Talk:North Vancouver

	Canada: British Columbia / Communities
This page is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This page is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Cycling: Mountain Biking

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles This disambiguation page is supported by Mountain Biking task force.

Disambiguation

This 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

Note: I intentionally did not make this a disambiguation page, as I believe it should be a general page to refer to the area that includes both the City and the District of North Vancouver. -- Webgeer 18:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Population figures recently added should be checked and given a source. The User is a local lad with an edit history that is a very mixed bag of lightweight vandalism. --Wetman 19:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think an appropriate infobox can be added to this article as it encompasses both the District and the City of North Vancouver, seperate entities and articles exist. I'm instead going to add infoboxes to those two articles. Luke 07:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be a disambiguation page. It can create confusion between the City and the District.Canadianshoper 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a disambiguation page would be appropriate here. With geographical disambiguation, we are generally discussing similarly named locations that have nothing else in common. (For example, one could make the case for disambiguating "Deep Cove" since there is a Deep Cove in the District of North Vancouver and a Deep Cove on Vancouver Island. Same name, no commonality.) In the case of the "North Vans", we're describing two distinct and independent municipalities that are, in some ways, interdependent. Different councils, bylaws, taxes, but sharing many services such as police and recreation facilities. As well, the two municipalities are adjacent, and (in the minds of many non-North Shore residents) they are one and the same. (Even Canada Post doesn't differentiate - letters are addressed to "North Vancouver" - and you'll rarely see businesses advertise as being in the District or the City.) I would disagree that the article can cause confusion. If anything, it will help to illustrate the differences between the two, while acknowledging their shared features. Nevertheless, your concerns should be addressed, so I have rewritten the header at the top of the page to better clarify the page, and to provide easy access to the specific municipal pages. I hope this helps. Cheers! --Ckatz 07:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason that I think it is important for it not to be a disambiguation page is that we need a general page we can link to when we say someone was born, grew-up in, etc... In most cases linking to either the city of the district would be somewhat arbitrary and difficult to determine. But if it linked to the disambiguation page that would cause other problems and confusion. -- Webgeer 18:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the following material which was added by an anonymous editor (IP 24.80.196.98). It's certainly nothing against the editor, the anonymity, or the content - just that I don't think it belongs in this particular article. The new text is an expansion of what is already touched on in the preceding paragraph, and as such too specific for an article that is meant to be more of an overview of the combined North Vancouvers.
I've also left a note on the IP talk page, and I'll put a copy of the text on the talk page for the

"surrounded by the District of North Vancouver on three sides" triangles can be surrounded on three sides. Other things can not. The writer means bordered. this entry is unsigned so SineBot can have something to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always appreciate the effort put into articles like this and after I read the discussion I appreciate that effort even more.

But a couple of comments:

As a resident of North Vancouver (sic) I feel that I can speak for many residents in saying that the the issue of two municipalities hardly deserves the prominent mention it has at the head of this article. Perhaps occasionally in conversation--usually only because of some fine distinction--will someone ask whether we are in "The District" or "The City", but rarely. Will someone put this issue out of sight at the bottom of the article. It's only important to politicians.

I strongly agree with this comment. The political division is a local subplot of interest to only a relative few. In a larger article it might warrant a minor section somewhere near the bottom of the page but in a small article like this it merits only a sentence if at all. To have it dominate the page is strange.

Missing is a history of the area as well as an description of commerce, ethnicity, and so on. As noted, I appreciate the considerable effort that has gone into what there is but it could do with some redistribution.

--174.7.56.10 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also question why Capilano Canyon receives the prominence it gets here and suspect commercial meddling with the article. Bundle this under tourism links.

--75.157.205.225 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on amalgamation between City and District of North Vancouver needs work.

There have been at least two amalgamation referenda that I'm aware of with the most recent 1968. It passed in the District but not the City. ^[1]

The current District view (based on personal discussions with members of the 2009 Council) is that while amalgamation would likely be a good thing, no move to a plebiscite is likely until it is felt City residents want amalgamation. Since the provincial government as a matter of policy ONLY supports amalgamation when both parties agree, no change is expected for the foreseeable future. In the meantime both municipalities cooperate on a wide variety of projects.

CouncilWatcher (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]