Talk:Port of Vancouver (1964–2008)

Untitled

This port is in fact owned by P&O Ports (see: http://www.poports.com/) which was recently purchased by Dubai Ports World, see: DP_World_controversy. (Theburlyman 00:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

I think you may be confusing the terminals with the actual port itself [1]. The Vancouver Port Authority is a Canadian crown corporation. -- Usgnus 02:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for the clarification! (Theburlyman 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm a confused newbie. What exactly is a "collaboration of the month"? Is it just to draw our collective attention to the article, or is there a more structured process involved? (User: Bobanny 10:30, 26 August 2006)

WP:COI notice/template idea

If anyone is a mgmt-level employee, particularly public relations or sales (or a firm hired to do the same) for the Port of Vancouver should not be working on this article; this is a core Wiki principle and applies also to political party pages and corporate/university pages; likewise someone advancing/representing hte interest of a competing port....not saying that's going on but I think there should be a stnadard COI tempalte for for all corp/organizational pages, given the content of WP:COI; it's like the WP:BLP notice in the WPBio template...i.e. should be pointed out on certain types of pages, just like WP:AUTO and wp:blp are on bio talkages.Skookum1 08:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a template. Unlike politicians making policies that happen to benefit their business interests, and other situations, I think people with a conflict of interest contribute a fair bit of valid content to Wikpedia. The pitfall in the final product is NPOV (or plain BS and peacock language), which most regular editors are quite diligent about correcting. As WP:COI points out, given the collaborative nature of the beast, it could go either way (positive or negative) in terms of what sticks regarding the subject. Probably the biggest COI problem is linkspam, but there's a WikiProject dedicated to that, and it generally gets removed pretty quickly (if not, chances are it's an obscure topic and few people visit the article anyway). If someone has a conflict of interest and are blatantly disregarding wikipedia guidelines on NPOV, spam, etc., they're trying to get away with something and aren't concerned about the integrity of Wikipedia. In some cases, it's innocent and new editors just need some schooling on what's appropriate. The zero-tolerance with biographies is more of a legal protection than integrity issue (that's why it applies only to living people, who, unlike dead people, can sue).

Case in point: I noticed a little self-promotion appeared today on Granville Island. I tried correcting it, but busker Dan was still making his edits so there was an edit conflict and it's still there. He added a photo and some info on buskers, which is good, but details about otherwise unknown performers, puffy language, and a link to his website need to be corrected. Chances are, he's not going to edit war with us to get his free publicity, and if he does, he'd lose in the end as they always do. The worst COI seems to be party and candidate articles around election time. I peeked in at Michael Ignatieff during the leadership race, and it was pretty brutal political warfare, but again, those people don't give a shit about Wikipedia, just in winning political contests. In the long term though, that kind of energy by paid staff or party faithful isn't sustainable because it's not profitable in cost-benefit terms. One more point is that a lot of articles, probably including this one, are derived from info from the subjects website and some of the NPOV/promo stuff gets inadvertently carried over. In sum, I think a template would clutter talk pages, not have an effect on problem editors, and wouldn't be a realistic reflection about the role of editors with a COI. bobanny 11:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (I guess I'm not a confused newbie any longer, more of a rambling-roger)

New Port Authority

It's official... The port authorities of Metro Vancouver have merged. Please visit Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to read more.

I guess it's time to say this article is historical in nature?

Allan kuan1992 (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Inspection

What percentage of containers entering the port are inspected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.8.30 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bold move

I've boldly moved this article to the current title. The primary topic for Port of Vancouver is the current port. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)