Talk:Vancouver (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Old discussions[edit]

Is there any reason this page should not either be the actual location of the article on, or a redirect to, Vancouver, British Columbia with a small disambiguation block at the top? Every link to this page is about the city in BC; it seems to be the natural direct link. --Brion

After the long lo-o-o-ong debate on naming conventions this subject leaves me gun-shy. Speaking as the one that's moving everything to Vancouver, British Columbia, I did consider your possibility. The Vancouver, Washington article does exist and it does have links of its own. With a population of 144,000 it's likely bigger than all eight Torontos and five Montreals in the United States put together, but it's the only Vancouver in the United States. Personally, for deciding whether one city should be considered dominant I apply the test of asking myself whether the residents in the very much larger city can reasonably be expected to know about the smaller one. The people here in greater Vancouver, BC are well aware of the one in Washington. The two are a six hour drive apart, and both are certainly known along the I-5 corridor of Washington. That's my 2 cents on this one. Eclecticology 21:08 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)
On a certain level that does seem reasonable. However, here in Sacramento, California (further down the I-5 corridor) very few people are aware of the Vancouver in Washington. This is probably the case in most other areas far from the Pacific Northwest of the US. --mav
I'm with Mav on this one. The real test is not whether the people who live in one city know about the others, but about whether people who are somewhere else entirely know about it and are going to have reason to link to it. I'm a few more hours down the I-5 from Mav, and I was only peripherally aware that there was a Vancouver in Washington. The very few memories I have of it ever being mentioned are as a curiosity ('oh, hey, apparently there's a city called "Vancouver" in Washington, too'). And at only 144,000, it's just a small town from where I sit. :) --Brion
Vancouver, Washington has great advantages for people who live there. It is in effect a suburb of Portland, OR. They can live in Washington, which has no state income tax, and shop in Oregon, which has no sales tax. As for the size, I don't expect that there are more than 20 Canadian cities that are bigger than 144,000, so it's really a question of perspective. All the Vancouver links have been changed to where they belong. You can have your separate disambiguation page for now, but I still think it's pretty useless. This isn't quite Paris. Eclecticology 23:30 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)


You are right - this page should be moved to Vancouver (disambiguation) then Vancouver should become a redirect to Vancouver, British Columbia with a disambiguation block at the top. --mav

Page moved. --mav

Woop! Thanks. --Brion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Survey[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose. The 2010 Winter Olympics city is clearly the most well-known. --Usgnus 04:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Vancouver is about as big as Portland, but Vancouver (WA) is only a suburb of Portland. Plus Vancouver (BC) is reasonably well-known outside the US. --Polaron | Talk 05:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons above. Vegaswikian 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose requested move. Vancouver the 2010 city is, I believe, the best known use of the word Vancouver in the world. Luke 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't that be a reason to oppose the change to "Vancouver, British Columbia" then (not "support")? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this not a vote on making the City of Vancouver article the choice for Wikipedia Vancouver searches? I'm somewhat confused. Luke 05:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It already is currently. The survey is for moving to a disambiguation page. --Polaron | Talk 05:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clearing things up Buchanan-Hermit My vote has been changed accordingly. Luke 06:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We're not the only Vancouver in the world, so that would be the main reason why I'd support this change. However, I agree that we're the most well-known Vancouver, and people searching for Vancouver would probably be looking for the Canadian one. For that reason, I'm going to oppose the change as it overrules the first point I stated. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First off, they are not equally well known in the world. When I was in Hong Kong, everyone knows Vancouver is in Canada, and few were aware of the one in Portland or even the island. Second, Vancouver is the third largest city in Canada, and much more significant than the other meanings. I'm assuming this applies in the US as well, outside of Washington. _dk 06:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, apparently people in HK know "Richmond" too, due to the Chinese population there. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is the best know Vancover and that will only become more appearent when the Oymplics come. --Edgelord 07:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. City of two million plus, Canada's third largest metro region, west coast port, next Winter Olympics, popular destination for European, Asian, North American tourists, film production, on and on and on. If it were a level playing field, I'd be inclined to agree, but in this case - no contest. --Ckatzchatspy 07:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Canada's third largest city. This would be like making Manchester a dab due to the presence of Manchester, New Hampshire. Kirjtc2 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Vancouver, BC is the most well known one. Vancouver Island=Vancouver Island, not Vancouver. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 17:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, largely because of the legwork involved in switching all the links that there are...inertia I guess is my reason. But it is strange to see Vancouver's city-page without its jurisdiction, given that Seattle redirects to Seattle, Washington and New York goes to the state, with a dab to the city and, presumably, a disambig for other uses. Similarly Los Angeles redirects to Los Angeles, California. So I'd almost say Support, just for conformity to Wiki standards, but the inertia thing strikes me as a major issue. I also don't agree with the "Vancouver the 2010 City" being the best-known usage internationally; that's just Olympics grandstanding and part of the fake importance of what will be a fly-by-night event. Is Calgary known as "the 1988 City" or is Montreal known as the "1967 City". I think somebody's been reading too much VANOC bullshit....Skookum1 23:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wiki standard only applies to the United States. Even then, Chicago has its own article, while Chicago, Illinois is a redirect. _dk 23:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus in Canada, there's Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Saskatoon, and Lloydminster. Then of course, internationally, Marseille, Manchester, Busan, Christchurch, Munich, Boma, etc. --Usgnus 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Calgary, Winnipeg, and even Flin Flon have active move requests too. All of them are leaning towards "support". --Arch26 06:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per reasons above. GeeCee 10:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per reasons set out above. Skeezix1000 11:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Outside of the metro Portland Oregon area, 'Vancouver' clearly implies the city of Vancouver, British Columbia. And Vancouver Island is *never* referred to as just 'Vancouver'. Jim Douglas 18:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You've got to be kidding me. --Serge 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per above. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The [[city, province]] format is not consistent with the new trend in Wikipedia and is not consistent with how articles are identified in most encyclopedias. The subject is Vancouver and that should be the title. If there is deemed a high risk of confusion with other places called "vancouver", then move it to "Vancouver (British Columbia)", not "Vancouver, British Columbia". --Arch26 06:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with the oppose. The city in British Columbia is vastly larger, more economically significant and more internationally famous than the one in Washington, and I find it rather ludicrous to claim that a city of 157,000 people that's essentially a suburb can be considered remotely equivalent in importance to a metropolitan area of about two million people. Bearcat 07:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Vancouver BC is clearly the most famous.--DaveOinSF 18:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I have no idea how Vegaswikian came up with the idea that Vancouver Wash was known anywhere outside of Vancouver Washington as Vancouver. Internationally, the 2010 Olympics clearly shows which one is more widely known. And in California, it is Vancouver BC that is better known, because of the outflow of jobs. For the DEA, it is Vancouver BC, because of "BC Bud", for Canadians, it would be Vancouver BC. For Chinese people, it would be Vancouver BC, due to the large number of Yacht-people from Hong Kong. For many Americans, Vansterdam is better known than Vancouver WA. For FHM magazine, who rave about the Vancouver drug, hookers and strippers scene, it would be the BC one. Greenpeace was started out around Vancouver BC... 132.205.45.148 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Greenpeace started out in Vancouver, not around. It was founded in Kitsilano. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, works well as is, disambiguaion message/page does the job as it should. "Vancouver, British Columbia" (or "Vancouver (British Columbia)" for that matter) would still be ambiguous, no gain there. --Qyd 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

