Talk:Vancouver, Washington/Archive 1

Archive 1

Population

"the population was at the 2000 census; in 2006..."

This may not (snicker) be a complete sentence.

131.252.245.189 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ayuh. 76.5.130.65 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we broaden out a bit?

Greetings, All. Tom Parks here.

Twice now I have had a minor edit undone in a rather preemptive manner. A quick review of the recent edits shows that this article is dominated by two reviewers, Vantucky and RoryBowman. A sizable portion of the edits seems to consist of out-of-hand reversals of the contributions of others, with no explanation or discussion.

While I appreciate the need and desire to maintain a high level of quality, it seems unreasonable to me that two individuals should take it upon themselves to determine what might be of interest to the rest of the world. Vantucky is admittedly young, and perhaps a certain amount of presumption is endemic to youth. RoryBowman, on the other hand, seems to have been around quite a while.

Now I see that it has come to name calling and threats to block, i.e., "moron", "crap", "vandalism", "joke", "joker", etc. How sad! Especially for you, Vantucky -- your own personal experience with being blocked might have created in you a more kindly, more tolerant spirit. It's not appropriate to be so derogatory toward others, even if they are, in your opinion, misguided in one way or another.

I appeal to you both, with due respect and appreciation for your contributions, to allow room for those whose outlook and presentation vary from yours. After all, that is the glory of Wiki, isn't it?

I encourage you, before slashing the contributions of others, to use the discussion page as the forum it was intended to be, thus giving others who may care an opportunity to express themselves.

I have undone the reversal of my comment in the first section. It was factual, accurate, based on my long (30 years) experience living and working in the Vancouver area. True, it is (admittedly) humorous, but it isn't a "joke", with or without the quotes. It's a reflection of the cultural climate of the inhabitants of the area, and is directly and specifically relevant to the preceding comment that uses the word "moniker."

As for such a comment being "uncited," what would you consider a valid citation for such? Are you really suggesting that every comment you have contributed must also be "properly" cited? Do you really want to go there?

I would welcome any and all suggestions and comments regarding my contributions. On the other hand, I rather resent being summarily dismissed out of hand. So would you, I expect, or anyone, for that matter. Such a comment may be of interest to many others -- who are you to say it isn't?

Tom Parks 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My response is on your talk page. Rorybowman 00:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been off-wiki for some time, so I may have missed some of the edit history you're speaking of. But as to the accusation that we "dominate" or attempt to WP:OWN this article, I can say that up until now Rory and I have been the only editors making significant contributions at all to this article. Simply being the most active does not entail ownership issues, and frankly I find this to be a blatant assumption of bad faith. As it seems that Tom Parks is new around here, I will say (in reference to reverting) that if you aren't willing to have your contributions mercilessly re-edited, this is not the place for you. The only constant on Wikipedia is change. Much of what you say above is off-topic general discussion or personal commentary that is not related to improving the article. If you have particular content issues to bring up, please do so I and I will happily discuss them. But making comments suggesting how users should conduct themselves and bringing up their block history is bordering on WP:NPA. Comments on age are extremely out of line, and continual comment on user's fitness to edit and/or judgment in relation to their age may have repercussions. Stick to content, not contributors. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nate

I rewrote the brief description that was in Vancouver, WA. I've incorporated all of the ideas that were in the earlier article, but we still need more history (a brief para or 2 bringing us up to modern times, esp. info about the shipyards during WW II). We also need a description of the major industries in Vancouver.

And hey, Cougars! Where are you? As of this writing there's no Wikipedia entry for Washington State University.

Nate

---

There seems to be different definitions of "incorporated" as to when Vancouver was incorporated. According to the City, it was January 1857, but according to the 1911 encyclopedia it was made the county seat in 1854 but not incorporated until 1858, and not chartered as a city until 1889.

---

Is there a city seal or flag or logo or something someone could add??? --Kvuo 06:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Got it, the flag is now on there, the city is working on finding a better logo image for me to put this page.

Ajbenj 21:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

It's awesome that this page was written by someone who seems to view Vancouver as little more than appanage of Portland and Oregon (Mentioning that the fireworks show draws Oregonians???????). Seriously, you go you crazy Portlander, whoever you are. And I hope that a volcano erupts in your downtown just like in SimCity 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.79.254 (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2005

---

Yeah the shipyards that made the Liberty ships should be here. I live in Cascade Park, so this may be unimportant, but what about adding something on the old Fisher's Landing settlement? Anyway, I was born and raised in Vancouver and am fiercely proud to distinguish myself as a Washingtonian NOT an Oregonian appendage. I even tell people from another part of the country or world I'm from Vancouver USA rather than saying Portland area, which would be much easier for them to understand. But, that having been said, I'm able to view it objectively and realize we have a bit of an inferiority complex. I don't take any offence to the article at all. After all, Esther Shore Park isn't exactly Pioneer Courthouse Square! And one of my favorite things growing up here was climbing out my bedroom window onto the roof to look at the Portland lights at night.

