Talk:Vancouver/Archive 7

Finally we have an edit summary from the IP user who kept deleting comparisons to other cities on the continent, such as

Metro Vancouver's population is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area among metropolitan areas north of San Francisco and west of Chicago.

to wit: Geographic relevance to American cities completely insubstantial and irrelevant

• the same user deleted comparisons within the Pacific Northwest region

While I agree Canadian comparisons should come first, Vancouverites are acutely aware of their coastal location, their distance from the other major metro areas of Canada, and the nearness of the border & Seattle. Many people, Vancouverites & others, may be surprised to learn just what a footprint Vancouver leaves on the continent, and if asked to name the top 2 most populous metros north of San Francisco & west of Chicago, would soon stumble. Vancouver is not just a Canadian city, and especially evident with the 2010 Olympics, it aspires to be a world-class city (for which it has been awarded 2 points [some evidence])

Other (non-Canadian) comparisons are in the lead abound - such as

• most liveable region in the world,
• one of the three most livable cities in the world.
• 56th most expensive city in which to live among 143 major cities in the world

Other continental comparisons in lead

• Population density is highest for a major city on the continent after New York City, San Francisco, and Mexico City, and on track to being second by 2021.
  • btw, this on-track seems too iffy to me to be in lead
• exports more cargo than any other port in North America. (definite keep)
• third-largest film production centre in North America, after Los Angeles and New York City, earning it the nickname Hollywood North.

So, while this is not a continent-wide comparison, it certainly applies to a region spanning nearly half the continent. I cannot help wondering if part of the resistance to this is that it mentions yet another "American" city. --JimWae (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as this goes, Metro Vancouver's population is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area among metropolitan areas north of San Francisco and west of Chicago. -- What about Minneapolis-Saint Paul, population 3,502,891 to Metro Vancouver's 2,116,581? Also, Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Area, pop. 2,359,994? Denver is north of San Francisco (39°44′ to 37°46′). The quote isn't on the page at the moment, but seeing it here I thought I would ask about these other two metro areas. Pfly (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Doh - my only lame excuse is difficulty finding a link to the (continental) data all in one place.

• My original text which was deleted twice without edit summary: Within the Pacific Northwest region, Vancouver is the most populous city, and Metro Vancouver is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area
• Possible expansion (of area): Of West Coast cities north of San Francisco, Vancouver is the most populous, and Metro Vancouver is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area (this holds at least to the Rockies, anyway, but is more of a mouthful)
  • hope this can be considered without being too overshadowed by my erroneous expansion to Chicago--JimWae (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to achieve here. This article should simply be encyclopedic and not a vehicle for collective self-promotion. What is a "world-class" city anyway?? :::I have no problem with the Pacific-Northwest references, but the rest seems completely unecessary. Dionix (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dionix - try to find a way to say Vancouver is part of a major conurbation in the Pacific Northwest, but keep it simple. The population of the city itself seems somewhat immaterial as the city is defined by arbitrary lines on a map. Drawing circles to find where Metro Van is still 2nd-biggest seems a pointless exercise and should anyway be in the Metro Van article.

And check all those references to most-livable city, check them right to the bottom - you'll find that they do not say it's the most livable city for the residents, it's the most livable city for foreign workers - Mercer and EIU publish surveys to help governments and businesses negotiate relocation allowances when they send their people abroad. Franamax (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be called Vancouver, B.C. or Vancouver, British Columbia, or Vancouver, Canada or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan c.00 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You can check through the history and archives of this page for the endless discussions :) Consensus is that this is the Vancouver everyone is thinking about, other uses are disambiguated at the top of the article. The article itself explains where Vancouver is. Franamax (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why isn't, I don't know, Seattle's article just called Seattle, not what it's called: Seattle, Washington? Ethan c.00 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe you should try asking at Talk:Seattle for the answer. It might have something to do with a decision on how cities in the US should be titled. For alternative reference, check Toronto and Paris. But as far as Vancouver goes, look through the archives, it's a-l-lll there. :) Franamax (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide. It will require a lot of reading and investigating if you really want an answer. --maclean 05:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

