This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Under "Other Facts" it states Beacon Hill Park's 75 hectares lie along Victoria's southern shore. This is geographically inaccurate, as no part of Beacon Hill Park lies along or borders a shore, and is actually separated from the shore by a road and then another park entirely. http://www.victoriabc.ca/victoria/beaconhillpark.htm. Beacon Hill borders the Dallas Road Waterfront Walkway, which itself lies along the southern shore, but is not Beacon Hill Park. Joevanisland 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
...corrected section, mentioned JuandeFuca/Olympic views with appropriate Wikipedia links. Wish I could figure out how to indent(!). Edited own comments for newbie verbiage.
Who says locals are confused about the rules of cricket? The people playing cricket are the locals. Is the "newly dead" cliche a popular local expression? I've certainly never heard anyone who lives here use it. This and the cricket-type comments are IMHO un-encyclopedic, not verifiable in any way, and rather brochure-like. Any objections to my deleting these statements? Joevanisland 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this section is pretty misleading. Many of these "neighbourhoods" are actually their own municipalities. I will try and reorganize into "Communities of Greater Victoria" and sub-divide. However, I'm not 100% on some of the neighbourhoods. -- Webgeer 07:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Communities of Greater Victoria should be moved from this article, which is about the Municipality of Victoria proper, to the Greater Victoria or Capital Regional District pages (why do we need two, anyway)? Any thoughts on this suggestion? Fishhead64 07:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Never mind... my bad... Aces&Eights (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The section on climate is problematic.
Victoria has a temperate climate that is usually classified as Marine west coast, with mild, damp winters and relatively dry and mild summers. It is sometimes classified as a Mediterranean climate (Csb).
Problem is, in the Koppen climate model Victoria is defined as being Csb, not Cfb (see the Koppen article and updated map). Since Koppen is the most widely used climatic classificatory system used both here and elsewhere, it would make sense to stick with that description.
Furthermore, the article contradicts itself when describing a Cfb climate as one with "mild, damp winters and relatively dry and mild summers." This is in fact the definition of a Csb climate, not a Cfb climate (which has evenly distributed precipitation with no particular rainy or dry season). So it seems the article is not only inaccurate, but contradicts itself. Anyone else have an opinion? 66.183.80.6 (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Climate Section
This section seems way to long and bloated. It also seems to read like an essay on "Why Victoria is a Mediterranean climate". Just read it for yourself with an objective eye. I know the Vic boosters won't like this but that's the way it is. BTW,Vic is my home town I grew up there so I'm not a Vic hater. Oh yeah, Its -5 right now in Vic. Med climates don't experience sub zero temps on a regular shcedule like the Island(Vic) does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.153.19 (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a short article at Victoria Harbour (British Columbia) that does not look as if it will grow to more than a paragraph or two at best. It would seem appropriate to merge it into this article, as most, if not all, of the information is already covered in the Port section and the Transportation section. --Bejnar (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Since this is an article about the city of Victoria, shouldn't the infobox show a picture of the Victoria City Hall building rather than the British Columbia Parliament Buildings? NorthernThunder (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The lede blabs on about cruise-ship tourism and the The city also receives economic benefits from its close proximity to Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, the Canadian military’s main Pacific naval base. and then goes on about tourism-related events. SFAIK the biggest economic engine in Victoria is the provincial government, shouldn't that be mentioned? Also the huge pool of retirement-income revenues that also is related to the employment engines of the city's many public and private hospitals and therapists, etc, and the nearby presence of U.Vic (which is in Oak Bay/Saanich). Should only tourism and CFB Esquimalt be given such a spotlight?Skookum1 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
While making other edits I noticed the given IPA:
and that diphthong onf the second syllable just doesn't look right; if anything it's a USian pronunciation, in my estimation. The Canadian one is more of a pure "o" as in "oar" (not "oar" as pronounced by someone from Arkansas, either) and the original British one the "o" would be even more emphasized. Maybe [ɔə] is more like "oh" than I'd expect, but it just looks wrong. I've noticed several other BC placenames where an americanized pronunciation is/was given, this one seems to need (urgent( correction.Skookum1 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I have added 3 new images of the parliament buildings, taken last weekend in the afternoon, the morning and at night. Since there are already images in the article, I thought I would leave it for someone else to decide whether to substitute any of these for the current photos. --KenWalker | Talk 04:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Listen GUys, the Parliament building are in OTTAWA only. Any provincial counterpart is a LEGISLATURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.168.176 (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The legislative body of BC is known as the Legislative Assembly. The building in which they meet is the Parliament Buildings. If you go to watch question period, your ticket reads "Parliament Buildings of British Columbia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.110.130 (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Victoria City (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is a relatively unique situation for Canadian cities regarding the Victoria municipal boundary: it seems that the boundary crosses individual parcels (and houses, etc.) along a portion of the Oak Bay border area. I think this unique situation should be stated in the article, since I am sure there are several who would be interested. It is also worth mentioning along with the history of how this has occurred, and how some citizens literally live with a foot in 2 municipalities. 