  • I'll bet that most people in the US think of Vancouver Island when you say Vancouver and are talking about Canada. Unless it can be clearly shown that most redirects are correct, then this needs to be changed. Even if 51% of the redirects are correct today, they means that 49% of users are being redirected to the wrong place. Since all three are well know, the main name space should be a redirect. Vegaswikian 05:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never ever heard Vancouver Island referred to as just Vancouver. --Usgnus 06:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long discussion which I'll spare you for now, but historically it was, hence the name of one of the early federal ridings (Vancouver (electoral district)). Even the CPR's naming of the City of Vancouver was sleight-of-hand, because the railway politics had said a line from Montreal to "Vancouver", which in 1870-1 meant Vancouver Island, and Vancouver Island only; the name had no mainland associations. So when the city was named it was partly a way for the moguls to live up to the "railhead at Vancouver"; which had meant, in its original conception, a rail terminus on the Inner Harbour; not Burrard Inlet. There was much controversy about this when Van Horne or whomever it was chose the name in 1885-86, in fact. And to this day a lot of visitors are surprised when they discover Vancouver is not on Vancouver Island; or they'll mistakenly call the latter "Victoria Island".Skookum1 23:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But visitors are not mistaking the island for the city. They just assume that the city is on the island. --Usgnus 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For two years, I lived in the States (Utah, Arizona and Nevada). When I said I was from Vancouver, it was never mistaken for the Island. In fact, more often than not, I'd have people say, "Oh, I've been to Victoria Island". I am doubtful, if the above supposition is widespread to any significance. --Kmsiever 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Manual of Style improvements[edit]

I removed several entries, such as the entire list of sports teams from Vancouver, since they are not serving any readers here on the dab page -- readers looking for a Vancouver sports team are unlikely to enter just "Vancouver" in the search box, and that list is hand;ed well by Vancouver#Sports and recreation and Sports in Vancouver. If needed, a "See also" entry for Sports in Vancouver could be added instead. See WP:MOSDAB for disambiguation page style guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Vancouver, BC as the sole Vancouver on this page[edit]