maclean has directed you to the right guidelines. The Canadian naming guidelines provide that a city can be at [[Place]], rather than [[Place, Province]], much like the standard for many other countries. The U.S. guidelines, which have been subject to endless debate, favour the "comma convention" ([[Place, State]]) - although the U.S. guidelines have recently been modified to suggest that some city articles could be moved to [[Place]], I don't think any of the moves have occurred. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should, because there is nothing else to disquish it from Vancouver, Washington which of course is the "original" Vancouver 30 years older. In Washington State, when a person speaks of Vancouver they mean Washington. So yes, it is both appropriate and needed to add B.C. to the Canandian city with the "borrowed" name. Just as Washington D.C. is different from Washington State. How many Seattles are there? TheRealGriz (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been argued on this page quite extensively in the past, and the consensus has always been to keep this as just Vancouver. The reason is that most city articles outside of the US use only the city name (not City, Subdivision) as a matter of style, and the default page is the most notable city with that name. That is why London doesn't go to London, Ontario and Birmingham doesn't go to Birmingham, Alabama. I'm sure people in Alabama probably think of "their" Birmingham when they mention it in conversation, but from a global perspective (which is what Wikipedia is concerned with) it is under no doubt which is the more famous city. If you want to continue "fighting this policy" (if that is indeed what you're trying to do), please read the section below called "Why does this go directly to Vancouver, BC?, before continuing. TastyCakes (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already read said articles, and did so before making my post. The points of those said posts that we should be concerning ourselves with, relate to the confusion issue, the need to disquish between items, places and people having the same name. The consensus on this issue is with reguard to this page solely and not the consensus of the most of the world, and a "final" consensus has not yet been reached. Because this is a library of information it needs to be "LESS" confusing not more-so. I searched for Vancouver looking for the page on Vancouver, Washington and ended up here. I expected a table of contents of some type where I could select the one I was looking for. The result was that I had to come to this page to access the Vancouver contents page, and this should be the other way around. Consensus on this issue will be on the side of clarity, and this page will be labled correctly, in the near future. BTW Wiki is not concerned with "global perspective" (as you put it) its purpose is to "inform" through networking. You clearly have an agenda on this issue, and would ask you to refrain from giving me advice your clearly not qualified to give in the future. Furthermore, its quite obvious that this page is getting more hits because this issue is in dispute, this should be noted.TheRealGriz (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[undent]Good grief, did you really say this with a straight face: The consensus on this issue is with reguard [sic] to this page solely and not the consensus of the most of the world, and a "final" consensus has not yet been reached. Well, I'll tell you what, maybe 50 years from now there's an off-chance that Vancouver, Washington will be better-known than Vancouver BC is and you'd have some context to your claim about global consensus still being pu in the air. All I know is when a movie star or whomever is on Leno or Letterman or Good Morning America and they say they've just come back from Vancouver, or they're filming a movie or doing a show in Vancouver, everybody (including the audiences, not just the host and producer) know where they're talking about. Most Americans identify "Vancouver" with "Vancouver, BC", whether you like it or not. The coneensus has already been made by the American public. And nobody in the UK or Australia or South America has ever heard of Vancouver, Washington, unless they've got family or business there, or have lived there....."Good grief". Give it up, you won't win this.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. After two votes and two admins stepping in the result was 'Oppose' to making Vancouver a disambiguation page. And you're right, consensus was on the side of clarity, that disambiguation links have existed on the top of primary topics since day one of this wiki and will continue to do so. The fact that only 1 in every 10,000 people will want to go to Vancouver, Washington makes it far more inaccessible as an information source to change it. It's a hard pill to swallow that in this particular instance Wikipedia was more difficult to use than for others but there's a reason why when you click links like London it doesn't go to a disambiguation page because there's a London, Ontario and a few people wanted to read that article instead.

NOTE I would also like to point out that User:TheRealGriz is a single purpose editor that has no other history on Wikipedia outside of this topic or page. Based upon the last two years and the frequency of editor's bringing this up as a topic on talk pages coupled with the fact that the editor is aware of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages, consensus, and the right methods in indenting a talk page, likely suggests this is the same editor who brought this up and was consequently blocked in February. Mkdw^talk 04:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel bad for you Griz. You have apparently been annoyed by something and requested a change that on the surface seems quite reasonable to you. From your contributions list, this seems to be the first encounter you've had with Wikipedia bureaucracy. But please believe me that you will not win this argument. You can spend hours arguing and drive yourself insane trying to prove your point. My advice to you, after having become very, very angry over the years about a wide range of stuff in Wikipedia, is to just let some stuff slide. In this case, what do you hope to achieve? The ability to be sent straight to the disambiguation page for Vancouver rather than having to click the little link at the top of the page? Is that really worth the aggravation I guarantee pursuit of this bugaboo will cause you? I urge you to try to put your time and energy into improving Wikipedia - there are vast areas that need improvement, and you will in all likelihood feel much more fulfilled by the experience. TastyCakes (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the second and third post on this issue that is attempting to change the "scope" or "direction" of the conversation by attemping to discredit me in some way, whether that be to "suggest" I had not read the information and now an attempt to associate me with another user/editor, an administrator keying in might be warranted if this continues. In my defense I belong to multiple wiki communities, and have contributed to the wiki experience in a helpful way, the most recent is posted. http://www.wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheRealGriz

The issue is that one place is not any more or less important with regard to information, I have seen this same issue in discussion with regard to Portland and I am on the same side of the fense, even though it is local to me. Reason being, that it does not help the wiki community to force a person to be redirected to a page they are not interested in. Vancouver B.C. I'm sure is a great place, but no more "important" than any other title with Vancouver in it. Larger? yes. more recognized? perhaps. However, this may be in the eye of the beholder and not relevant either way. If you open an encyclopedia you will not have to goto the Vancouver B.C. page to look up George Vancouver. This "online" encyclopedia should be no different, it causes confusion and turns the search into something more convoluted. If Vancouver B.C. is more renouned, wouldn't this be the reason to change it? So that something not as well known, would stand out so people can read about it? All of the arguments I have seen only further prove why this page should be labled a respective variant of Vancouver B.C.TheRealGriz (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I was trying to discredit you, I assure you that wasn't my intention. I'm also a little sad you don't seem to believe me when I say you'll get nothing but frustration out of pursuing this matter. Best of luck with your future wiki-endeavors. However this situation ends, I hope you are not turned off of Wikipedia for good and will continue to contribute to the project. TastyCakes (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that and am sorry as well we started on the wrong foot. I was just responding to the subject matter and feel no frustration, I want wiki to flow for everyone. We may disagree, but just have different perspectives. Good luck to you as well. TheRealGriz (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A very simple question then. Should London be a disambiguation page? There are other London's out there like London, Ontario. If yes, same reasoning then? Mkdw^talk 09:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: If people feel so passionately about all articles being disambiguation pages and that you're arguing the 'principal' rather than the particular subject (and avoiding bias) this is not your battlefield. Wikipedia has policies: Naming conventions for cities, cities that are established as 'Primary Topics', and individual country naming conventions. Quite simply in regards to those policies, some cities are given the article namespace over disambiguation pages. Vancouver follows these rules along with thousands of other primary topic's taking the corresponding namespace. As such you should try to change the naming conventions, primary topics, and other affected policies. Vancouver and all other cities will change accordingly. If you don't, then it's clear that all these name change requests (the whole 6 we've had over 2 years) are not about the principals they claim to argue but people's bias for their own hometown, and so the thousands of readers aren't asked to accommodate one person (and so they shouldn't). Mkdw^talk 10:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. Here's hoping one day the site would become so useful that it will get included without me having to ask :) Thank you again! BCP

