver's West End (pictured) knows that it is unique and special and not at all like Manhattan - nor does it want to be.

I've written the individual who put the new picture up and asked him if he would mind putting the former one back. Unless there is some legal problem with that, I will do it if he doesn't. Sunray 03:45, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

Hearing nothing, I took the liberty of replacing the picture. The one that's there now is not the best image quality, but it is a much better representation of the beauty and natural surroundings of Vancouver. If anyone can find a similar picture with better image quality, that would be ideal. Sunray 17:22, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Population

I adjusted the population listed. Rathering than listing the population for the Lower Mainland, I used the Statistics Canada population for the CMA for the last census (2001). The boundary of Statistics Canada's CMA is the standard boundary used to indicate the metropolitan area. The last census is the last accurate population count. Until 2006, any other figure is simply an estimate.

Just smoothed out the sentence - too bulky, and isn't the use of census data implied when you state the year? Maybe a link to Canada Census in the external links? --Bookandcoffee 20:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Drugs

Isn't the marijuana cafe info outdated now? --JimWae 07:52, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

No. While Blunt Brothers and the Da Kine may be gone, I have it on excellent authority that many others are still operational. Corvus 00:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Scenery

Actually the Olympic Mountains CAN be seen from southwest Vancouver (high enough point south of 41st, and likely from the North Shore mountains) - though admittedly they are very low on the horizon. I can often see them from Richmond (Garry Point) at sea level too --JimWae 01:57, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected. However, as you note, they don't dominate the skyline the way the North Shore mountains or Mt. Baker do. Because of the weather we have had, I was going from distant memory. I did check a photograph I had taken from Cypress mountain on a pretty clear day. You couldn't really see much past the Gulf Islands in that direction. However, there was some haze over the ocean, so I accept that on a real clear day you probably could make out the Olympic mountains. -- Webgeer 16:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article title

Why is this article not at Vancouver? There's already a disambig header and that article title already redirects here… — OwenBlacker 17:46, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

It's the standard naming convention for cities in Canada and the USA.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:44, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

History

Regarding the transliteration of "Musqueam." I take Legolas' point that the word has either got to mean people or place, not both. However, I haven't been able to get the actual word in the Native language. I understand that there is a prefix in the way they say it that means "place" but I need to get more info. I've asked a Halkomelem speaker if she could sort this out for us. Sunray 19:40, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Fixed. There is a reference to the meaning of the word in A Sto:lo-Coast Salish Historical Atlas. I've changed the wording to incorporate this meaning. Sunray 09:56, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Burrard Street

Previous text said that Burrard is the busiest street in Vancouver. I could not find evidence of this. According to the Vancouver Courier, that honour goes to Granville Street.[4] --Westendgirl 01:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

really? but from the looks Burrard street is way busier than Granville street ANY time of the day. But the fact that Granville street only allows transit viehcles is likely the deceiving factor. However Granville street looks 'older' and is not nicely decorated as Burrard Street, especially the sections near Waterfront. LG-犬夜叉 05:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Greektown?

A minor issue... the validity of "Greektown" has been questioned recently and not much discussion is ensuing about it on its own talk page, so I though I'd pass some awareness on here. It could be put up for VfD, but maybe the Vancouver editing community can settle/merge the article this way. --Ds13 02:13, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Thanks to research and a rewrite by User:Corvus, it appears there really is/was a Greektown, Vancouver after all. Thanks! --Ds13 06:48, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Creeks

Apparently the reason Vancouver has no open running water is because the original creeks were all paved over and diverted into culverts. So, they're still there, just running under the city and joined to the storm-drain system. There's a plaque about it in a tiny park above Spanish Banks somewhere, but I can't remember the name of the park now. Anyone else have information on this?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:48, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

There are actually a few creeks in Vancouver, some which salmon are again returning to each year (after restoration). I think the topic of creeks, lakes, etc. within Vancouver is an interesting one and something natives and visitors may like to know about, so I've updated the article to link to a new Bodies of water in Vancouver article. Maybe this will grow sufficiently (photos and more knowledge, anyone?!) to sustain itself, or maybe it should be split into individual pages, or maybe it should be rolled into the main article. If a decent map of them all and perhaps a photo of each could be contributed, I think this makes for a sustainable topic on its own though. --Ds13 05:44, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

University of BC

The main campus of the University and sites such as TRIUMF and the Museum of Anthropology are not "within" the City of Vancouver

They lie within the borders and municipal jursidiction of the City of Vancouver.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:22, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
No they don't. The western boundary of Vancouver is basically Blanca Street - 1 to 2 km from the UBC Point Grey Campus. UBC is bounded by Pacific Spirit Park and the University Endowment Lands (a provincially managed area). The municipality of Vancouver has no jurisdiction over the University. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has some jurisdiction over UBC (as it does over a number of municipalities, including Vancouver).
  • there is some separation - RCMP instead of VanCity police,... - but the postal address UBC uses is still Vancouver - so it is not part of the city, but it is not incorrect to say it is "IN" Vancouver. The article is not just about the city limits - which would exclude all discussion of Whister, entire recreation section, and much more. Ask almost any resident of BC where UBC is, they will say "Vancouver, of course" not "Just west of Vancouver" --JimWae 22:25, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • The boundary between the City of Vancouver and the University Endowment Lands is very irregular, but is well-defined: http://vancouver.ca/community_profiles/CommunityList.htm I think it's fine to point out the technicality of the boundary, but not to dwell on it, since that may be confusing to residents and vistors alike. UBC is effectively engulfed by the City of Vancouver (as are other "jurisdictions" such as Department of Defense land in Point Grey and foreign embassies downtown), and from a business, recreation, education, and transportation perspective, it's effectively Vancouver. --Ds13 00:13, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Acres of parkland