I think we need a picture of officer's row or something (Chkalov isn't as photogenic!). As well as mention that U.S. Grant, Douglas MacArthur and others were stationed there. In addition, the categories of white and Asian don't take into account our significant population of Russians, Vietnamese and Cambodians. The fact that the local government prints pamphlets in English, Russian, and Vietnamese (I think) is evidence of this. Of course, if you live here you need no such evidence! Khirad 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

source?

it now says: In 2003, 70% of workers in Vancouver worked in Clark County.

what's the source of that info? does it mean:

• if you're working in Vancouver, you're in clark county... so this should be 100%, no?
• or is it trying to say that 70% of the people who live in clark county who have a job work somewhere in clark county? if that's what it's trying to say, then i think it's better if it says, "Only 30% of working residents of Vancouver work outside clark county".

nicknames

if there's some United Nations list of officially recogniZed nicknames then please put a link to it here. by definition nicknames are an evolving, changing thing. when does it go from being slang to an "official" nickname worthy of inclusion on wikipedia? when it appears in print? or on another website? or in a news story? or simply when someone who didn't hear it from you uses the same nickname? for that reason, i think that urban dictionary and other such sites might actually be credible sources when looking up nicknames... for what it's worth, my personal favorite for Vancouver is "Portland's answer to Tijuana", but because i couldn't find ANY reference to it anywhere beyond my circle of friends, i decided not to include it :)

Bkusler 01:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources describes what kind of link is acceptable as a reference. If there aren't any for a given nickname, then it'll have to be removed. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not just remove the entire section or merge the most popular nickname (The Couve) into the main article? It's not like any of the names are equivalent of something like "The Big Apple". Besides, in all my years of living here I've never heard it called "Vantucky". Seems to be a self promotion of that web link.12.7.38.72 09:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) MJE

I'd gladly see such a spam-magnet removed from the article. "The Couve" already appears in the infobox, which would be enough, I think. Shall I go ahead and remove the secion then? — Saxifrage ✎ 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, how "official" is "official"? Seems to me that if it's true even among a small group, it's still factual. Who's to judge what may or may not interest any particular reader? Tom Parks 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been some edit warring by User_talk:24.20.171.26 regarding the nickname of "vantucky". I have provided now 2 citations by a local Vancouver alternative newspaper using the term to refer to Vancouver. There are numerous other sources that unfortunately are not of the proper caliber to include on wikipedia, but that's sort of how nicknames are. Vertigo Acid (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Annexation

One thing I'd like to see in this article is something about how Vancouver ended up with 157,000+ residents. It wasn't that many years ago that only about 50,000 or so lived in the city. Either the city had a major growth spurt (possible, I suppose), but more likely some areas were annexed. Anyone have any insight? Goeverywhere 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

T8y8 - The figure I usually see is 143,000, and I live here. However, those figures were from a few years ago. 157,000 seems about right. Also, I added Union High School, the newest school being built in the ESD

Downtown bridge photo bug?

The photo

Piyo (talk · contribs) tried to add Image:DowntownVancouver 022.jpg to the article and then removed it. The image exists and can be included (as you can see), but linking to it or including it in this article seems to not be working. I suspect this is a MediaWiki bug. I've put it back in the Transportation section and I propose that we leave the broken image link in the article for a bit and see if it magically starts working at some point. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Need Help

I have two really good pictures of Vancouver. One is for Downtown Vancouver Skyline (which I am not sure if that is really a skyline, but a view of downtown Vancouver) which are this Image:DowntownVancouver 012.jpg. Also I tried to put the bridge picture which other person posted about that picture is this Image:DowntownVancouver 022.jpg, but I struggled to put it in the article because somehow the picture didn't work in the article. I wonder if anyone can help? They are good picture and people who went to Vancouver Washington article need to see those pictures.

Thanks for the "skyline." Moved to desert Tucson a year ago and I'm feeling nostalgic, I took the officer's row picture before I left. Khirad 05:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Westley Allen Dodd?

Don't ask me why it crossed my mind, but when I was nine there was a big deal and public paranoia about Westley_Allan_Dodd. I remember, because my parents gave me stern warnings not to wander off alone anywhere. A guy I knew from Junior High (Wy'East) had even lived on the same street as him (near the Mill Plain Shorty's) and had seen him around. Though it is not a pretty side of Vancouver history, I just wanted to see if anyone else thought it was significant enough to include here in the History section. The section seems incomplete without it (as not much has ever really happened in Vancouver), and I'm not bringing it up just for personal anecdotal reasons. He is only one of four people to be executed in Washington since 1976, and by hanging nonetheless; for his crimes commited in David Douglas Park, I think (don't use me as a source for that). Not a pretty point of notoriety for Vancouver, but definitely notable trivia, with more than just sensationalist value in my opinion. All in all, I only think it deserves a sentence or two though. ...Sorry about the locale name dropping, I miss the place. Khirad 05:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I move that if this anonymous joker who keeps putting up the alien history crap keeps it up, we place semi-protection on the article. VanTucky 21:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

again, one person seems to keep reverting to this fake history crap, I move to semi-protect. VanTucky 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Events Calendar and Search

EventSpring.com [1] publishes all sorts of events in the Vancouver area ... a sort of meta event site that consolidates individual event info for specific locations. One can publish events there free. They have calendars and locations by activity type. You can access it by mobile phone. There is a free newsletter one can signup for that publishes top events weekly. This may be a good candidate for the External Links section of the Vancouver Washington wiki page. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Houlding (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

The site is too portland-centric to include as a Vancouver resource. VanTucky 22:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of the locations in Vancouver that have published events free on EventSpring: Firstenburg Community Center, Jim Parsley Community Center, Water Resources Education Center, First Baptist Church, Vancouver Community Library, Hough Elementary School, Slocum House Theatre, Hilton Hotel, Skyview High School Concert Hall, Hudsons Bay High School, Columbia Arts Center, Main Street Theatre, Esther Short Park, Public Playhouse, First Church of God, US Bank at Fishers Landing Office, Historic Reserve Bandstand and Parade Grounds, Columbia Springs Environmental Education, Holiday Inn Express Hotel, Vancouver Historic Reserve, Vancouver Backyard Bird Shop, Uptown Village, Vancouver Courthouse, Pearson Air Museum, Laurelwood Baptist Church, English Estate Winery, St Joseph School, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Bi Zi Farms, Crossroads Commuity Church, Aurora Gallery, Clark College, Clark County Historical Museum, Red Lion at The Quay, Regal Cascade Stadium 16 Cinemas, The North Bank Gallery, Vancouver City Center Cinemas, Cinema 99, Shortys Garden Center, Washington State School for the Blind, Joes Place Farms, Safe Harbor Church of the Nazarene, Glenwood Community Church, Washington Elementary School, Roosevelt Elementary School, Red Cross Building, Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Washington School for the Deaf, Royal Durst Theatre, Corner of Main and Ninth Streets, Salut Wine. There are also events / locations in Portland, and this is of value to Vancouver residents that also attend events in neighboring areas. Thoughts?

