Talk:Greater Victoria, British Columbia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
[edit] Victoria, Greater Victoria, and the CRD
Why shouldn't this article be merged with Capital Regional District, British Columbia? Then a redirect could be used. Quite frankly, the conflations of these two pages and the Victoria, British Columbia page are a mess. Any objections if I go ahead and fix things? Fishhead64 07:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- No objections here to substantive relocation of information, but I wouldn't describe the CRD and Greater Victoria as being coterminal geographic spaces. The Gulf Islands and the westward extension of Hwy 14 towards and including Port Renfrew fall under the administrative auspices of the CRD, but are never described as part of Greater Victoria. And in some cases, an even more reductionist definition of Greater Victoria is used, which puts the northern and western limits at Elk Lake and Fort Victoria, respectively--IIRC, that's where these days there are highway signs with seagulls or somesuch on them saying "Welcome to Greater Victoria" The Tom 04:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, things have since been kind of fixed. There's always room for improvement though. For instance, I put the non-City neighbourhoods and some attractions in Greater Victoria, British Columbia. But I'll continue to be vigilant. Fishhead64 04:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regional material
(cc'd to Talk:Victoria, British Columbia and Talk:Capital Regional District)
1. Establish as definitively as possible what is considered Greater Victoria.
2. Then decide whether its article is necessary or whether its theme duplicates much of what is in its component parts/CRD articles. I haven't done a thorough enough analysis yet. If anyone has any cites or thoughts, feel free to share them.
3. If it's established that the Greater Victoria article is close enough to the Capital Regional District article by geographic theme-- beyond noting the Gulf Island differences &etc-- then I wouldn't hesitate to suggest a merge. This would create an article in the vein of Greater Vancouver Regional District which, one might note, mentions the term 'Greater Vancouver' prominently. A merge does not mean that the material within the Greater Victoria is gone, but that non-duplicate material would be incorporated, into the CRD article. An automatic REDIRECT would be created, thus allowing the term 'Greater Victoria' to forward to 'Captial Regional District'. Also, for added emphasis, an explanatory note within the final article would state the differences.
4. If it's established that the Greater Victoria article isn't primarily duplication that could be included in the CRD in the same manner as Greater Vancouver is forwarded/included in Greater Vancouver Regional District, then it should be kept on its own merits.
5. This whole thing will probably take many days and weeks. That's just the nature of the beast.
- My first impression is that Greater Victoria is mostly a list, that could be merged with the differences noted.Keefer | Talk 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- My own feeling is that the CRD and Greater Victoria are sufficiently different to warrant distinct articles - the exclusion of the Gulf Islands and Sooke and east being the key issue. Your point on the GVRD is noted, but also note the existence of a parallel article to Greater Victoria, namely Lower Mainland. Fishhead64 16:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