An anon has asserted that Vancouver has 2,700 acres of parkland, another user edited to 28,000 and noted that it was off by a factor of 10 (though at the time it read "land", not "parkland", so there may have been confusion). According to the Vancouver parks board, Vancouver has 1,298 acres of parkland among about 200 parks. What's the source for the other numbers?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Vancouver has 114km² = 28,170 acres, I do not know where 2,700 acres came from
  • Burnaby is 98.6km², so I doubt it has 11,000 acres (almost 1/2) parkland
  • Surrey is 317.4km² - it could have 11,000 acres parkland
    • but I think it is best to delete or completely rebuild last 2 sentences --JimWae 04:15, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I don't understand why people think it's necessary to assign a quantitative value to everything in Wikipedia. The numbers are often wrong, misleading, or controversial anyway. Vancouver has lots of parkland. End of story.

Xwméthkwyiem ?

Is there any source about the name of the « aboriginal settlement called Xwméthkwyiem » ? I searched on the internet and the only where this appears is on wikipedia. This name looks very strange. MiguelTremblay 17:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It is a Halkomelem word. A Musqueam speaker helped me find a reference to the settlement. The reference is: A Stó:lö Coast Salish Historical Atlas. If you want the publishing info, you can find it under References at Sto:lo. Hope that helps. Sunray 07:31, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Look up Musqueam, which is the English version of Xwméthkwyiem. I wrote a draft article to flesh out the entry, i.e. to start it, but it needs work. Skookum1 02:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

photo request

Please could somebody who lives in the area take and upload a photo of the Vancouver Skybridge to help settle a dispute over the an image that contains it only in the background. If there is a Canadian equivalent of the UK Wikipedian's noticeboard then could someone copy the request there, Thanks Thryduulf 14:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I cross-posted it; see Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board.--Pharos 01:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It looks like someone has posted a better picture. -- Corvus 19:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even know that's its name; most of us just call it "the Skytrain Bridge by the Pattullo". "Skybridge" is every bit as tacky as those other award-winning terms "SkyTrain", "SeaBus" and "WestCoast Express". Every time they have a name contest around here, they pick something really bland/obvious. Of course, the politicians around here are known for their skullduggery and pocket-lining, not for their originality . . . Skookum1 02:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Chinatown in Vancouver

the chinatown in vancouver is weak. i dont know how it could be the 2nd largest in north america

  • weak? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your definition of weak. The largest ethnic group in Vancouver is Chinese. Besides, facts demonstrate the size of a Chinatown by square metres/feet. PeregrineAY 07:21:23, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

The china town in Vancouver is probably not the second biggest. The china town in Richmond (First suburb south of the fraser river) if not already will eventually be THE biggest. Chinese are almost the majority population for the entire city of Richmond.

  • Have a look at Chinatown to understand how they are formed. Although Richmond is indeed the home of many Chinese Canadians, there was no need for a segregated area for the Chinese, therefore, it is not quite a Chinatown. PeregrineAY 07:21:23, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

The item about Vancouver's Chinatown being the second biggest dates from before the new-era immigration influx, from when it was really only San Francisco's and Vancouver's Chinatowns that were around (as far as significant ones go; NYC's is a three-block mini-version, or was then). And I think Vancouver had more Chinese than San Francisco, i.e. it was the largest Chinese community in a single city, but I'm not sure about that stat. As for whether or not Richmond is or has a Chinatown, one of the standard saws around Greater Vancouver these days is "everywhere is Chinatown".Skookum1 02:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

A second capital in British Columbia?

You know how South Africa has different capitals for the different branches of government. Could this concept also be applied to British Columbia?

As you may well know, Victoria is officially regarded as our province's capital, but it only has the headquarters of two of the three branches of the provincial goverment. The BC Supreme Court is located in Vancouver, so could you consider Victoria to be BC's legislative and executive capital, while at the same time considering Vancouver to be BC's judicial capital?  Denelson83  06:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Arguably, but unless we can find some outside source that makes the claim that Vancouver is the judicial capital, saying so in the article would fall under the defintion of original reseach.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Are not these rankings on Quality of Life not activities that one group or another prefer. In addition I think that the article shows simular rankings from several sources it adds weight. Unsigned post by 204.50.74.105 on 22:26, October 7, 2005 (UTC)

Climate

The article mentions that Vancouver has the second warmest climate of major cities in Canada. Should it not mention who is first. Unsigned post by 204.50.74.105 on 22:06, October 7, 2005 (UTC)

Victoria,The capital of B.C., has a warmer climate than Vancouver. As well, due to being in a rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains,Victoria recieves half the rain and snow Vancouver gets. Victoria also is spared from the artic outflow winds that blow out of Howe Sound and the Fraser Valley in the winter.And yes, Victoria is a major Canadian city. Unsigned post by 70.66.75.0 on 21:57, October 9, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/n/Talk%7EVancouver_Archive1_b029.html"