Youre being sly about it, but I have looked up your site multiple times and it has always listed primarily Portland events. It is time sensitive, so you may have a list of groups from Vancouver that have ever listed with eventspring, but that doesnt mean there are consistent listings for vancouver. Besides the fact that for it to be a Vancouver event listing, it must be primarily focused on the Vancouver which it is most definitely not. Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise your site, it will be reverted, thanks. VanTucky 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "sly". If this were true we would not be having this open discussion. Also, not sure where you looked to determine recent events, but I count 26 events at Vancouver locations just in the last week, spread across the following specific locations: Columbia Arts Center, Water Resources Education Center, Slocum House Theatre, Cameo Cocktail Lounge, Art On The Boulevard. There is no advertising here. Simply listing a free service for event publishers and attendees. Many members of eventspring are from Vancouver which is further evidence that this site is a great and useful resource for them. I think you do a disservice by excluding this link. I urge you to reconsider.

Referring to Zorgons

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop reverting my edits to the Vancouver page. I am basing this off of credible information that I have researched for many years. I have even gotten the approval from the directors board in Clark county to add this history onto the page, so please stop reverting my edits. Thanks.

We would all appeciate you ceasing from the vandalism, it creates alot of needless work. and if you dont, we'll simply block you from editing the page. so quit while youre ahead moron. VanTucky 17:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As noted, please don't be a dick]. -Rorybowman 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nautilus

Could somebody include a reference to the Nautilus world headquarters.24.20.175.87 07:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Economy?

Someone from Vancouver should add an economy section.

Vancouver B

As no reliable, published source affirming the notability of this term has been provided, and never having heard this moniker in my entire time growing up in Vancouver, I am removing it for now. Remember that the burden of proof rests on those who wish to include content to provide reliable verification. Even if the name is verified to be notable, the joking comparison of "A" and the Canadian stereotype of "eh?" fails to have a sufficiently encyclopedic tone. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

January 10, 2008 Tornado

Vancouver had a major tornado today, January 10th. Since the 1972 tornado was referenced, today's should be also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodandjoyce (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This tornado was not in Vancouver but Clark County. A section in the "climate" section for Clark County, Washington seems more logical. Rorybowman (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. VanTucky 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There were two tornadoes...one touched down in Clark County (the larges one) and the other actually touched down VERY close to Downtown Vancouver It should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.237.80.119 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof that more than Washingtonians refer to Vancouver, BC as "Vancouver, BC"

Seattle Times article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2008116402_trthreecities17.html

Seattle P.I. article: http://blog.seattlepi.com/realestatenews/archives/171907.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkbakayaro (talk • contribs) 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

For ckatz, Here's an article from the Oregonian:

http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index.ssf/2009/01/vancouver_bc_dayandnight_delig.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the article is written by an Oregon travel agency, and not someone from Wikipedia. The published copy most likely went through editors, proof readers, and several other people before 'print' like most publications. I wouldn't be surprised if someone stated they had to add the BC into the article to clarify they weren't talking about the local Vancouver. Mkdw^talk 08:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's from the Anchorage Daily News:

http://www.adn.com/money/story/674122.html

And Archorage is not a Canadian town. It's in Alaska. Mkdw^talk 08:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's not. Who said it was? The point is, many people in outside of Canada don't always think of Vancouver, BC when they think of Vancouver. Those include people in Alaska, Washington, Oregon. Even the LA Times clarifies the Vancouver in stories. I have a suspicion some Canadians on Wikipedia have an inflated sense of the fame of its largest West Coast city outside of Canada/Hong Kong.

The US editors decided to name their cities with the states. Internationally (Europe, Canada, Australia) all decided to do the same except for notable cities like Paris, London, Toronto, and so forth. It wouldn't make sense for London to have to add England to its name to make way for the small 200,000 town of London, Ontario -- in Canada.

Let's talk about ease of use. The article Vancouver was visited 1,200,000 times in 2008. The article Vancouver, British Columbia was visited 15,000 times in 2008. The article Vancouver, Washington was visited just under 20,000 times in 2008. Even if you think about everyone trying to get to a different Vancouver article, it dwarfs the total of all the rest. Vancouver was the 984 most visited article on all of Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 08:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're right, not everyone does. But 1,200,000 to 20,000 do.Mkdw^talk 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

LA Times article:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/02/stop-the-presse.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

US Newspapers don't add the state names arbitrarily, it is done to avoid confusion. It's common to refer to cities such as Seattle, Chicago without state names, because they are unlikely to be confused.

Here's an example from the NY Times:

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/travel/escapes/04hours.html?scp=2&sq=seattle&st=cse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, I'm still waiting for your proof that no one outside of Washington refers to Vancouver, BC as Vancouver, BC! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Essay by Mkdw about 'Vancouver why no disambiguation'

The following is an essay by User:Mkdw. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The issue regarding Vancouver's name space landing on the Canadian city versus a disambiguation page due to its shared name with the United States city Vancouver, Washington arises frequently. In this page is a summary and collection of arguments, facts, and details surrounding the circumstances of "why Vancouver is not a disambiguation page".