Montreal has one; Toronto has one.

How about a classic pic of Vancouver skyline and Ship in English Bay to illustrate Canada's largest Port under economy section? Love that town. There are many nice ones already on Wikipedia and on Flickr, but nothing that captures a) the skyline; b) ships in English Bay (showing it's function as Canada's busiest port); c) the mountain backdrop. That's how I think of Vancouver. There are pictures of the port, but somehow that doesn't capture it. I guess I'm asking if anyone found one.

Great looking page, btw. --Soulscanner (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like we've been reverting to a bad version for a few days, the reference section had a wee bit of a problem. I've reverted to an unbroken version. Intervening edits were all minor, I'll review and catch things up. Franamax (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my page; I'll re-run AWB when I get a chance. (As I recall, the changes from the scan were pretty minor.) I also took a look at the problems with the "Reference" section, which seem to originate with the IP edits just after where you reverted to. The IPs removed a few brackets from the "ref" and "cite" coding that messed things up. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A user has expressed concern regarding the article's neutrality:

The above was posted by IP user 24.84.89.108

I had originally removed the post, as it fails the talk page guidelines regarding use of the page as a forum. However, as per suggestions from Skookum1 and Franamax, the text has been restored within a collapsible box, so as to avoid any appearance of "censorship". Thanks to those two for the ideas, and let the discussion begin... --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Media manipulation and information control in British Columbia would certainly make an interesting article, and it's even conceivable without OR, just by fielding stuff from Adbusters. Just a joke, but a half-serious one. Good idea about "controversy boxes"....might be worth coming up with an across-the-board concept, no?Skookum1 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am a robot. The good people at the Olympic committee had the insight to also allow this robot to freely edit other Wikipedia articles like Break a leg, which clearly helps promote Vancouver as a major tourist destination. Mkdw^talk 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) PS vote for Pedro.

I was just looking at the introduction to London and then compared it to the introduction for Vancouver. Does anyone else think our intro is obscenely long. It lists every notable thing Vancouver is known for and some records that almost no one else does. London is notable for a huge amount of things and perhaps more numerous records yet their intro is very concise. Would anyone like to work with me on shortening it and moving some of the records to their appropriate sections? Mkdw^talk 03:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Vancouver has a wonderfully eager article, but too much is being attempted in the introduction. I just moved some 2028 (!) Olympic stuff out of there. --Ds13 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I also concur with you two. Some of the information in the intro is pretty superfluous, such as mentioning the ranking of Zurich and Geneva when compared to Vancouver. Does this frame of reference warrant inclusion in the article, thus prolonging the introduction? Decisions, decisions. --MadameArsenic (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed, there's a lot of promo-bloat in the opening paragraph; comparisons to other cities or rankings on "world class"-ness are brags and not relevant to encyclopedic content (and highly debatable anyway, though treated in Vancouver as gospel proof that it really is "the best place on earth" yadayadayada. The opening of the Stanley Park article similarly has comparisons to other parks - Central Park, NYC and Richmond Park, London - which aren't really relevant; why not compare it also to the Teirgarten in Berlin, the Bois de Boulogne in Paris, or Frogner Park in Oslo or wherever else? Vancouver's over-the-top insecurity about proving itself is why these comparisons are treated as if anybody else should care (they don't). A lot of what's in the intro could easily be moved "south", especially the rankings, which are toxic incarnations of that insecurity and, well, really boring after you've heard too many of them. I wonder, is there a ranking for "No Fun Cities".....I think there is, and Vancouver outranks Singapore on that count IMO, but it's not the kind of thing civic boosters even want to mention (while insteading claiming "exciting nightlife" in the brochures). A lot of city articles are brag-fests; but Vancouver's is more than a bit overweening.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick facts

Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details. This box: view • talk • edit

Close

Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Best, from me Ricky-Roman, someones keeps changing this back... I don't know why I have to explain this but the nicknames are valid geesh... I am not going to explain them. I guess I will explain the ones that need explaining. Van City is just common knowledge for the nickname of vancouver and its always been there. Go look at the New York City page. And the term Slam City has been associated in pop culture towards vancouver for over a decade... just do a search on google.

