YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Talk:Metro Vancouver

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Area covered by "Greater Vancouver" article[edit]

A set of edits today raises the question about what should be covered in the Greater Vancouver article, and what should be covered in the neighboring Fraser Valley and Sea to Sky articles. (The other division of the Lower Mainland region, Sunshine Coast (British Columbia), isn't at issue.) The edit implicitly changes the "Greater Vancouver" article's scope to be every city in the Metro Vancouver political organisation.

The following destinations were already part of the Fraser Valley region article, and this edit puts them in Greater Vancouver:

The following destinations were already part of the Sea to Sky region article, and this edit puts them in Greater Vancouver:

The following destinations were part of the Greater Vancouver area before and remain so:

So, where should the Wikitravel regional boundaries for Greater Vancouver be? I don't see that we've really had a discussion about this, either here or on Talk:Lower Mainland. JimDeLaHunt 03:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

  • I support keeping the previous boundaries, i.e. the Greater Vancouver article covers less than the political boundaries of the Metro Vancouver. I say this because the traveller comes first. The first consideration in our article boundaries should be what will help the traveller. The traveller doesn't care which village council sits on which board. They care that urban destinations like Vancouver are different from mostly-rural Fraser Valley. They grasp that once you get north of Vancouver/North Shore, you start the Sea to Sky region. Thus I think we should rewrite this article to say that "Greater Vancouver" in Wikitravel is a named set of relatively dense urban and suburban cities, but it's a subset of political "Metro Vancouver". Langley (British Columbia), Maple Ridge, and Pitt Meadows stay with Fraser Valley. Lions Bay gets mentioned in Sea to Sky. JimDeLaHunt 03:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I want to reactivate this question. The renaming of the region article to Vancouver Metro has nudged me. If I don't hear dissenting opinion soon, I'm going to restore the previous scope of this region article, which will make it less than Metro Vancouver; and I'll rename it back to Greater Vancouver. JimDeLaHunt 22:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree the previous boundaries make more sense, although the placement of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Langley in our hierarchy probably doesn't matter too much to the average traveller. This may be a bit off-topic but would it make more sense to call the current Metro Vancouver/Greater Vancouver region "Vancouver" and rename the current Vancouver article "Vancouver (city)" (with appropriate edits to shift content around)? Vancouver's attractions are a bit dispersed so I find the current city article ends up acting like a regional article at times, particularly when it comes to See and Do. Not sure if it will work any better than the current set up, but just a thought. Shaund 14:48, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
      • I think you have a point. The Vancouver article really does behave like a region article. Part of the problem is that it attempts to cover more than the city of Vancouver -- it used to include Richmond and Burnaby as districts! Greater/Metro Vancouver covers Vancouver plus too much of the surroundings. Lower Mainland covers the right part of BC, but only subdivides into four regions. It could do more. So I am starting to think we should eliminate the Metro/Greater Vancouver region article, and instead make Vancouver directly under Lower Mainland, along with a new region article for the Vancouver suburbs (Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby, Coquitlam, etc.), and a North Van article promoted out of Vancouver/North_Shore. This makes the Lower Mainland the primary region article. That's the place where we can talk about how Pitt Meadows in the Fraser Valley relates to YVR in the Vancouver suburbs and the city of Vancouver itself. For most travellers' purposes, it eliminates a layer in the hierarchy. JimDeLaHunt 02:35, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
        • I like the idea of eliminating a layer of the hierarchy. My only concern is whether users may end up not finding some common attractions that lie outside of Vancouver city itself (e.g. Grouse Mountain) because they arrive on the Vancouver page through the search box and don't realize they also need to view the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Suburb and/or North Shore pages. By comparison, when someone lands on the Chicago and Singapore pages everything just flows out from those top pages. I guess we could adapt the note that sits atop the Chicago page to explain the situation -- This is a huge article with several district pages. Nearby areas like the North Shore and Vancouver Suburbs also have commonly visited attractions, activities, accommodation, etc., consider printing them all -- or reference it in the Get out section. I could also be overthinking this, too! Shaund 11:23, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
          • Thank you for your thoughts, Shaund. It's nice not to be doing this alone. Vancouver already follows the Wikitravel:Huge city article template; it has district articles just within the city limits. The way to tell a reader of the Vancouver article where to find Grouse Mountain is to mention it in the "Get out" section. I'm going to make a more specific and formal proposal in the Talk:Lower Mainland page. Watch there! JimDeLaHunt 04:16, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
  • There is a regional district called Greater Vancouver, or Metro Vancouver, whatever you prefer. The travel guide has to reflect this, or it will confuse a lot of readers. Plus, you will have a never-ending discussion on what to include and what not. The geographic/governmental boundaries make sense and are easy to follow. If you mean something else than the regional district, you should not call it "Greater Vancouver". This name is a well-defined term. Using it for something else is wrong. If you want to explain some other region, you must use a different name for it. --Dirk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dirk (talkcontribs) 08:36, 2008 July 8
    • Dirk, thank you for your comments. I agree with some of your arguments, but I disagree with others. Yes, there is a governmental body called "Metro Vancouver" (was "Greater Vancouver Regional District" or GVRD). Yes, if we mean a Wikitravel region to have different boundaries than a governmental entity, we should use a clearly different name. However, I do not think that Wikitravel is required to follow governmental boundaries slavishly. We should follow boundaries that make sense for travellers. I also do not think that "Metro Vancouver" or the GVRD is a natural boundary for travellers or local residents. I live here, and as I listen to people and read the papers, Vancouver is one place, Surrey and Richmond are another, and Lions Bay has more connection to Squamish and Whistler than to Vancouver. Yet their governments all fall under Metro Vancouver. What I get from your arguments is that it was a mistake for Wiktravel to name its region article "Greater Vancouver" without using the governmental boundary in the past, and that it's a good idea to get rid of the Metro Vancouver region and adopt something named — and shaped — quite different. JimDeLaHunt 01:19, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

RFC: New Lower Mainland structure, drop Metro Vancouver region[edit]

Please see the proposal at Talk:Lower Mainland#Proposed new sub-regions for Lower Mainland. It would restructure the Lower Mainland article hierarchy, eliminating this Metro Vancouver article and moving its contents elsewhere. Comments welcomed, but there not here please. JimDeLaHunt 01:33, 24 July 2008 (EDT)