Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archive/February 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

These are the Wikiproject Vancouver talk page archives from Nowember 2006 to February 2007. Canadianshoper 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

November archive

Since wendrabot was slow, I moved last month's discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver/November 2006. However, I need to change this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archive/November 2006 as this is the standard. -- Selmo (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Vancouver

The Vancouver Portal has come a long way and our objective to greatly improve it, and possibly have it become a featured portal is becoming more realistic. The Portal is undergoing a peer view. See Wikipedia:Portal peer_review/Vancouver. Mkdwtalk 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


If we can sort the categories and perhaps add some infoboxes and navigational boxes, the portal would be ready for a Featured Portal review. Mkdwtalk 11:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Portal:Vancouver Update!

The Vancouver Portal is now a featured portal candidate. Please see Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Vancouver and show your support. Mkdwtalk 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please show your honest opinion about how well you believe the portal meets the featured portal criteria. This is not a partisan votestacking process. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I hardly think Mkdw was trying the rig the process by announcing its candidacy here. Bobanny 06:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not the announcement, it's the "and show your support" that indicates campaigning. In any event, the process is moving along. Rfrisbietalk 13:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
'showing support' can mean addressing feedback generated by the process or voting honestly even if you don't believe it to be ready to be featured as part of the process to get it there. Accusations of 'votestacking' is hardly assuming good faith. Bobanny 17:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I apologize. I look forward to seeing project members' critiques on the nomination page and/or improvements to the portal. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


My intention, and what I thought would be the obvious assumption in the context, was for the readers of this Portal to visit the review, comment (whether it be good or bad), and possibly improve upon the recommendations of said review. I don't truly see how I can force people to vote positively in regards to their own opinion and is completely against the foundation of Wikipedia. Thank you to everyone who interpreted what I said in its rightful context and assumed 'good faith'. Mkdwtalk 18:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver streets

I have created an article called List of Vancouver roads, in the spirit of what was done with Ottawa and Toronto. It will hopefully be helpful to those who want to complete articles on the major thoroughfares of the city. I gather something similar was done for Burnaby, but of course I can't find it now. Fishhead64 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

SkyTrain station article merge

I think it's better to have all of the SkyTrain station articles merged into one list. None of them are notable enough to stand on there own. Many other station articles have in the past, been nominated for deletion. -- Selmo (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support- That's an excellent idea. I can't imagine any editors getting too excited about working on a single station article, and it would seem that to make any one of them comprehensive enough to warrant a whole article, you'd have to get into describing the number of fare machines and location of the garbage cans. I suggest pulling them all together into a list, which looks to be common practice for other cities, and there are lots of examples to draw on. It could be organized by line, include any distinctive characteristics, location, and a fair number of photos (of which the station articles seem to have an abundance). It would be a more useful complement to the main SkyTrain article than all the separate articles, IMO. I started something similar with Stanley Park to try and build an inventory without having to clutter the article too much. Bobanny 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Support Great idea! There are way too many skytrain articles that don't have any notability by themselves. Right now, there isn't enough info that exists about each station themself.Canadianshoper 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

University of British Columbia

I think this article deserves a B or an A — what do you think? Vranak

B at the most. I would personally give it a 'Start" except for the fact that the article is lengthy. The article itself is littered with external links and reads like an advertisement mentioning several non-notable aspects of UBC. Many of the links lead to student run operations. Also there are not nearly enough references and the few that are there are not properly formatted. You may want to try a Wikipedia:Peer Review to gain some more pointers on the article as a whole, and will also be a manditory step before going for a good article review. I also think the pictures are relatively weak and could be bigger. Mkdwtalk 07:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On second thought I agree. UBC is more about geography than a bunch of silly clubs. Vranak

Just in case

Queen Elizabeth Elementary School (New Westminster) has been "prod"-ed. In case there's anything that can redeem it, at the moment I would say it's possibley best placed as a line in a table inSchool District 40 New Westminster Rich Farmbrough, 22:40 7 January 2007 (GMT).

I have deleted the deletion tag.Canadianshoper 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

I left this comment at the talk page for the Vancouver COTM, but I suspect that as no one's looking at the COTM page, no one is looking at the talk page either. Is this collaboration on its last legs? There are few participants and nothing has really happened in a month and a half. Agent 86 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Portal

I would like to take this time to thank everyone who worked on the Portal:Vancouver. We finally made it a featured portal. This featured review is comparable to the one Vancouver underwent and we passed with a 10-1 support/oppose vote. That one oppose vote was especially difficult and I am comforted in the fact that our portal was not the only one having problems with that individual. Thank you all again and we're now closing the gap on being one of the most accomplished city wikiprojects! Mkdwtalk 06:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The Portal:Vancouver is Wikipedia's 29th most viewed portal according to WikiCharts. The portal is one rank above the Portal:War, 17 ranks above the Portal:Ukraine, 25 ranks above the Portal:United States, and 67 ranks above the Portal:Christianity. Way to go!Mkdwtalk 07:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver

Vancouver has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Jeffpw 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Similar WikiProjects

