Template talk:Metro Vancouver

Thanks to B-H for the template... a few tweaks though:

took out "seat" next to Burnaby (GVRD and Burnaby web pages don't make this association, the "seat" term is used to refer to individual reps on the board, and it conflicts with link formatting on individual pages i.e. if you're on Vancouver, Wiki removes the link to Vancouver and displays it in black, which is how the "seat" text displays on all pages.)
rewrote North Van City/District, Langley City/Township to get rid of brackets (cleaner)(named as per the GVRD municipal boundary map)
removed "North Shore Mountains" from "Unincorporated areas" (the NSM overlap the North Shore municipalities and the portion of Electoral Area "A" to the north) and Wikied the "Unincorporated areas" title to point to Electoral Area A (to cover the remaining areas).

I'm not sure about arranging on the basis of population... it doesn't reflect the nature of the organizational structure. Having the "Unincorporated areas" section at the same time makes it appear that those areas are unpopulated (or very small). Finally, on the third tier, we've got some very small areas (Bowen etc.) lumped in with much larger ones. Also, is this meant to replace the {{British Columbia}} template? Let's discuss. --Ckatz 09:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much copied the idea from the template for Orange County, California (seen in such articles as Irvine, California). I didn't make it to replace the British Columbia template, but rather to make it easier to go to the different GVRD articles. The BC templates serves the whole province but this one is specific to Greater Vancouver. The population idea also comes from the Orange County template; I left it in because it reflects what the "main" cities in the GVRD are, for easier navigation (i.e. people might want to know more about Burnaby or Surrey than, let's say, Bowen Island). Unincorporated areas is there because those areas don't fall under any municipality and are not part of a city, so we can't lump them "into" anything (yet they have articles and can represent something significant, like the University Endowment Lands). --→Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!..

..

09:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the quick reply. I agree the unincorporated areas should be in there, for the same reason as you do. However, I'm still not crazy about the population-based sort... perhaps a different cut-off would help. --Ckatz 09:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I understand that part too. Another idea I had was using 2 population groups rather than 3: over 100,000 and under 100,000. What do you think? --→Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!..

..

18:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I'm not sure if having only two groups would help. It might appear as if we've picked an arbitrary point just to split the list - you know, "big cities" and "little cities". "Big", "medium", and "little" softens it a bit. Having had a few days to think about it, I could see Vancouverites having the same "big-little" thoughts at being grouped with, say, Coquitlam as I was with North Van/West Van and Lions Bay. Short of having 21 different categories, nothing will be perfect, so... What say we run with this layout for a while and see if anyone else has a suggestion? --Ckatz 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that was my original plan: do it first and see what everyone else thinks. ;) Sounds good to me. --→Buchanan-H e rmit™..Talk to Big Brother 06:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Heading

The change is in accordance with [1] however I'm not totally comfortable with the way it reads now. Suggestions? Franamax 02:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]