Talk:Hotel Vancouver (1916)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
.svg/32px-Flag_of_Vancouver_(Canada).svg.png){kind=small}
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Vancouver may be able to help! |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
[edit] Title needs space before parentheses
Not sure how to retitle page, but it obviously needs revision.Skookum1 22:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- It has been done. Luke! 23:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thx. I adjusted the text of the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver page a bit, as the "demolished" portion of this page's title didn't look quite right as part of an ordinary article.
[edit] Transfer of heritage pics to main article
Pondering this. From what I've been informed about Canadian copyright by User:Bobanny, it turns out that despite BC Archives and VPL claims of copyright on their heritage collections, copyright expires 50 years after the photographer dies, no matter what. The exception may be Crown Copyright, but I don't think that's the same as acquired copyright, i.e. acquired by the Crown's BC Archives from private copyright-holders, such as these professionally-shot pictures (probably marketing photos, as they're VERY pro in quality, esp. the interiors). So, I'm prepared to trim these of their BC Archives border and put them in the main article but I wanted to sound this out here before proceeding likewise with Gastown and New Westminster and many other articles; this will form a model for the inclusion of other expired-copyright pictures currently claimed by BC Archives, VPL, Vancouver Archives; the Nat'l Archives collection by the way is honest enough to say "copyright expired". IMO the BC Archives collection should be public-access anyway; they're handicapped by the "user pays" ethic of the current polity, which limits public usage of what should be highly-visible public images and not usable only at $35/pop (their going rate for shittily-produced prints).Skookum1 00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
