Talk:Woodward's Building

VfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Woodward's building. -- BD2412 ^talk

Delete Woodward's article

New guy here, sorry I missed the first delete discussion. The Woodward's article is almost entirely cut and pasted from HBC's website.(see: http://hbc.com/hbcheritage/history/acquisitions/retail/woodwards.asp) Yes, it's well written, as people pointed out, but they paid someone for that quality. It's not very encyclopedic either, and anything worth saving from that could very well be integrated with this one. Just some thoughts. I don't know how to nominate something for deletion, so if any veterans out have the answers...Bobanny 02:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy?

What's the controversy around the Woodward's demo? Big, ugly building blown up - isn't that a good thing? Seems kind of silly to even mention the controversy if the article isn't going to say what it's over.Bobanny 19:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

the W has been a vancouver landmark for years and years

...and will be incorporated into the rebuilt version...Bobanny 19:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

destruction picture

I made a picture, which IMO gives a better overview of the destruction [[1]]. The license is as liberal as possible, thus it's not a problem if it needs to be cropped or otherwise edited.--85.126.128.10 16:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Woodsquat

Please stop removing the link to the primary source of information on the squat episode of Woodward’s unless you explain your reasons. The squat has been recognized, as the article now states, as providing “the political impetus to save the building". 24.85.240.167 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Woodie

Okay, you removed the link and now you removed the quotation and footnote to a piece by Globe and Mail writer Frances Bula? Why? 24.85.240.167 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Woodie

If you can find secondary source for Woodsquat, by all means include it. Wikipedia follows very strict guidelines on what's a reliable source and what's allowed as an external link. I see there's tons of reliable sources on the Woodsquat's media section. If you can cite one of them, it will be fine.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The print source (Vancouver Sun) has been added to replace the citation for Frances Bula's non-print article. The link to the book hosted on the Wordpress site has been replaced by a non-blog hosting source. The book is published by an academic press (West Coast Line at Simon Fraser University) and meets both the reliability and external link guidelines. 24.85.240.167 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Woodie

Should be "Woodward's Building"

The overapplication of the lower-case "rule" in Wikipedia is an ongoing problem. In this case, because of the apostrophe, the linguistic ambiguity of "Woodward is building" is present, but also the equivalent for other buildings in Vancouver would be the "Rogers building", "Standard building", "Wall centre", "Vancouver block", "Bentall centre", "Orpheum theatre" etc. Or more widely, "Buckingham palace", "World trade centre", "Empire State building".Skookum1 (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this move being controversial at all. Just go ahead and move it. Indefatigable (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This was a case in which to be bold, so I did. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lack of intact pics

It seems like this article is written mostly to shine a positive light on the new development, instead of focusing more on the history of it. It would be nice to see some pics of the building when it was fully intact, maybe when it was open. Irazmus (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)