142.36.45.56 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ii removed this from 'history' where it had been chunked in and broke the historical narrative. I put the wording into the Esquimalt article, but the Victoria article coould perhaps also reference this, but I'm not sure what other section of the article is appropriate. As it is, this article on the relatively small 'City' of Victoria has eended up being a catch-basket for any passing thoughts on regional matters that should more properly live in Greater Victoria or Capital Regional District. (and I have been guilty of this myself) Corlyon (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have reworked this section as it was starting to read like a discussion of educational opportunities in the whole of Greater Victoria. Most of discussion of Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific is in the Metchosin article, where the school is actually located. A detailed discussion or listing of the private schools outside the City of Victoria but in Greater Victoria probably belongs in the Greater Victoria article, but reference is retained to Glenlyon-Norfolk that has a campus in the City. The paragraph on infrastructure has the same problems, even talking aobut sewage disposal on the Saanich Peninsula, miles away from the City of Victoria. Corlyon (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been away from BC for a few years. Until 2007, the 778 area code was only in the same area as 604....when did this change? SFAIK there's only 250 on the Island, just like in the Interior; 778 only overlaps with 604.Skookum1 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted a recent addition of a massive "ethnic origins" chart. The chart was HUGE and contained the racial make up of every resident. It is inappropriate to have such an in depth list in this article. The reader doesn't need a list containing over 140 ethnicities in a chart. It doesn't matter that there are 10 Rwandans living in Victoria, or 25 Bosnians. Such info would be suitable in a demographics article, not the city's article. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the long list has been re added as a collapsable list, does the "visible minorities" table still need to be there ? Perhaps it could now be removed seeing how the info is repeated in the list directly above it. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I know there was one. Nothing on it in the History section so far; I'd dropped by looking for the date so as to add it to List of historic fires#Cities.Skookum1 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This section is waaaaaaayyy to long. It also comes off as trying to "case build" for justification in calling Victoria's climate med(lol)which of course it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The weather records box is just plain wrong. For example the record low temperature for march is listed as 12C, while its 0C right now (March 5, 2010). I am removing it. No data is better than bad data.
Sunshine hours listed as 2,223 in the text, and 2,086 in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.40.1 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I updated this section to use data from the Victoria Gonzales weather station. This article is about the City of Victoria, and the Airport data (which was used previously) reflects a location that is 25 km outside the City of Victoria and not very reflective of the City's climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garryoak (talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure the gallery was a good idea, but do we really need 2 images of parliament? I could see if one of them was at night, but two daytime pictures seems unnecessary. - TheMightyQuill 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. Why are there so many pictures of the Parliament Buildings?! This is a beautiful city with not shortage of other scenes to capture. Any one have some nice photos of Beacon Hill Park? Craigdarroch Castle? The Gorge? Cook St Village? The Galloping Goose Trail? Ponyclubrivals (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Reading over the talk on this article, there's clearly a lot of trouble, confusion, and disagreement because the term "Victoria, BC" refers to two quite distinct entities: one, the City of Victoria, proper; two, the greater Victoria area, approximately coterminous with the Capital Regional District (similar to a county government), and comprising at least 13 distinct incorporated municipalities and a number of unincorporated settlements (e.g. Port Renfrew, Jordan River, Ganges). To say nothing of a surprising number of Indian reservations, some of which are uninhabited, others of which are quite densely inhabited!
Wikipedia seems to globally have a persistent problem where a specific city name refers both to a metropolitan area and to a specific municipality within that metropolitan area. Examples include Vancouver BC, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco (which sometimes means SF proper, sometimes the SF Bay area in general), Los Angeles, New York, and so on. It strikes me that Wikipedia would benefit from a wholesale reorganization of such articles. In the case of Victoria, we'd end up with an article "Victoria, British Columbia - Metropolitan area" and another "Victoria, British Columbia - City of Victoria". (That's a fairly clumsy naming, but my point is that any given item of information regarding "Victoria" will refer to one of these or to the other.
Clearly, an article on the Victoria metropolitan area would have links to articles on the individual municipalities and the Capital Regional District, and maybe to articles on the unincorporated settlements and to a list (at least) of Indian reserves or bands.
But it seems to me that before anyone starts such a reorganization, we really need to have agreement so we don't end up with more cat fights over the issue. And, much more importantly, we need to find out how to raise this issue regarding the overall organization of Wikipedia. Does anyone know where to discuss such global issues about Wikipedia?