What is the problem with modeling the Vancouver disambiguation after the Portland page? They represent comparable situations: Vancouver, WA and Portland, ME are the original cities with those names in North America, but newer cities have grown more prominent. Both cities should be given prominence on a disambiguation page. What's the problem with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per that discussion, it is clear that the primary use is for the Canadian city, a fact which is easily demonstrated by a Google search on the term "Vancouver". --Ckatzchatspy 06:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why should it matter that the primary use is for a Canadian city? This is the DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. It exists for the very purpose of listing the options available under an ambiguous name like Vancouver. No doubt Portland, OR draws more google searches than Portland, ME, but so what? They're both fairly significant cities. So are Vancouver, BC and Vancouver, WA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz, please stop changing this. You have yet to articulate a reason why this should be the sole listing as to what Vancouver "is." As I pointed out, Portland, OR receives many more Google searches than Portland, ME, but both are still listed (and Vancouver, WA is significantly more populated than Portland, ME). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear. The first sentence explains what the undabbed bluelink refers to. Following that are all the other, secondary uses of the name. In the case of Portland (where the search term leads first to a dab page), there are three primary entries with somewhat equal claims of usage. That's not the case for Vancouver - all the available evidence points to a single, globally-recognized primary usage. All the other usages are subsidiary and are equally represented on the dab page linked from the Vancouver article. 128.208, you seem to be conducting this crusade alone - perhaps you might review WP:Consensus to better understand how things work here. Franamax (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, the top-of-page text conforms correctly with the requirements of the disambiguation page guideline. Pages with "(disambiguation)" as part of their title reflect a subject with a "primary topic"; in this case, the primary topic is the Canadian city. Per the style guide directive:

"Since it is unlikely that this primary meaning is what readers are looking for if they have reached the disambiguation page, it should not be mixed in with the other links."

--Ckatzchatspy 02:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're making a real argument! Bravo! But your argument is premised on incorrect information:

Typing "portland" in google gets you 36.1 million results for the oregon one. "isle of portland" nets you a mere 249,000 results. portland, me gets you 4.2 million results. So Portland, OR's closest competitor is about 1/9 as noteworthy by this criteria. By comparison, vancouver washington nets 7.4 million results; vancouver, bc gets you 16.2 million, a difference of just over 2X in favor of Canada's Vancouver.

Even if you compared only generic vancouver (121 million) to vancouver, wa and assumed that EVERY generic vancouver search result was for the Canadian one (an obviously incorrect assumption) you would get a difference of about 16X in favor of Vancouver, BC.

If you accepted the same premise about generic portland, you would compare 126 million to 4.2, which means the Oregon one would be about 30 times more common. So by any measure, Vancouver should be done like Portland; the case is even stronger for it than Portland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed at least, that now you're making a real argument. Franamax (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essay by Mkdw about 'Why no disambiguation'[edit]

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[edit]

United States[edit]

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.[1] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

In January 2009, the article Vancouver (referring to Vancouver, British Columbia) was visited 136,415 times (an average of 4,400 hits per day)[2], ranking it 968 most visited.[2] The article was visited a total of 1,269,997 times in 2008. [3] Comparatively, the article Vancouver, Washington was visited 11,023 times (an average of 355 hits per day).[4] The article was visited a total of 121,106 times in 2008.[5] 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)[6] 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.[7] 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.[8] 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[9] was used as the offset factor.

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

Notable events[edit]

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).[10] 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). [11] The article Beijing in the same month was visited 688,198 times (an average of 22,199 times per day).[12] 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.[13]

Notability of the Vancouvers[edit]

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[edit]

First Vote[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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[edit]

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.[14] 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[edit]

Set conventions[edit]

Talk[edit]

Article talk pages[edit]

Comments from the author[edit]

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[15] -- what is 1 more?

References[edit]

  1. ^ Goldstein, Norm (2004). "Stylebook, section D: datelines". The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (39th ed.). New York: Basic Books/Associated Press. pp. p.66. ISBN 9780465004881. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ a b Vancouver Hit Count - Stats.Grok.Se
  3. ^ Vancouver 2008 Hit Count - Stats.Grok.Se
  4. ^ Vancouver, Washington Hit Count - Stats.Grok.Se
  5. ^ Vancouver, Washington 2008 Hit Count - Stats.Grok.Se
  6. ^ Vancouver, British Columbia Hit Count - Stats.Grok.Se
  7. ^ Vancouver, Washington - What links here
  8. ^ Vancouver - What links here
  9. ^ Vancouver, British Columbia - What links here
  10. ^ 2010 Winter Olympics - Stats.Grok.Se
  11. ^ 2008 Summer Olympics - Stats.Grok.Se
  12. ^ Beijing - Stats.Grok.Se
  13. ^ Stats.Grok.se February & Stats.Grok.se March 2010 In the end, the page 2010 Winter Olympics was viewed 2,951,950 times in the month of February 2010, and 579,620 in March 2010.
  14. ^ Google: Vancouver - Google test on February 9, 2009.
  15. ^ "A comparison of muscular activity during single and double mouse clicks". Department of Product and Production Development/Human Factors Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96, Goteborg, Sweden. 2009.


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[edit]

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. Mkdwtalk 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic[edit]

This talk page is full of discussions about the location of this disambiguation page. All of them amount to a debate about whether there is a primary topic for "vancouver", or if there is in fact no primary topic and the disambiguation page should be at the page name Vancouver. For what it's worth, this is being discussed more generally on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Precedent?. Compared to other examples there, the page view ratio of Vancouver (disambiguation) vs Vancouver supports the argument that the article now at the page name Vancouver is the primary topic. For September 2010 the page views ratio was 1519/173135 = 0.9%. That is low. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vancouver_(disambiguation)&oldid=1142782165"