Also the picture is absolutey beautiful and I had to go to great lengths to get that picture on the public domain. It seems like there is some sort of jealous revisioning taking place [maybe hate as well]... he says it "not his taste"... man you are not even from Vancouver? And that picture is fuzzy and not even one tenth the beauty of the one that I purchased strictly for the use in wikipedia. Grow up and I am being nice here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky-Roman (talk • contribs) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the skyline image, I agree. Ricky-Roman's is superior to the previous one and a very good representation of Vancouver. As for "nicknames", well I'm not fond of them in general, so my comment is biased, but pretty much every city on earth has various nicknames. Unless there is a strong historic connection or wide, international recognition (such as "big apple", "city of lights" or "eternal city") I would discourage any mention. Maybe "Lotusland" as at least this has recognition within Canada. Dionix (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lotusland is a reference to the BC political culture/milieu and isn't quite Vancouver-specific; it refers to me as much or more to Victoria. Vancouver's old traditional sobriquet was the Terminal City, as in the Terminal City Club on West Hastings (next to the Marine Bldg). Some of the new zero-generation nicknames like VanCity I find repulsive and way too faux, like CHUM/Znaimer's attempt to rename Vancouver Island "VI-Land" as part of his CKVI branding efforts; but they are out there; what I don't like is hearing proponents of nicknames like VanCity and Slam City talking about them as if they're all that matters, and people are supposed to heard of them who aren't, um, part of pop culture. VanCity to me is the credit union, as I've said before; it's way too "urban trendy" for me, sounds like a way to sound cool when you're really not, when you're really just a snotty post-consumer technoid with iPODs and a taste for rap to go wit hteh designeer duds....not meaning to get personal, just giving the assocations when I hear someone use nouveau terms. They come and go, like Rainburg and others; Terminal City's as old as the railway, and citable, though....Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the remarks civil. Several editors have reverted your additions. Czatz was fairly clear in an edit summary about the nicknames and Franamax and I have both said that the picture is not good enough. You have been warned about violating the three revert rule, so would you please agree to continue to discuss matters here rather than edit warring? Sunray (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, with respect to the nicknames and the tone. This has been discussed on several occasions and (IIRC) the feeling was that only notable, verifiable nicknames should be listed (if any). Also, please don't make unfounded accusations about "jealousy" and the like. Please look over the talk page, the article history, and the contributors; you'll quickly realize how unnecessarily provocative it is. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I rather like the new picture, and in the spirit of collaboration, would a vote be in order? I think the new picture shows an interesting angle (complete with water and mountains- Vancouver's greatest attributes) and the filtred light quality is very much Vancouver. The previous one could be anywhere. Dionix (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a vote is nesecarry everything is fine now I took out a nickname... becasuse I am guessing that is what caused the problem... to many "city" nicknames as well.. but I have not heard of half the nicknames that new york has. But I am now in agreeeance... Ricky. Again no vote is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky-Roman (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a striking image, my concern is that it seems as though it's been extensively retouched and kind of "fake". That's just my opinion and I'm not an image expert. I'm also not clear on whether you can buy a photograph and then release it as PD. Doesn't the original creator have to do that? Franamax (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've had to pull the names again - Ricky, please don't restore them until the discussion is resolved. I'll try to dig up links to the old discussions in the interim. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

1. A city of 600,000 does not have a skyline like this. At least in the US, Canada, or Mexico. Can someone explain how this happened?
2. Lavish praise for how livable the city is abounds. Similar praise for the city's expensive cost of living is all over the place. The two necessarily contradict. In the United States, the most livable cities are places with cheap real estate such as Cleveland, Ohio, or Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. What kind of livability are they ranking?

--Loodog (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Well, that is indeed what Vancouver looks like. Keep in mind the metropolitan region has several million population and it is Canada'a major port on the Pacific Ocean. However the particular skyline picture in place right now appears to have been retouched, giving it a slightly unreal aspect IMO. This is discussed in the section above.
2. The most-liveable city rankings, if you follow them to the source, have nothing to do with residents of the city. They are in fact "hardship indexes" used by international organizations to set the pay of expatriate workers. As such, they ignore or differently weight factors of interest to actual long-term city residents. That's where the contradiction comes in - it's a great city to live in, as long as you don't want to actually own a house some day. Franamax (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand on Franamax's point, Vancouver also has a deliberate policy of pursuing high density, which is reflected in the downtown skyline. Most of those buildings are condo towers. I was actually surprised, in my travels, to find just how little density appears to exist in large North American cities, which have opted, apparently, for sprawl. fishhead64 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't really have to "opt" for sprawl; it's the free market default in a city with heavy automotive infrastructure, which virtually every post-1940s region of the US has in abundance. There are cities that implemented intent "Smart" planning like Portland but then the cost of housing goes up.

Even considering the 2 million metro area, that's still a huge skyline. Consider counterparts in the US with 2 million metro area:

Did the city subsidize anything over 10 stories? Were cars outlawed?--Loodog (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no subsidies and no car restrictions, mostly a matter of smart planning initiatives. But Vancouver always has been more urban than most US cities- perhaps a result of being a city of immigrants more used to urban lifestyles (initially from the UK and Europe, later from Asia). Compare to Seattle, just a couple of hours down the coast: Vancouver seems more vibrant and has a much larger population living in the city centre. By the way, your Canadian examples are misleading. TO and Montreal are also quite urban. In the case of Toronto, the shot is taken from a great distance. Dionix (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, Dionix is right) Well honest to god, it's the way it is, I look at it every day. Get your Google maps out and look - downtown Vancouver is a pretty small peninsula and that's where all the towers are. As noted, many of them are condos, also, none of them are all that tall, mostly 20-30 stories I think. It is however among the most densely populated areas in North America and all those people have to live somewhere. Keep in mind too that is the only available shot showing those buildings (Yaletown from the south side of False Creek if I'm not mistaken) that particular way. Having seen both of Toronto and Vancouver's cityscapes, nahh, TO is way bigger, the buildings are far taller, the extent is much greater. What you are seeing is just a particular "perfect" shot - as I've said, I think it's retouched, but it's not faked. Fly on up here and I'll show you around. You should see the mountains from street level, with the little lego-brick buildings in front of them :)