Naming conventions

United States

Copied from Wikipedia United States Naming Convention

The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]] (the "comma convention"). Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). If more than one city, town, or census-designated place within the same county has the same name, specify the type of local government unit in parentheses before the comma (e.g., Poughkeepsie (city), New York and Poughkeepsie (town), New York, but not "Poughkeepsie, New York (city)"). Three unincorporated communities bear two states' names due to their peculiar locations across a state line: Glenrio, New Mexico and Texas, Freedom, Idaho and Wyoming, and Ray, Indiana and Michigan.

Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may have their articles named [[City]] provided they are the primary topic for that name. The cities listed by the AP are Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington. No other American city may have its article named [[City]]. Proposals to move any of the above-listed cities are initiated per the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and should be announced on the talk page of these guidelines.

A United States city's article should never be titled "city, country" (e.g., "Detroit, United States") or "city, state, country" (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, USA").

Canada

Copied from the Wikipedia Canadian Style Guide & Naming Convention

1. Population and Google-hit comparisons between cities of the same name may be helpful in determining primary usage, but are not conclusive in isolation. For example, Hamilton and Windsor are larger than their namesakes in other countries, but for historical, political or cultural reasons they are both less internationally significant than at least one of their smaller namesakes, and thus do not qualify as primary usages. In one special case, Halifax Regional Municipality, the title is undisambiguated but located at the official name rather than the common "Halifax"; a separate subarticle on the pre-amalgamation city of Halifax is located at City of Halifax. In such cases, however, the plain title should normally be a dab page.
2. Cities may also lose out as primary usage to non-city topics — for example, Regina and Prince Albert are both the largest cities of those names, but cannot be considered primary topics as both are overridden by their names' royal connotations.
3. Disambiguation pages are not meant to serve as search indices for all Wikipedia articles which have a word in their titles — they are meant only to steer people to the correct choice among articles which could potentially have the same title. For instance, only articles which could potentially be given the title Toronto are to be evaluated when deciding whether that title should be a dab page or an article about the Canadian city. Topics such as Toronto Transit Commission, University of Toronto or Toronto Public Library, which merely contain the word Toronto in a longer name, are not to be considered when making such a decision, as they cannot validly be moved to the plain title "Toronto". A comprehensive article about the city would already include links to these topics anyway.
4. Further page moves are permitted. However, a discussion should take place on the article's talk page before a move is implemented, so that we have documented proof that people have put adequate research into the uniqueness or importance of the topic. Do not move an article arbitrarily if this input has not been solicited on the talk page, and do not assume that a name is unique just because another article doesn't already exist at the plain title. Also note that the discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not at WP:NC, which is primarily for discussion about the general aspects of naming conventions. It is also common practice that the discussion be listed under the "Requested moves and mergers" section at WP:CWNB.
5. In most cases, an article is a candidate for such a page move if "City" already exists on Wikipedia as a redirect to "City, Province". An article may also be a candidate for such a page move if "City" is a blank redlink. As some confirmation may be needed that a name is actually unique, however, always propose a page move for discussion first as neither of these circumstances is sufficient to justify an arbitrary renaming.

For cities which do not qualify for undisambiguated titles, the correct title format is [[City, Province/Territory]] (the "comma convention"). For the territories, please note that the correct forms are "City, Yukon" (not "City, Yukon Territory") and "City, Nunavut" (not "City, Nunavut Territory"), but "City, Northwest Territories". For the easternmost province, the proper form is "City, Newfoundland and Labrador". Localities that need further disambiguation beyond the province or territory include their county, municipality or parish. (e.g. Armstrong, Thunder Bay District, Ontario, due to the need to disambiguate it from the Armstrong, Ontario in Timiskaming District — as the one in Timiskaming is an incorporated municipality, it gets title precedence.)

A Canadian city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, Canada" (e.g "Halifax, Canada"), although it is permissible to create a title of this type as a redirect to the properly titled article. Similarly, a title that uses the province's two-letter postal abbreviation should never be the primary article title, although creating a redirect is permitted. You may also create redirects from documentably common misspellings such as "Winnepeg", "Ottowa", "St. Catherine's" or "Iqualuit", although it is not necessary to anticipate every conceivable misspelling that could possibly arise.

Dedicated city categories should always be named with the same title format as the city's main article. That is, if the article is at Toronto, then use "Toronto" rather than "Toronto, Ontario" in category names, but if it's at Regina, Saskatchewan, then name the related categories in the format "Regina, Saskatchewan" rather than "Regina".

A former geographic name, such as Berlin, Ontario, Fraserville, Quebec, Bytown or York, Upper Canada, should only have a separate article if there's something substantial that can be written about the history of that name — otherwise it should exist only as a redirect to the place's current name.

See also Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities, an ongoing project to review which Canadian cities are likely or unlikely to qualify for page moves.

Overview

In 2006 the United States editors agreed to partially adopt the Geographic Naming Convention and many parts of the International Naming Convention. This initial discussion can be found here. Follow up and the implementation as well as the additional and final details can be found on the archive pages of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

In summary this allowed certain cities like San Diego, Los Angeles, and Boston (to name a few) to exclude the formula <city>, <state> and replace it with <city>, in the AP Stylebook format, if the place was the Primary topic. Canadian editors had already been using the International Naming Convention and had allowed the exclusion of having the province of Canada in the name of a city that was the 'Primary topic'.

Past dispute, on whether Vancouver should link to a disambiguation page or land on the Canadian city, has not been about the ease to the most number of editors, or the fact that the naming conventions exist, but rather if Vancouver (British Columbia) is notable enough to be a primary topic over Vancouver, Washington. What is certain is that this has been the subject of somewhat heated debate over years and will likely continue to do so in the future. Personal loyalty, bias, and overall pride for one's city has clouded the true objective of this Wikipedia -- creating a free encyclopedia. Accessibility is only a small part in the large picture.