I've added relevant comments to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Metropolitan_areas_vs._components_thereof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floozybackloves (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
==Did you not notice Greater Victoria, British Columbia? fishhead64 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hans Roemer, a Victoria biologist now retired from public service, has analyzed Victoria's climate from a horticultural standpoint and found that it most closely resembles that of the Adriatic coast of former Yugoslavia, in terms of the annual variation in temperature and precipitation. Also, among gardeners, Victoria's climate is generally agreed to be "cool Mediterranean". The key distinguishing factors are (a) the generally mild climate and (b) the wet winter/dry summer precipitation regime. Terming Victoria's climate as "Mediterranean" offers the reader important information: Victoria does not conform climatically to the mythical dripping wet rain forest of the Pacific Northwest.
A further wrinkle is that microclimatic variation means that within Victoria (sensu latu) there is a wide range of climates, whereas the the City of Victoria proper has much less such climatic variation. This distinction is encapsulated in the observation that the annual rainfall in the area rises by approximately one inch per year per mile as one travels out the West Coast Road to Sooke and points beyond.
Without pointing any fingers, I must comment that some of the information in the Victoria article is essentially trivial, other of it sounds way too much like Chamber of Commerce boosterism (Babbittry), and some sounds like it's been written by the earth mother brigade as an expression of their fantasies of Victoria as a wonderful, perfect, truly hippy-dippy, organic, ecologically sound, green place. (Yes, Fernwood residents, I am referring to you.) All of this is inappropriate to Wikipedia, where a dispassionate and impartial point of view is the summum bonum.
Floozybackloves (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
While showing my wife some info about my old hometown, I came across the cultural section, and at the end of the section, it would appear someone added a part about religion. No problem in general, it was just that the entire bit was about Mosques. As I recall, there are many temples, churches and yes, mosques in Victoria. I deleted the 5 or 6 line paragraph and will continue to monitor. I have no problem with a religious section in the culture tab, lets just make sure it is more accurate and better shows the diversity that is present in Victoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.193.185 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to say, there is no such thing as the British Columbia Parliament Buildings. As someone who has (a) a degree in History, with (b) significant portions of it focused on BC history and (c) someone who has taught Grade Ten Social Studies (which comprises much of BC history) and (d) a person born and raised in Victoria, it has always been called the LEGISLATURE or the LEGISLATIVE BUILDINGS or the LEGISLATURE BUILDINGS.
I don't know who wrote the section on this, but I do know there is a whole other page focusing solely on the (non-existant) British Columbia Parliament Buildings, so I didn't want to go in and edit it. However, if it doesn't change to reflect reality, then I will likely go change it. But wait! When I go to the BC Government site, I see they are also calling it the BC. Parliament Buildings. I have now emailed them to find out when and why this revisionist history took place, because whenever I called them the parliament buildings my grandparents, my mother, her boyfriend (who was a janitor at the BC. Legislature) and my peers all corrected me. So...sometime in the last 15-20 years, someone decided to play with history and erase the fact that these buildings have never been called the BC Parliament buildings before this time.
I will let you know what i find!
Cheers.
87.101.166.158 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Bruce87.101.166.158 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
We always call it the Parliament Buildings, though I was not born and raised, my two sisters were and are under the same colloquial impression as I am. Nevertheless, I wish you luck in resolving this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.193.185 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The Legislative Assembly's website refers to the "Parliament Buildings and Legislative Grounds", so it seems they're confused too! 207.194.133.9 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Merger complete. Information from Tillicum Centre has been merged into this article per the merge result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillicum Centre. NorthAmerica1000 09:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Merger complete. Information from Mayfair Shopping Centre has been merged into this article per the merge result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfair Shopping Centre. NorthAmerica1000 06:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
while Fort Victoria still needs its own article, I'm not sure if it should be separate from a possible/probably History of Victoria, British Columbia title; this article is already so large that adding much of anything to the History section would be overburden given the amount of historical detail that's "out there" for early Victoria.
Regarding the recent disagreement in the article about the use of flags in the infobox, I don't think they are distracting at all. They sit next to the table of contents so it is certainly not distracting of the prose of the article. I think they illustrate the regions well. I support the inclusion of the flags in the infobox.