And yes, Vancouver has a history of urban planning dating back to the 1960's, cars are not thought of highly, wider roads tend to not get built, traffic is calmed and pedestrians rule, and if you want to build something, it goes before a design committee. No subsidies, just follow the rules if you want to build at all. There's lots of problems, but the basic concepts of making a city for people have been followed here, believe it or not. Franamax (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The whole issue is somewhat synthetic. Downtown Vancouver is what it is...in other words, crammed with skyscrapers. Part of it is intentional planning for density, and part of it is geographical necessity (Metro Vancouver has to squeeze between mountains to the north and the US border to the south). fishhead64 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I'm incredulous, but such a unique characteristic (IMO) is worthy of explanation and note in the article. If someone can pull up articles that talk about the Smartness of Vancouver's growth, or what kinds of building restrictions exist and how they've shaped the city, I think it would greatly improve the article. All we've got now are talks of height restrictions, without an explanation as to why a modest-sized city has to worry about excess height all.--Loodog (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver's(metro)is only about a 1000 square miles,one of the smallest in North America(for a city this size) i would hazard to guess. Of that 1000 square miles, maybe a third is actually suitable for any buildings at all. Mountains to the North and bog and delta to the south. It's hard to place 2.2 million people in this area with out building up. Even the Suburbs like Burnabyand New Westministerhave a plethora of high rise buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea for the article. New section: Cityscape, which could maybe be merged with the idea of livability/sustainability. I assume the latter is due to the former. Something along the lines of, "One of the most striking features of Vancouver is the city's density. Through [zoning/building restrictions/etc...] initiatives the city has built up a considerable core of high and mid-rises in a small footprint, which is often implicated for the city's walkable layout, abundance of street-level shopping and restaurants, and high public transit usage." By the way, feel free to correct me, I've never been there and am going on what I've looked up.--Loodog (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, except it only applies to the downtown peninsula and a few other areas. The majority of the city is made livable by the lack of high-rise buildings, traffic calming, medium-density neighbourhoods. For instance, Kitsilano, where almost no building is over 3 stories, but almost every building is three stories. Franamax (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this quote from Loodog:

it's either most expensive or most livable, the two inherentk contradict

I don't see anything inheritently contradictory here. Liveable, in the context of the article, means that city offers it's citizens convenient access to ammenities, public education, clean air and water, etc. This does not imply a cheap city to live in. To give an analogy, imagine we were talking about cars, and someone mentioned a car was very driveable. That would certaintly not imply that it's a cheap car to drive.

Regardless, I think there should have more community consensus before sticking a contradictions flag on the article. Bosintang (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the history section says there is still a Coast Salish village near Point Grey. Where is it? --Ds13 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference is to Musqueam, it would seem, which is a couple of miles from the point of Point Grey; it's also adjacent to the Point Grey golf course/country club; "Point Grey" as a neighbourhood tends to mean west of Blanca, north of 10th, but I've heard it used to include areas near the golf course. The description could be changed maybe - "near Dunbar and Southlands neighbourhoods" maybe? There were villages closer to the point, and at teh point, but yes, those are all vanished (though there's arguments that the semi-permanent population of Wreck Beach constitute a tribe, if not a First Nations one....).Skookum1 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The section has been added and reverted a number of times. It is currently in - I removed the peacocky language and wikilinked it/added refs for Wold championships to be held in Vancouver. I also moved it to the bottom of the section as it is certainly less important than Vancouver's Olympic bid. There's no reason for it to be reverted to the peacocky passage that the IP editor has been adding. But it really needs some kind of third party citation to assure the notability of the event, a newspaper article or somesuch. Whatever, the constant edit war adding and reverting has to stop. It shoulod be discussed here fully before any more adding or deleting occurs. Mfield (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Ultimate Frisbee is entirely a recreational pursuit and not a recognized sport with a world sport governing body. It should be placed in a separate section where other recreational pursuits can be included. It's inclusion among the professional spectator sports is frivolous and not warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.180.156 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering what the rationale is for the new latlong, which is roughly Main and 23rd; understandable that it's roughly the centre of the land area of the city, but isn't it rather a convention in geography - in Wikipedia I'm not sure - to place it in the city core and/or where the numbering system is focussed? In the case of BC highway measurements, I believe that distances from, say, Mission or Abbotsford are reckoned downtown to downtown - to Granville & Georgia or Hastings. Wouldn't that be more appropriate than simply a raw reckoning based on a median/average focual point-latlong? Vancouver especially is very core-oriented; AFAIK the distance from Langley to Vancouver is measrued to the downtown; not the city's boundaries or the "average" central spot. Anyway maybe wiki guidelines specify otherwise; I'm surprised, becasue its' the supplantation of a new paradigm over and in place of existing geographic (and govenrment) convention.Skookum1 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • We are looking for someone to create a montage just like in those cities listed below... anyone good at photoshoppe give it a shot and lets see how it looks and pans out and that would be great!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.143.32 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better picture for the article http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vancouver_Image.JPG

I got the Idea from New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles and London

--King of the Robots (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugly. Change it back to the old one, it showed the city in a much better light. This one makes you have to squint to get the panorama, and includes some not-too-interesting buildings. Vancouver's splendor is its proximity to the forest, mountains, and sea, not its luke-warm postmodern architecture easily found elsewhere.