Hit count and what links here

In January 2009, the article Vancouver (referring to Vancouver, British Columbia) was visited 136,415 times (an average of 4,400 hits per day), ranking it 968 most visited. The article was visited a total of 1,269,997 times in 2008. Comparatively, the article Vancouver, Washington was visited 11,023 times (an average of 355 hits per day). The article was visited a total of 121,106 times in 2008. Factoring in the mishits (hits to the article that were intended for other Vancouver-related articles such as Vancouver, Washington or Vancouver Island) the numbers intended for Vancouver, British Columbia are still significantly greater than even the sum of all the articles that share the name and/or content involving the keyword "Vancouver". It was also noted that the redirect Vancouver, British Columbia was visited 8,203 times (an average of 264 hits per day) further contributing to the argument of most easy accessibility to Wikipedians.

Wikipedia specifies this as the 1st method of determining a Primary topic for disambiguation pages.

Additionally, what links here reports a little under 1,000 English Wikipedia page links to Vancouver, Washington. These include talk pages, templates, signatures, user boxes, redirects, and more. Articles about regions in and around Washington state and articles about US naval ships were among the highest in appearance (just over 50%). The article Vancouver has over 8,500 page links. Sports, biographies, and events were among the highest in appearance (just over 18%). Again the links intended for other Vancouver-related articles that were mistakenly linked were considered, and the article Vancouver, British Columbia with a little under 3,500 links was used as the offset factor.

Wikipedia specifies this as the 2nd method of determining a Primary topic for disambiguation pages.

Notable events

Vancouver (British Columbia) was the host city for Expo 86, the 2010 Winter Olympics, and 2010 Winter Paralympics. In January 2009, the article 2010 Winter Olympics was visited 44,861 times (an average of 1,447 hits per day). While the 2008 Summer Olympics were unprecedented, the article was visited 4,519,081 times in August, 2008 (an average of 150,636 times per day). The article Beijing in the same month was visited 688,198 times (an average of 22,199 times per day). The expectations of the increasing popularity of Wikipedia as a research tool coupled with the popularity of the Olympics gave for strong support to not have Vancouver as a disambiguation page.

Notability of the Vancouvers

Facts about Vancouver: (as found on the WikiProject Vancouver)

• Vancouver is the largest city in British Columbia, Canada (2,116,581).
• Vancouver is Canada's third largest metropolitan centre.
• Vancouver has been consistently ranked among the top five "World's Most Livable Cities".
• Vancouver is North America's largest television production centre and third-largest film production centre.
• Vancouver is North America's second largest port (in tonnage & physical size - after New York).
• Vancouver is the 4th largest cruise ship terminus in the world.
• Vancouver contains both the wealthiest and most impoverished neighbourhoods in Canada.
• Vancouver became a featured article on November 22, 2006.
• Vancouver appeared on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's featured article on February 8, 2007.

No WikiProject for Vancouver, Washington nor mention of it on the WikiProject Washington exists, though information about the city was readily available on the article itself. The city distinguishes itself with a population of 162,400. It seems to have had a rich history and association with the military (especially the navy) due to the number of articles about US naval ships that link to the main article. Possibly inaccurate, a resident of Vancouver, Washington described it on a major discussion as a suburb city to Portland, Oregon. Much like Richmond, British Columbia is to Metro Vancouver.

Votes

First Vote

An unofficial vote closed by User:Tariqabjotu was done on the Talk:Vancouver (disambiguation). The vote ended on August, 27, 2006 resulting in a 20 - 1 decision not to request a move. A link to notify editors was placed on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board (the Canadian focal point for all naming convention conflicts and implementation) as well as Wikipedia Naming Conventions (the United States and main Wikipedia focal point for all naming conventions, conflicts, and implementation).

Second Vote

A second vote, supervised by Wikipedia Administrator User:JHunterJ, 3 years later, and the most recent was taken at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_28#Vancouver_versus_Vancouver.2C_Washington. Messages were posted to members of the following to participate.

• Vancouver
• British Columbia
• Canada
• WikiProject Vancouver
• WikiProject British Columbia
• WikiProject Canada
• Canadian Naming Convention

• Vancouver, Washington
• Washington
• United States
• Portland, Oregon
• WikiProject Washington
• WikiProject United States
• US Naming Convention

• Talk:Vancouver (disambiguation)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions
• Wikipedia:Primary Topic
• Wikipedia:Disambiguation
• Wikipedia:Notability
• 2010 Winter Olympics

The voted ended on February 10, 2009 resulting in a 20 - 1 decision not to move the article Vancouver to Vancouver, British Columbia (or another name) and make Vancouver a disambiguation page.

Google test

A google test based upon link usage has Vancouver (British Columbia) listed on the top 11 search results. The 12th spot is the City of Vancouver, Washington, and then the next 20 results are Vancouver, BC related. While Google tests cannot be definitive and generally not solely used to decide WP:N especially on WP:AfD, it is commonly used as an argumentative point.

Wikipedia specifies this as the 3rd method of determining a Primary topic for disambiguation pages.

Naming convention related discussion

Set conventions

• Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States
• Wikipedia:DAB#Primary topic
• Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities
• Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/List of settlements at plain title
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Talk

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006)
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/comma for all cities
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 15#Vancouver
• Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_28#Vancouver_versus_Vancouver.2C_Washington - A survey about moving the article on Feb 10, 2009.

Article talk pages

• Talk:Vancouver/Archive3#Name on June 14, 2006.
• Talk:Vancouver/Archive 6#Landing Page on March 9, 2007.
• Talk:Vancouver (disambiguation)#Requested move - A poll about moving the article on August 26, 2006.

