Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archive/February 2006

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

GVRD?

Is this simply a WikiProject for Vancouver? Or does it include the entire Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)? --Dogbreathcanada 03:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, originally, I was hoping to cover the entire GVRD (because I live in Richmond, not Vancouver proper) but after looking at the sheer number of articles involved, I think it might be a better idea to cover articles related to the city of Vancouver itself. However, if you guys reach a consensus about it, then I'm sure we can find a way of accomodating the entire GVRD. (I'm basing this WikiProject on WikiProject Ottawa, so their municipality system is a bit different from ours.) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 03:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not do the whole GVRD? Ardenn 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm leaving that up to you guys. I thought about it too but backed out because of the workload involved but if you guys reach a consensus and want to do it, then let's go for it. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 22:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna create a little mini-poll to see if we can reach a consensus. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Support covering the GVRD as part of WikiProject Vancouver

  • Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Bormalagurski 22:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • FlyingPenguins 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Zhatt 01:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC) See comment.
  • Canuck89 02:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Agree completely with Zhatt's comment.
  • Luke 05:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC) - When people who don't have a very good idea of Vancouver read Wikipedia Vancouver-related articles, they don't differentiate between GVRD or just the City of Vancouver. To them, the City of North Vancouver is just as much Vancouver even though it is GVRD. I know this isn't a tourism project; but, Tourism Vancouver, the real-life company responsible for officially marketing Vancouver to the world assumes no distinction between City of Vancouver or the GVRD, rather they are a whole entity.
  • Bookandcoffee 09:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • GeeCee 10:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Fishhead64 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (see comment)
  • Sir Studieselot 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Magnopere 14:27, 7 August 2006
  • Mkdw 10:48, 23 October 2006 - How can you not. I doubt the outter areas of Vancouver will have the resources and people interested needed in filling out articles and information for Wikipedia.

Against covering the GVRD as part of WikiProject Vancouver

  • Dogbreathcanada 02:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC); seeing that the project is called "Vancouver" and not "Greater Vancouver Regional District", probably just best to stick with Vancouver. Seems like there's enough of a workload for Vancovuer alone. One possibility would be to start an overall Wikiproject for the GVRD, then create subprojects for Vancovuer (already exists, obviously), Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam, etc. and link to all those subprojects from the GVRD project page. Would be more beneficial to narrow the scope of each project.
  • Limit to those features associated with the City. I'm sure nobody will stop anybody from contributing to Langley/Richmond/etc topics along the guidelines agreed to under this WikiProject. However, incorporating too much will bog the overall discussions/debate down and make the project less focused. --maclean25 00:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I think it's a good idea to work on the entire GVRD, but Vancouver pages should take priority as that was the Project is about. Maybe even make a seperate template for GVRD items. Zhatt 01:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that too, and that might be something that will happen, I think. Helps to minimize confusion, right? --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Partial agreement. See my comment in the "Against" section for my full opinion. --Dogbreathcanada 03:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
That might work as well. There are many possibilities here, as you can tell. And that idea is a good one. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Chicago has done a good job of including its surrounding areas (called Chicagoland) without too many problems. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 18:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Especially with regard to historical issues, transit and transporation, and personalities it may be hard to distinguish clearly between Vancouver and the GVRD, though I agree that focus should be on Vancouver when possible. Fishhead64 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Even though I've added GVRD templates, I do believe keeping the focus on Vancouver is a good idea. However, it is important to note that at the same time, it's very restricting to limit things just to Vancouver without considering the surrounding municipalities. That's what makes this a bit tricky -- Vancouver doesn't stand alone very often. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion: bug co-op housing people such as myself. You draw on a pool of often over-educated civic-minded busybodies. I'll pass on this project to those in my co-op; maybe it'll help.--Gilded Lily 23:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important to include the surrounding areas because Vancouver itself has too few articles and even if you can come up with a lot of articles, they won't be of much interest. -Sir Studieselot 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How to do it

Okay, looks like it's gonna cover the entire GVRD. Any suggestions on how to do it? (I personally like Zhatt's idea.) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - a template. Fishhead64 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, added. Let's see if this works out. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I missed out on this vote - I typically look at the end of a Talk page and ignore what's up top ;-) but in general I think it's a bit necessary to include GRVD materials, even though I don't quite like it given the particularity of the City of Vancouver unto itself and in the eyes of its citizens; conversely some of the Vancouver-addled (not speaking of anybody here, I think) make the assumption that nothing else in this area is important unless as part of the Vancouver metro area, and certainly the agglomeration is considered "Vancouver" to someone from outside the province. I live in Burnaby, but typically if I was out of here and someone asked me where I was from, I'd pretty well have to say "Vancouver". Nomenclature's a weird thing; see Talk:Lower Mainland....
On the other hand anything that's muni-specific should be on that municipality's page and not here IMO; it's a bit jarring for me to see something about Maple Ridge or Langley in a "Vancouver" article (I went to high school in the Central Fraser Valley - Mission). How to distinguish between Langley/Maple Ridge content and Vancouver-page Langley/Maple Ridge content I'm not sure....have to have more coffee and have a look on what's on the respective pages and give it some thought; just wary of "levelling" the remaining distinctiveness of the suburbs into the Vancouver-mass/blender in the same way that Toronto is now MegaToronto....Skookum1 17:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

People

  1. Might as well start a list though, of important civic biographies to get done:
  • Hugh Pickett
  • Mart Kenney Jr.
  • I've only put these two for now because their obits were in the news recently; my Mom's attending Mart's funeral tomorrow and I'll write up a bio of him from the obits once she gets to me; figured I'd remind someone else here that Pickett deserves an article.
  • Others on the list, but unlisted above: mayors, noted councillors, "Vancouver people" (Alan Garr, Chuck Davis, Jack Webster etc.). Some already exist - e.g. Jack Wasserman - but again the placing of the stubs will help sort all that out. More later.Skookum1 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Further issue is how in-depth such coverage should be; Wikipedia ultimately could be fairly detailed within cities and communities worldwide because of its accretive nature; exactly which broadcaster or politician or businessperson is worthy of a bio is something maybe there should be a priority system on, or ???, otherwise the list is huge; I've run up into this in my puddling around in the early elections and writing a few bios there; there's tons of them, all potentially detailed, that need to be done up; same with civic personalities and others. I nominate the Hugh Pickett and Mart Kenney articles to be examples/collaborations or whatever; could also help establish a template for Entertainment Bio pages within the city's related articles.
I think the People area of the article should be broken down into Entertainers, Writers, Artists, Politicians, Business, Journalism/Publishing/Media, Civic Service/Notability (e.g. Joe Fortes) and so on. The alphabetical lists on the Vancouver and BC and other pages get unwieldy when all those fields are combined; they should be sorted out, or made separate pages with the Vancouver page as the index.
I've not got a lot of time; just fielding ideas for consideration that occurred to me while perusing the page and how it's growing.Skookum1 07:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Kathryn Shaw and Antony Holland should both be put in. Ms. Shaw is the current Artistic Director for Studio 58. She is a regular theatre director around Vancouver at places like Bard on the Beach. Both Shaw and Holland have been recipients to various awards around Vancouver. Jessie Awards, four Lifetime Achievement Awards, BC Entertainment Hall of Fame, UBCP / Actra Sam Payne Award.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Vancouver_Archive_February_2006_8776.html"