Jackmont, Sept 9, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.174.77 (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And no offense, but the resolution is atrocious. I changed it back to the old picture. - Hinto (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone create a better resolution picture with the same 4 places and mainly Science World in better resolution and I see that one sticking... I tryed to talk to the person who created it but they don't have a talk PAGE... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vancouver_Image.JPG..

I still think that's a great idea BTW... whoever does it will get my PROPS... anyone good at Photoshoppe :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.143.32 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the twinned cities over to a table format copied from the Calgary article. There's an even better format at Montreal showing coats-of-arms if anyone is interested.

And I've introduced a new concept, Vancouver#Related_Information to emphasize the fact that there's a lot of "stuff" linked down at the bottom of the article, and make it plain in the TOC for the casual reader. This was an idea that User:ArcticGnome brought up here and I think it's worth a shot. Obvious MOS issues but whatever. :) Franamax (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLAGS is non-comittal on which flag icon to use for sub-national entities in the UK. Looking for a source though, the City of Vancouver says Edinburgh, Scotland. Thus it seems appropriate to use the Scottish flag (or Scots flag, but I'm pretty sure it's not the Scotch flag :) Franamax (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Edinburgh is its own district, i.e. not part of a province or county, thus the "Subdivision" box should be left blank, although Lothian is a possibility. United Kingdom and City of Edinburgh Council are inappropriate. The City and the Council area are co-terminous. Franamax (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, this is ludicrous. WP:FLAGS makes clear the reasons and logic behind the use of the flag of the sovereign state - precisely to avoid these discussions. I am not sure exactly why you feel the flag of Scotland would be appropriate - why the flag of Scotland, and not the flag of Edinburgh, or the flag of Europe? My choice of the Union Flag (ie, the flag of the United Kingdom) is justified by the accepted categorisation of 'twin town' articles, as well as guidelines. Shall we perhaps now debate the use of the Californian flag for Los Angeles? Or the Odessan Oblast flag for Odessa?

Edinburgh is most certainly in a subdivision: Scotland. Lothian is not acceptable - it is no longer a local government area and has no political significance. This is a matter of information presentation, not verifying fact, thus your mention of the City of Vancouver website reference is irrelevant. --Breadandcheese (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with ThVa's anti-POV/peacockery edits and the placement of various fact templates, although in at least one case "strikign mdoern buildings" to "modenr buildings" removes the point of that sentence; there are few old buildings downtown, the sentence is meant to promo all the big shiny stuff gone up in recent years, but bette wording could be found....However I can answer a bit, if not provide the cite, for the now-fact-templated:

International undergraduate enrolment at UBC has grown to nine per cent, or 2,800 students, from two per cent since 1996 ^{[citation needed]}.

"International student" is a formal category at the universities, not just "students from other countries"; at SFU with a student population of ~25,000, there are only ~1000, maybe ~1500 official "international students". Anybody who's been on either campus for more than an hour knows that a huge amount of students, at SFU perhaps well into the majority, are "from" other countries and/or don't speak English on a daily basis except when required to and may be perceived to be "international students"....but as noted that's an official category, relating to admissions and tuition policies; all the rest are Canadian citizens or official residents, albeit whose primary residence and/or culture/identity is international in nature. This is an unfortunate result of the ways universities keep stats and create categories; the SFU Reports publication soemwhere will have an item in its pages, though they're not online; I'd imagine the same is true of UBC's official publications; but the Ubyssey maybe has an article that gives the figure, or somewhere on UBC's site there may be a mention of the current and historical figures.Skookum1 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

International House at UBC, which the last I knew was on the West Mall near the Music/Geography/Grad Centre/Asian Centre area, may have a website, or there may be a webpage that has something about it; I wouldn't know how to google for it other than "International House"+UBC but that's the first place I'd look for a stat....either there or the Alma Mater Society webpage...Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have found on an official document (bottom of page 1) by the City of Vancouver that Seoul is not a sister city of Vancouver. I have also looked around the City's site and found no mention of Seoul, South Korea being Vancouver's sister city. Also, on the city of Seoul's website, they also do not mention Vancouver as a sister city. So I think Seoul is definitely not Vancouver's sister city.Krazywrath (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that was me who placed the {{cn}} tag, I think maybe it was. Anyway, it was from October, so it's time now to remove Seoul. If anyone knows different, feel free to re-add with the appropriate cite. Franamax (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The side bar says the population of the city is 1,578,401 for 2008, but the population growth section says that the population was 578,401 in 2006 and 611,869 in 2007. It seems unlikely that the population increased by exactly one million in two years. --68.163.109.25 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's because someone had unhelpfully edited an extra million in to the city figure. I have corrected it back to the cited 2006 census data of 578,401. The 611,869 in the text is an estimated figure for 2007. Infoboxes should show only the last confirmed figure. Mfield (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This "(pronounced /vænˈkuːvɚ/)" bugs me - I know a bit about IPA and that /væn/ looks decidedly American to me. What's the citation for what's given here? Is this the local pronunciation? The CBC-English pronunciation? Again, that /væn/ just sounds like it has too much twang, a "native Vancouverite" tends to have a "flat a", whatever that symbol is.....not that there's anything such as a "person actually from Vancouver" anymore, and not that there has been. But to me this is reminiscent of "FraZHYer" for "Fraser".Skookum1 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary cites Vancouver as vān-kōō'vər (AHD). Rules listed as follows:

• pat - ā
• cat - k
• boot - ōō
• valve - v
• butter - ər

IPA and AHD are very similar but use slightly different notation. Based upon their definition of its pronunciation, which sounds okay to me when I say it aloud, I'd say æ is correct. The only alternatives are ə as in about or eɪ/e as in face. The Apple Dictionary IPA defines it as vanˈkoōvər but a google test shows no other entries for it, though all the search results for vænˈkuːvɚ reference Wikipedia. The ending seems weird though. Mkdw^talk 06:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, but is the American Heritage Dictionary an appropriate source? Just curious, what does it give for Fraser River....Skookum1 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to those who took/added the panoramic pics! The article is beautiful. Very impressive!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talk • contribs) February 8, 2009

More factual if they could show endless rain and snarly traffic....instead of just pretty vistas. At least the rainy-seawall shot is halfway more like the place really is....Skookum1 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a fact template to this, which apparently comes from one of the sources (but it's wrong):

City planners in the late 1950s and 1960s deliberately encouraged the development of high-rise residential towers in Vancouver's West End, resulting in a compact urban core amenable to public transit, cycling, and pedestrian traffic.[

Actually, the construction of the West End high rises reduced the overall West End population and its density; sites that had once held multiple-apartment houses covering nearly the whole lot were replaced with towers of single-occupancy suites with dedicated open space around the tower. I'm pretty sure this is somewhere in Peter McDonald's Historical Atlas of Vancouver or whatever it's called, and I think it's in Chuck Davis' Vancouver Book also, and gets mentioned in newspaper columns from time to time; Downtown South/Yaletown is a different matter and taht area was never heavily populated until the modern era. As for those 1950s and '60s constructions being made for cycling and public transit, that's laughable; the older era was indeed bicycle-devoted (the first pavement in British Columbia was for the Stanley Park Ring Road - now Park Drive - in the early 1890s, for bicycles) but planning priorities in the '50s and '60s were anything but oriented towards bicycles and transit; anti-transit is more like it, which is why the plethora of parking garages which now occupy the space bounded by Burrard-Melville-Pender-Bute (once a high-density housing area). And it's not like the West End has good transit either. Anyone here had to wait for a Robson bus or a Davie, or had to endure the ride? The old trolleys were ripped up in the 1950s, as part of teh same planning priorities. As I've often quipped, "it would help if those who want to rewrite history would read some first".Skookum1 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that there are two medium-sized cities in the Pacific Northwest of North America with the name Vancouver, it's awfully confusing and strange to have this page direct searches for "Vancouver" to Vancouver, BC. How would one go about changing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to read back through the archives of this page and review the many discussions that all end up with the current article naming left intact. Short form: Vancouver BC is a much larger city, the centre of a major urban agglomeration, a major port, the host of the 2010 Winter Olympics, and often listed among the world's "most-livable" cities. When most people around the world think of Vancouver, they're not thinking about the county seat and suburb of Portland. And per the relative style guides for article naming, US cities are titled <city>, <state> and Canadian cities whose names are well-known and/or unqiue are titled <city>. Franamax (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Most people around the world don't "think" about Vancouver, period. Neither the Canadian nor the American city is a London, Tokyo, or New York. To those who think about it the most--that is, those living in the Pacific Northwest--the confusion over the two names is significant, and often requires clarification.

Furthermore, Portland, OR is a much larger city than Portland, ME (about 10x larger); while Vancouver, BC is only about 4X larger than Vancouver, WA. And they're both in the same region, which adds to further confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet, typing Portland into wikipedia takes you to a disambiguation. No doubt most people typing Portland are looking for the larger, Oregon city, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't go to a disambiguation when you have two cities with populations in the six figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone who lives in the Northwest would be confused about Vancouver, BC or Vancouver, WA. When someone mentions Vancouver in the Northwest, they mean Vancouver, BC, not a suburb of Portland. єmarsee ^(Discuss) 02:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no they don't; not necessarily. Maybe in the circles in which you run. Most people in the Portland metro area (the Pac NW's third largest metro area) are likely to think of Vancouver, WA, depending on the context. In Seattle (the largest metro area in the Pac NW), there is confusion as well, as Seattle is roughly equidistant between the two Vancouvers. People in Seattle are known to clarify the Vancouver to which they refer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil and refrain from making personal attack statements. Quite simply the editors in the WikiProject United States chose to name all their cities <city>, <state> in their naming convention. That was their choice and as such all US cities follow those guidelines. The WikiProject Canada along with many other European WikiProjects went with a different naming convention stating the most well known city could take the direct link with a disambiguation listing link at the top. This was decided in an earlier discussion involving people from both the WikiProject USA, WikiProject Canada & WikiProject Vancouver as well as outsiders. Quite simply, Vancouver is the 3rd largest city in Canada, host to the Olympics, and the 2nd busiest port in North America. The Olympics heavily weighted into the decision as it is expected 2010 Winter Olympics and Vancouver-related pages would receive a huge amount of traffic. Furthermore the hit count to the article Vancouver versus, Vancouver, Washington (factoring in hits attempting to make their way to Vancouver, Washington) was still greatly considerable. Vancouver is also a featured article on the Wikipedia main page which gave it an additional distinction. Vancouver, Washington is not alone in that its the subject to this situation. Many other articles (non-city related) face this issue, but its the Wikipedia standard and the reason for the disambiguation link at the top exists. If you wish to change this instance, then I suggest you take a look at the styles and systems Wikipedia has implemented over its development. If you are still dissatisfied with them, you can motion to have those policies changed, but isolating a single article to be outside of the norm is something that should be avoided. Hope this helps clarify 'why things the way they are'. Mkdw^talk 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, who is making personal attack statements or being uncivil? I would be curious if you could quote anything written in this section that qualifies as either.