Your list is out-of-date. To keep it more up-to-date, you can transclude the following page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/List of city WikiProjects. BlankVerse 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not that out-of-date. It includes all the ones on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/List of city WikiProjects plus their Canadian parent provincial WikiProjects. Mkdwtalk 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks

Sigh, Marsden-Donnelly harassment case is at Deletion Review again. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Marsden-Donnelly_harassment_case. Kla'quot 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver/Burnaby roads AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kensington Avenue has been posted up, with several streets in Burnaby as well as Hastings Street (Vancouver) bundled together. I'm too tired to comment just now, but thought I'd point it out for anyone interested. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Main Page feature

On Febuary 8, 2007, Vancouver appeared on the Main Page. -- Selmo (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Direction of WikiProject

These last few months have been busy for all of us. I feel like that after the article Vancouver and the Portal:Vancouver we have not had a chance to all collaborate together since. I've noticed a large increase in the number of Vancouver-related articles, which is great, and it seems like now is good time to discuss the future of this WikiProject and were we'd all like to go with it. Perhaps a new plan of to do list? Your thoughts? Mkdwtalk 07:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should be telling our members what their priorities are. We're all doing their own thing. We could take VCTOM more seriously. A WikiProject is a tool; it shouldn't have any type of instructions nor should it say "this article is your top priority". -- Selmo (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is focused on the film articles. Picking a couple of them to improve would be a good idea. As far as Selmo's comment, it seems to be a bad faith comment as Mkdw's suggestions are asking us what we'd like to do with the project and says nothing about telling others what to do. Grow up. Langara College 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to remain civil for all our sakes. User:Langara College, I appreciate you sticking up for me but biting back won't help the situation. User:Selmo, I had no intension of telling people what to do. I thin you misread my message. I was simply saying that we're a cimmunity here and I was seeing if everyone was interested in working together on something or seeing what they wanted to do with the WikiProject. They very well could have said nothing and I think you should give them a chance to respond instead of saying 'you shouldn't be telling our members what to do". My comment was a question for them. I would appreciate if you did assume good faith on my comments for I do feel it felt hostile. Mkdwtalk 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You see, I commented on on content not on the contributor. Langara, you may want to look at WP:AAGF. Anyway, I say COTM is the way to go. -- Selmo (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I nominate a series of personality articles, i.e. biographies of personages not yet fully written or even started. A while back I proposed Chief Dan George as a COTM, and not just because he's an interesting subject but because he deserves far better than what's on Wikipedia. Prominent names in the cit's history also don't mean politicians and businessmen, although some of those need bios too; Count Hugo von Alvensleben for instance has mostl German nobility information, but pre-Great War he and fellow investors were - allegedly - fronts for the Kaiser's own investments in Vancouver's hot realty and stock markets; hmm needs a redirect but I know I saw a page on him, probably via a Von Alvensleben disambig page?). Arthur Sullivan (not of "Gilbert and"), Hugh Pickett, Dal Richards and others in the city's showbiz industry (Pickett was, among other things, GM of the Orpheum for years, and a major impresario - is there an article on David Y.H. Lui? or for that matter the grocery firm H.Y. Louie - appropriate if there's an article on Malkin's, which I'm not sure of). I'm not meaning to focus on entertainment here; civic and community leaders and just personalities - Sam Greer, who stood off the CPR's plans for industrial docks at what is now Kits Beach, I hope has an article already (he was quite the character, also). Famous quotes on Vancouver is perhaps another subject for a subpage; "A city founded by a bartender can't be all bad" - Jack Leshgold, one of the original Gastown revival entrepreneurs, and Joni Mitchell's "they paved paradise, put up a parking lot", which somewhere it came out (citable perhaps) that it was specifically Vancouver she was talking about; somewhere in Kits, specifically, I think. "Vancouver - it rains there, right?" by some innocent US politician once upon a time, who was of course ridiculed and castigated by the local press Duchovny-style, and so on. So there's some thoughts; I'm history-oriented but obviously there's a lot more modern civic infrastructure and culture and business articles that could use work. How's Seaspan International doing, and Cates Towing - both worthy COTM candidates if not already FAs.Skookum1 03:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Postscript that "Vancouver rain lore" is a whole subject-topic, but more like o.r. maybe than anthing else, despite lots being citable (Yvonne de Carlo's hatred of the Vancouver rain, for instance); maybe more applicable to Uncylopedia though ;-).Skookum1 03:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: Bobanny's list of vanished buildings is another worthy area for a focussed onslaught for the project. Also there's all the unwritten MLA and MP articles (or unexpanded from stubs anyway) that could use fleshing out, as also some of the riding histories and issues associated with key elections etc (the Elections WikiProject will soon swing into full gear, whenever the Tories call the next election, or are maybe drubbed into it).Skookum1 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Skytrain FAC

Skytrain is once again a featured article candidate. Show your Support or Oppose and any comments on it, and how to improve the article at this page. Canadianshoper 01:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverite

Hey guys, I wrote kind of a fun essay called You know you're a Vancouverite.... It's a fun read if you're interested. Mkdwtalk 09:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)