I am of course open to other points of view. Chillum 21:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
A colleague of mine pointed out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. While I prefer the flags to be there I do understand the need to be consistent in style. It would help if @IJBall: mentioned the link Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes in his/her edit summaries. Chillum 22:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Victoria, British Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Garryoak, we can't guess and make unreferenced claims like this with regards to Victoria supposedly being the sunniest city in BC. In fact, if you look back at older records, for the 1961-1990 period, Cranbrook had 2228.6 hours of bright sunshine and Victoria Gonzales in that same period had 2185.1. In the 1971-2000 period Cranbrook had 2205.3 and Victoria Gonzales had 2193.3. To assume that Victoria has now had more than Cranbrook is just guessing. Air.light (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Garryoak, please review WP:VER and WP:NOR Air.light (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The fact is that according to the 1981-2010 normals, Cranbrook gets 2190.5 hours of sunshine. Unfortunately, the 1981-2010 data for Victoria Gonzales is not available, but for the most recent data shows 2193.3 hours for 1971-2000. We're both making assumptions. You’re assuming that the hours for Victoria Gonzales went down compared with 1971-2000 (and are thus now lower than the 1981-2010 Cranbrook numbers). I’m just assuming that the hours stayed the same or went up. Given that the hours for Victoria Airport increased from 1971-2000 to 1981-2010, I think my assumption is more reasonable. Why is my assumption considered "unreferenced" and "a guess", while yours is not? Garryoak (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the wording change to add "in the last available set of data", so I can see the difference in that case. The problem is that even just comparing the published 1971-2000 data, the Cranbrook and Victoria numbers aren't really comparable since sunshine recording was discontinued at Gonzales in 1988, so you're not comparing the same time periods. Perhaps a more generic statement like "Victoria is one of the sunniest locations in B.C." would be better? Garryoak (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I downloaded all the monthly sunshine data for Victoria Gonzales and Cranbrook Airport to make a more direct comparison. If you compare the two locations for the period where there is an overlap in the record (1970-1987) so you are actually comparing the same years for each, you get 2,223.3 hours for Victoria Gonzales versus 2,217.3 hours for Cranbrook. Alternatively, you could look at the most recent 30 years of data for each (30 years being the standard time period to calculate climate normals) and you get 2,209.9 hours for Victoria Gonzales (1958-87) versus 2,194.4 hours for Cranbrook Airport (1972-2001). While it may not be verifiable that Victoria gets more sunshine, I also don't think it's verifiable that Cranbrook gets more since the published 1971-2000 climate normals are based on different periods of two different lengths (1971-87 for Victoria Gonzales vs. 1972-2000 for Cranbrook) Garryoak (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
There are monthly climate summaries on the Environment Canada website, which includes monthly sunshine hours going back to 1951. I also have more detailed hourly sunshine data for Victoria Gonzales, which can be purchased from Environment Canada.Garryoak (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
At several places in this article Victoria seems to be a catch-all for places actually located in Greater Victoria.
For example, locations in Saanich, British Columbia, such as the "Tillicum Centre" and the "Uptown Mall" have been added to the Victoria article. In the Sports section, when describing the "National Headquarters", locations in Saanich have been added to this article because they are located in the "Greater Victoria area".
By comparison, Toronto makes no claim to Square One Shopping Centre in nearby Mississauga (all part of the Greater Toronto Area).
Should locations near Victoria, but not in Victoria, be more carefully teased out? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Nobody locally considers Saanich to be Victoria. For what it is worth. HighInBC 19:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I have some concerns with the opening presentation of the name of Victoria in the Saanich language.
Firstly, the language as written in local orthography is in all-caps. The citation even gives METULIYE as the correct spelling.
Secondly, is this relevant? The language has no official status and isn't even the dialect spoken historically by local Indigenous people. Lekwungen groups lived in what is now the City of Victoria. Saanich is/was spoken further out on the peninsula.
Madg2011 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Some editors have invested much diligence in assuring the accuracy of this article by ensuring it discusses the City of Victoria, and not venues outside that municipality. There are articles, such as Greater Victoria and/or the articles pertaining to the municipalities where these venues do exist, like Saanich. Is there any reason why we have a section on "Attractions outside the City of Victoria" in an article about the City of Victoria? Some editor has invested time in adding places in Esquimalt and Central Saanich, so I'm opeb to a discussion of why they shouldn't be deleted. fishhead64 (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Victoria, British Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.viatec.ca/sites/default/files/documents/VictoriaTechSector_EconImpact_Report_Final.pdf((dead link))
tag to http://www.vibrantvictoria.ca/forum/archive/index.php/t-1292.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The infobox montage will need to be fixed as it contains a photo of Fisgard Lighthouse National Historic Site, which is located in Colwood, British Columbia. Victoria's boundaries can be seen here. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Victoria, British Columbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The recreation portion about Western Speedway is no longer relevant. The property was purchased by developers and is currently being changed to high rise apartments/ condominiums. The track was demolished last year. 184.71.27.166 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
There are a lot of lists and charts without describing text here (e.g. in the demographics section). If I have some time I'll take a crack at reducing the repetition. Cheers, Uninspired Username (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The City of Surrey BC is almost 3.times larger than Vancouver City BC Peter dooran (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
From the chart, it seems like Victoria simply has a Mediterranean climate, not even close to an oceanic climate.
Precipitation starts to go down from
April, and The summers seems really dry. דולב חולב (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)