To the point, many US cities include the name of the state in which they are located because there is some confusion as to which place one is referring. So for cities such as Chicago or Seattle, where there are no others with that name, simply typing the name alone is sufficient. For cities like Portland or Vancouver, where there is more than one fairly large and/or noteworthy place with those names, it is necessary to add the state or country for clarification.

Having the Olympics is great, and if someone in Seattle, or Portland, or Bellingham says "I'm going to the Olympics in Vancouver!" it will be clear from the context which city they mean. If someone in one of those places says, however, I have a business trip in Vancouver this weekend, it will not be clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.177 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have an old-fashioned primary usage debate. There are three quantifiable criteria for primary usage that can help:

1. google search: 11 of 12 on the first page go to Vancouver, BC
2. hit counts. Van, BC: 136000, Van, Wash: 11000.
3. What links here: Vancouver, BC has over 10000 incoming links; Vancouver, Washington has less than 1000.

That means, Vancouver, BC has orders of magnitude more notability in quantifiable measures, which is a good rule-of-thumb for its having primary usage. Of course, like all wikipedia, this isn't etched in stone, but it'd take a lot to convince me that "Vancouver" doesn't usually mean the city in Canada.--Loodog (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone refer to Vancouver, Washington without specifically saying they're talking about the American city. I hear people refer to Vancouver, BC without specifying all the time. From my point of view, the default Vancouver is certainly Vancouver, BC. Of course I live in Canada... I am not sure if there are "Wikipedia style guidelines" that cover this topic, but perhaps someone could check? Perhaps the default should be Metro Vancouver... TastyCakes (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The style guidelines basically dictate WP naming convention should follow most common name for native English speakers in the world including: US, Canada, UK, India, Nigeria, Phillipines, Australia, etc...--Loodog (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ok, not sure how much that helps us. Shouldn't the article be named Vancouver, British Columbia to avoid confusion with the other Vancouver? Like someone said above, it makes sense to add the province if there is another city with the same name... TastyCakes (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Should London be renamed to London, England to compensate for London, Ontario? No. That's basically the same point here. єmarsee ^(Discuss) 06:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To Tasty, No. c.f. "Boston" as the name location of the Massachusetts city, and not any of the other Boston's.

The superceding guideline here is whether (like "Boston") "Vancouver" has a primary usage. If it does, the city associated with primary usage should be located at "Vancouver". If it doesn't, the page needs to be disambiguated to a page with every possible meaning of "Vancouver", though we can list these two cities at the top. My argument was that "Vancouver" has a primary usage and Vancouver, BC is that primary usage, based on quantifiable indicators. --Loodog (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that, as the larger city, Vancouver, BC, is the primary usage of Vancouver, but it is still ambiguous. Many newspapers in major cities specify BC to clarify that issue, and I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different.

For example:

Here's an article from the Oregonian (Portland): http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index.ssf/2009/01/vancouver_bc_dayandnight_delig.html

Here's from the Anchorage Daily News: http://www.adn.com/money/story/674122.html

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) 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are all American papers; if you had cited some British or Australian ones you'd have made a point. This is a global encyclopedia, not a United States persepctive encyclopedia, least ways it's supposed to be. Most people in other countries aren't aware of the existence of Vancouver WA; the name "Vancouver" references only Vancouver, BC, Canada in nearly all cases outside of the US; even in the US to say "Vancouver" (as on the talkshows quite a bit lately, because of so much filming here and various actors coming from here), it's implicit that it's Vancouver, BC that's meant; there's no hint even that, again, Vancouver WA exists, and those are on American talkshows. And rest assured if you talked to someone in Edinburgh, Scotland or Melbourne, Australia, if you said something about Vancouver, it would be definitely the BC one that's being named....Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Latecomer to the discussion, but I just want to say one thing: in exactly two US states, the name is ambiguous enough that you virtually always have to specify which one you mean. In the entire rest of the world outside of those two states, the name "Vancouver" without a state or province after it is always taken to mean the Canadian one. The end result is that the one in Washington can almost never be referred to as just "Vancouver" without a state name after it, because even in the small region where it is a prominent and well-known topic in its own right it still has to be disambiguated from the other one, whereas the Canadian one can be referred to as "Vancouver" without a province name in about 99 per cent of the entire world. That's what makes the Canadian one a primary topic.

And furthermore, to those who are claiming that there isn't a large population disparity between the two cities, keep in mind that the comparison isn't between a city of 150,000 people and one of 500,000 people — the 500K one is the central hub and namesake of a metropolitan area of over two million people, while the 150K city is a suburb of a metropolitan area which is named for a different city in the area. So the comparison is between 150K and two million, not 150K and 500K. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)