Comments from the author

Welcome to Wikipedia Bureaucracy. As a resident of Vancouver, Canada, I of course have my own biases and this essay is far from perfect. I simply did the best I could to logically rationalize, support, and present my argument in a way that not only reflects what the rest of Wikipedia is doing, that we're following convention, but also by readership accessibility.

I was discussing the pros and cons with a fellow editor about why disambiguation pages exist and for the sheer consistency and fairness make every shared name link first to a disambiguation page. After all, not everyone wants to go to just one article. Then came the analogies. On a dusty road a pedestrian can cross it whenever they like. Some more busy streets have pedestrian controlled crosswalks. The number of cars moving down the street might significantly outnumber the pedestrian wanting to cross the road but at some point they need to cross, so we accommodate them (insert one disambiguation page). Perhaps its an intersection with 2 busy roads and many pedestrians, the majority of them all moving in one direction, but we have lights. Now imagine a highway. An overhead walkway is more inconvenient, but it defeats the purpose of having a highway if you put stops in every step of the way. In the end it works out for some greater good.

The fact is this is the way we all live our lives in this society of ours. There are fast lanes, and slower traffic keeps right. Highways and walkways, lineups and NEXUS card lineups. All for the purpose of making our travels that much more quick. We have naturally brought that chaotic organization with us to Wikipedia. Not everyone wins, but no one really loses. The entire internet has been based upon clicking links. The average number of times a person clicks is between 450 - 1,500 in a day -- what is 1 more?

References

The above essay is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Survey

I'm conducting a new survey since the last was done 3 years ago (an editors lifetime on Wikipedia) at 2009 Vancouver Vs. Vancouver, Washington Survey. Your input would be most appreciated. Mkdw^talk 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured on Unsolved Mysteries - "Haunting on 37th Street"

[2] Has anyone else seen this? Does it warrant mention in the article? I'd at least like to know where the house is.. --RyanTee82 (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Vancouver Washington a suburb of Portland, or do residents consider Vancouver Washington a "Stand Alone" city. I've talked to people online from Vancouver Washington who seem to take great offense when refering as Vancouver Washington as a suburb of Portland. Just for curiosity, I googles directions from Van wash to Portland and it turned out to be an 11 min travel time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.34 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on who you talk to. It is indeed a separate city (in a different state, separated by a river), but legally it's part of the Portland MSA. See Portland metropolitan area Vertigo Acid (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I lived in that house for 12 years of my life. I'm looking for both the unsolved mysteries episode and the newspaper (the columbian) article that featured my parents. If anybody has either of these please post it here. I think i foudn the youtube videos of unsolved mysetires, but larry king live and the news article would be nice. It's a little piece of family history I'd like to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowninjormon (talk • contribs) 08:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the house was also featured on Larry King Live. Love to find that episode too! I know the date, April 3, 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowninjormon (talk • contribs) 17:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum; this isn't the best place to go shopping for things. tedder (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Geography

Recent edit added that you can see both Mt. Rainier and Mt. Jefferson from the Vancouver area. Am I the only one skeptical of this? I've lived in this area my whole life, and it's my experience that you can't see Rainier easily, even 60 miles north of Vancouver, much less from anywhere in Clark County. And Jefferson is hard to impossible to see from Portland (perhaps from somewhere in the west hills?). Thoughts? Vertigo Acid (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it. You can't see either mountain from Vancouver, (at least not in the city limits, that's for sure). Steven Walling 20:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One can see Mounts Hood, Adams, St. Helens and just the very peak of Jefferson from the campus of WSU-Vancouver (north of and outside the city limits of Vancouver but still within Clark County), which itself sits upon the SE slope of Mt. Vista (a mere foothill in comparison to the previously named). However Rainier is not within view from Vancouver. One has to be on Silver Star Mountain (just east of Clark County) in order to see Rainier on a VERY clear day as St. Helens blocks the view to Rainier from Vancouver. Just took shots of the four peaks today from the WSU-V campus and I plan on posting them into the WSU-Vancouver article as it is lacking in pictures.BGinOC (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it might be possible to see all of these volcanoes from within city-limits. There's a photographer's website, and she's taken photographs of the mountains while standing on the shore of Vancouver Lake at Vancouver Lake Park [3]. That shoreline is within city-limits.Knightablaze (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver BC

I am a bit puzzled by the obsession with mentioning AND triple-linking two articles which are not directly relevant to the subject in question. Whilst British Columbia and Canada are relevant and germane to Vancouver BC, it seems a perverse to argue these links are in any way relevant to Vancouver, Washington, other than their link through a namesake. I thought using clever piping I've seen elsewhere would actually be an elegant and acceptable solution for linking to such a well-known city. It also just seems someone might be deliberately creating gratuitous opportunities to link to Canada (there's your link), but I just wanted to state for the record how irrational and obstinate I think this is... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me. The confusing and misunderstandings that can happen as a result of the two relatively nearby cities sharing the same name is similar to the Washington & Washington DC issue. The Washington (U.S. state) page has a similar bit of text in the lead, and links to Washington, D.C.. Is that an obessive and irrelevant link? Pfly (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have no issue with the need to draw those parallels. While Vancouver and Vancouver, Washington need to be clearly distinguished, what is being done here seems like linking for its own sake, and is turning into a minor coatrack. I'm tempting fate here, but I say I'm glad no-one has seen fit to link District of Columbia in the Washington (U.S. state) article. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant to me as well. OC, the Vancouver-Vancouver issue is germaine to the region's history, the way it was explored and developed, and so on. There are key points that need to be addressed in the text, which (admittedly) doesn't make the writing any easier. While your efforts at rewriting are appreciated, the hidden link/no mention of BC or Canada approach does not establish how the other Vancouver is in an entirely different country, nor does it set up the "British Columbia" needed to have the later text about the nickname "Vancouver, B.C." make sense. Keep in mind that the guidleine (not policy) clearly allows for links to both British Columbia and Canada, both in its wording and in the established practice for guidelines ("Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions"). --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is highly extraordinary to need to link it in such a fashion as you have chosen here. Just take a look at Birmingham or this Paris or this other Paris, all of which IMHO set a much better example how to link whilst applying common sense (sic). There, we only see a modest link to Birmingham and Paris in the lead – whilst ' this Paris' doesn't even link there in the lead – Let's face it, Vancouver BC, just like Paris, are so well known that this treatment just isn't needed. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it is highly patronising to the average reader. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• In many contexts, linking something puts it down. It says: this is not well-known. You may need to consult the article to understand this topic. You sure you want to put Canada down like that? Tony (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

OC, the examples you've given do not relate to this at all. There is very little (if any) possibility that anyone is going to inadvertently end up in Paris, Texas instead of Paris, France - nor is there a realistic chance that a Dallas resident will mistakenly head for Tennessee if told to meet someone in Paris. You call this "highly extraordinary" - well, how would you describe having two large Vancouvers essentially equidistant from Seattle? In the Pacific Northwest, there is a genuine opportunity for confusion between the two given their close proximity.

As for Tony's comment, your perception of what a link means seems very different to what I suspect most people interpret it as. You're portraying the link as a "put down" to Canada, but I would wager that the majority of our readers - even Canadians - would simply interpret it as a helpful link. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• <sigh> I think the examples I gave mirror the situation exactly – in all three cases, we have cites which have much better known counterparts in other locations. In none of these articles is there more than a link to that more notorious namesake; no link to state or continent. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• I'm unwatching this article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, too late for me to reply I guess. The relationship between Vancouver, WA, and Vancouver, BC, is much closer than Paris TX and Paris, or Birmingham AL and Birmingham. The need to "disambiguate", as Wikipedians say, or not is fairly complex in the region. For example, in news about Washington politics one commonly hears "Vancouver" referred to with no qualification, understood to mean Vancouver WA (especially closer to Portland). In fact the signs on I-5 in Washington show miles to "Vancouver" one way and "Vancouver BC" the other (and yes, I actually know people who have driven the wrong way for a couple hours). Further, Paris TX was named after Paris, and Birmingham AL after Birmingham, but neither Vancouver was named after the other, and the Washington Vancouver was founded long long before the well-known BC one--in the context of 19th century history, "Vancouver" usually means the one now in Washington). So it's complicated. But all that aside, was the issue really just the wikilinking of "Canada"? I could see not linking it because everyone knows what Canada is, and knows it borders Washington. But then, I'm not quite sure everyone does know! I can't even tell what the "coatrack" is supposed to be about--a pro-Canada agenda or something? Anyway, when I write articles with this kind of text I often use a form like, "the Canadian province of British Columbia.." In other words, not linking to Canada, which is a long and mostly tangential article, but to the page about Canadian provinces. This not only lets people know that BC is in Canada (though I hope most people already know it) but links to a short page that explains BC's role/status in Canada--along with a useful map near the top. Anyway, I tried to think of another example of two cities, one a fairly major city, with the same name within 300 miles of each other but in separate countries. Couldn't think of any. Pfly (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Yes, to local Washingtonians, it is reasonable to assume that Vancouver is the WA one, while BC would need to be explicit. All that contextual focus is fine, and isn't my point of contention. Your preferred formulation is indeed an improvement over what is/has been in the article, but my objection was linking to three articles in a row, namely Vancouver, British Columbia, AND Canada, declined with increasing distance (in terms of the subject) from one central focal point, which is Vancouver, WA. I'm glad you agree the contents of Canada are tangential; the Provinces article is a little less so. In terms of the philosophy of linking, we would want (or believe, if we were in their shoes) to focus on links which would enhance understanding of the subject in question, and not lead us off at a tangent. The link to Canada clearly leads me off at a tangent, which is why I used the term 'coatrack'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't get being anal about things, but I like the fact that people clear the two up because when I moved out of vancouver and tried to tell people where I was from, half the kids at the new school thought I was canadian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowninjormon (talk • contribs) 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Geodesic coordinates

I'm copying a response to my previous edit from my talk page to here since it seems more appropriate.

DMS coordinates are not like significant figures. You can't just chop the seconds off as being "too precise", because then that's a different coordinate, D M' 0". In this case, the coordinate you changed it to was utterly wrong:

[4] vs [5]

Like, in another city and state wrong ;). Cities don't generally have an established centroid or anything that can accurately be pointed to with a single coordinate that says "this is the city!", but that's a different discussion entirely. Vertigo Acid (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the google maps API well enough to parse all your fields. When I typed in the coordinates it looked fine, but that's not really the issue. If it takes two decimal points to get the dot within city limits, then it takes 2. Six decimal points is completely absurd. That works out to a precision the size of a coffee cup. This makes no sense for locating a city. You could say the the door to the Vancouver Starbucks is at 45.639356,-122.671650 while the register is at 45.639376,-122.671701. It is silly to locate a city (which you acknowledge has no defined centroid) to that level of precision.

I would propose 45.64 N 122.66 W, which is closer to the actual downtown than the six decimal place point anyway. -Selket ^Talk 16:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, there's nothing to "parse" in those fields. Google maps is simple. Type a decimal degree location into google maps in the form DD N DD W (or whatever direction as appropriate) and it will give you a nice green arrow at that location. 45° 36' 0" is in the Columbia river.

And my other point is that the coordinate 45.64 contains the same amount of precision as 45.633611. In DMS, it's 45° 38' 24" N vs 45° 38' 1". Choosing a point within the city that just happens to be able to be represented as a decimal with less numbers does not represent a more or less precise location. It's simply a consequence of how the math of decimal to DMS degree conversion works and the convention of not using more than 6 digits (if you do the math long-hand on converting 38' 1" you'll see there's a repeating decimal, so 6 really isn't even enough to represent 38' 1", you need infinite). DMS vs Decimal Degrees can't be treated with the usual conventions on significant figures.

Lets take your starbucks cup example. 45.639356 converts to 45° 38' 21.681", which I agree is ridiculously precise. So lets chop a few numbers off the end. 45.6393. Oh, shit, that converts to 45° 38' 21.4794", which is a more precise location! It doesn't work like you seem to think it does.

If you want to change the coordinate to something arbitrary that can be represented in base-10 with 2 digits instead of 6, be my guest. Just pick something actually in the city this time. Vertigo Acid (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

When converting units the post-conversion number should not be substantially more precise than the pre-conversion number. What you are proposing is like saying "The Mississippi river is 2320 miles (3733.67808 km) long." This is clearly silly, and there is a style guideline against doing that. The length of the river is not measured to the cm, even if the conversion from miles to km can easily be done at nine significant figures. Truncating a pre-conversion number can never produce a more precise post-conversion number (as you did above). Two significant figures in base 60 is about the same precision as four significant figures in base 10. It is nowhere close to nine significant figures.

To reiterate, 45.6393 converts to 45° 38' 21" because you can't gain precision. You do not get to add the four decimal points. By your logic should 0° 1' be 0.17, 0.16667, 0.16666666666666667 or 0.1666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666667? They are all precise representations of 1 arc minute in degrees. --Selket ^Talk 22:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Convention in representing decimal degrees is 6 digits when representing a location to 1 arc second. 1 arc minute may or may not be precise enough to represent a city that lies on a border, as you found out. So change it to something appropriate if you so desire. Like I said, I'm all for you picking a location that satisfies your arbitrary need for a location with less significant figures when represented as a decimal. Go for it. Vertigo Acid (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Coords down to the arc second make sense when the source is the USGS GNIS database, which cites coords to that resolution. The {{coord}} template has a "dimension" or "dim" field you can use to control how "zoomed in/out" you'll get when going to GeoHack, Google Maps, ACME Mapper, etc etc. So even if you have very precise coords you can still link to a usefully zoomed out map. Here's an example, centered on Esther Short Park, Vancouver (and also using the "type" and "region" parameters to indicate the coords are for a US city): {{coord|45|37|36|N|122|40|30|W|type:city_region:US_dim:10000|display=inline}}; 45°37′36″N 122°40′30″W. Click the coords there to see how the dim field makes Google Maps, etc, behave. Also, while I'm posting, let me plug the GeoLocator tool for making coord template data. Easy and quick. Pfly (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vancouver, Washington/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Overall an average to good summary of the city. Lacking some references in sections but otherwise okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdt83 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Very POOR article. The Arts section is totally biased, inaccurate and misleading.Who makes the changes and how to we develop sections with more detail and actual accurate information? Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.226.133 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Routine and DJ and Christian

I'm not so sure of my own stance on this that I'd edit the article directly (plus I'm new at this), but does anyone else think the 2nd half of the 2nd paragraph in Arts and Culture, specifically the one that talks about the accomplishments of "DJ and Christian" is a bit of an advertisement? What does that have to do with Vancouver's arts and culture, really? Indirectly I suppose it talks about the nominal notariety, but would it be more appropriate for DJ and Christian to have their own wiki, and to link to it from here? Just my $0.02. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BazookajoeReno (talk • contribs) 15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no indication the people or the band meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'll remove it. And BazookajoeReno, welcome to Wikipedia! Feel free to dive in with editing, and come to my talk page if you have questions. tedder (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Annexation

I wish someone would explain what land was annexed from Clark County between 1990 and 2000. I find it hard to believe that Vancouver gained 200% population overnight. It looks like the city took over unincorporated land. I know there has been some controversy over the boundary between Camas and Vancouver, which is now approximately 192nd Ave. Comment added by SammySpade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.97.214 (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to do that. Perhaps you could find the info you need in the local paper or the Oregonian. If you need any help, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit! John from Idegon (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ulysses Grant?

I was under the impression that "Notable People" are those who were either born or spent a significant portion of their upbringing in the city/area. Grant is from Ohio. His only connection to Vancouver was that he was sent there (or Fort Vancouver at the time) as part of his military service. By the same token he was also sent to Detroit and San Francisco, but neither of those cities list him as a "notable person". Can we remove him from this section? Wiki-kun (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your impression is slightly incorrect. A person who was born in, or died in, or spent a significant portion of his life in a community may be listed. There was recently a huge kerfuffle over the significance of the time Grant spent in a city in California while in the service. It came down to the fact (if my memory serves, and I can't even remember the name of the community, so take that for what it's worth) that he was stationed there as the commander of the facility so that made his time there significant. For what it's worth I agree with you. John from Idegon (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

References in culture

I undid an edit reversion, based on the prionciple that it is not a good idea to blank whole sections without rationale or discussion.

To me it seems comparable to mention this city appearing in a best selling novel to the mention of the less well known TV series Portlandia on the page for the city across the river, Portland OR. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've removed the In culture mention of Fifty Shades of Gray, as it doesn't meet the criteria set forth at Wikipedia:IPCEXAMPLES. (I accidentally saved my edit before completing my edit summary.) Per WP:BRD, once a contribution has been removed, it is up to the contributor to build a consensus to restore the contribution. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that other stuff exists, and is not an argument in favor of inclusion. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What BilCat said. You have no consensus for its inclusion. John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)