Talk:Metro Vancouver Regional District/Archive 1

Archive 1

Metro Vancouver

It says I'm not supposed to edit the talk page, but I think it meant underneath the discussion, anyways thanks hermit for fixing my broken links, I meant to do it but I have a personal vendetta against North vancouver City so, nah I'm just yanking, I don't really, anyways what is this talk of changing the name. As far as I ever knew the name was the GVRD not metro vancouver, where did this so called talk come from? TotallyTempo 06:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a news story about it in the Vancouver Province a while back. The mayors and such at the GVRD were talking about it. I don't know the current status though. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It has now been officially changed to Metro Vancouver. The GVRD website does not yet say so, but just a few minutes ago there was a news story on Vancouver CBC Radio 1 about it. Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan was interviewed about it and he confirmed it. Time to change the title of this article to Metro Vancouver. Király-Seth 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well we can be patient about it until reliable sources confirm it. Just two weeks ago, it was described by the GVRD as an alternate use but not an official rebranding, see [1]. Canuckle 16:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny - I've never heard anyone use the term and i work with people from the GVRD all the time. Hu Gadarn 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What purpose would changing the name achieve, is there another greater vancouver regional district somewhere else or something? As far as I know Vancouver washington does not have it's own GVrD. TotallyTempo 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall, the reasoning for it is the length of the name. "Greater Vancouver Regional District" doesn't roll off the tongue quite easily. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Confirmed that name change proposed. [2] Canuckle 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's now official. Hu Gadarn 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• To me here in England, "Metro Vancouver" sounds like the Vancouver underground railway. Anthony Appleyard 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

I believe the UEL is represented in the Regional District through the Electoral Area A rep to the GVRD. I live here, voted in that election, and this is reflected in the Electoral Area A Page.

Currently this page says UEL is not represented neither are reserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.135.87 (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. JPD (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia → Greater Vancouver Regional District – There is no other Greater Vancouver Regional District in the world. Per WP:NAME, use the best-known, simplest, unambiguous title for the article. Greater Vancouver Regional District already redirects to Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia. Usgnus 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• If this succeeds, I will submit to have all 27 other regional districts moved. --Usgnus 01:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. No comment needed. Vegaswikian 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support the other article is a redirect to here. No reason not to (unless of course if you're a religious policy follower). -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support on wheels. Ridiculously long name. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Srleffler 04:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support No name collision. Use simpler name. --Polaron | Talk 04:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For obvious reasons. Skeezix1000 14:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a no brainer. Is this even controversial? Maybe you should just go ahead and move it. --Polaron | Talk 01:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. This is completely supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). --Usgnus 02:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's an edit history at Greater Vancouver Regional District and we need an admin. --Usgnus 14:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Metro Vancouver

The article was moved to Metro Vancouver, but the move was premature (and has been reverted). While the GVRD board has approved the change, it still requires provincial approval. This may well be a formality, but Wikipedia's naming conventions outline that the article should remain at the legal name until it is changed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's official now. Hu Gadarn 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT official. In order for it to be official, provincial cabinet must amend the RD's letters patent via Order in Council. This has not happened yet, and is not expected to happen until September. The Tom 23:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

if it's not official yet, someone had better tell the official gvrd website that.[3] 216.57.96.1 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No one's saying it's not official now, but it wasn't 2 weeks ago. --Kmsiever 03:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

well lets start to update the page then!?! Hollywoodnorthreport 11:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Before we make the move, we need to realize that the GVRD still exists as an entity within Metro Vancouver.[4] We need to discuss if we move this article, whether this page should be replaced with a redirect page or be an article in itself. --Kmsiever 01:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley regional district make up Lower Mainland. However, Greater Vancouver is a redirect to the article about the District, the GVRD, likely because Greater Vancouver as a term is most commonly understood to be the GVRD. The term "Metro Vancouver" , I think, is the same. Nobody currently uses it except to refer to the newly-renamed district. Thus, I think Metro Vancouver can continue to be an article about the district. Canuckle 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley regional district make up Lower Mainland" - that should always be, please "the Lower Mainland", and the terminology is that the GVRD and FVRD are in the Lower Mainland, they do not comprise it; partly because esp. in the FVRD's case they include areas outside the Lower Mainland (the head of Harrison Lake, the lower Fraser Canyon, the Sumallo/Manning Park, Howe Sound etc. And without "RD" attached, Greater Vancouver includes part of the Fraser Valley, i.e. the meaning of "Fraser Valley Regional District" should not be confused with the Fraser Valley as a region. This is one of hte many reasons I oppose the use of regional district categories as if they were useful georegion-divisions of British Columbia; they're not, and there's all kind of nomennclature problems as the RD names as used don't correspond to how the terms in the names are used without the RD part attached.

I should be clearer. I believe most of this article should be moved to "Metro Vancouver"; however, GVRD is still an existing entity under the Metro Vancouver umbrella (along with Greater Vancouver Water District; Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District; and Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation). Thus what needs to be determined is what this entity now consists of and whether it is notable enough for its own article. If so, then this current article should not simply become a redirect page. I hope that was clearer. --Kmsiever 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? According to the website, the name was simply changed from GVRD to Metro Vancouver. You're suggesting that there was some kind of restructuring so that the GVRD still exists? Where did you get that from? In any case, I put in the request to have this page moved to Metro Vancouver (again), but it doesn't appear anyone objects now that it's official. bobanny 15:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See the link I provided in my 10 September comment. I am including the paragraph here as well:

Under the umbrella of Metro Vancouver, there are four separate legal entities: the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD); the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD); the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation (GVHC), and the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD).

My only "objection" is whether this page becomes a redirect or remains an article to discuss the GVRD legal entity. --Kmsiever 19:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I emailed them for clarification, but the statement you point out contradicts the homepage comment that clearly states Metro Vancouver replaced GVRD:

Replacing Greater Vancouver Regional District with Metro Vancouver builds upon our traditional role in regional governance and is aimed at achieving greater recognition at the local, national and international levels for who we are and what we do.

Unless there was some restructuring, that would mean that previously the GVRD was an umbrella for the GVRD and these other things, which makes no sense. As for the redirect, I don't really see the point in having a separate article for the GVRD. GVSDD, GVWD, and GVHC are mentioned here (though could be elaborated) and don't have their own articles. Maybe some clarification as to what the GVRD (if it still exists) actually is might change my opinion, but I don't see why it wouldn't be covered in this article. That said, it wouldn't bother me if someone wanted to create a separate article. It's very simple to write over a re-direct. Re-naming this article is another matter because it was already renamed and then reverted, so now an admin has to do it. bobanny 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This all sounds like corporate reorganization (municipalities being incorporated under provincial law, take a look at your tax bill). A corporation is a person under common law, they are just defining which "person" made your toilet overflow. When we humans talk about a certain name, it is often a blanket term, you have to look at the actual Articles of Incorporation. Perhaps GVWD, GVHC, etc. already existed before the branding experts got there?

To bifurcate GVRD, you would have to find out what that actual corporation did and then explain its difference from the colloquial GVRD. That second GVRD, the one we would speak of day-to-day, is now most definitely Metro (unless they screwed up their own website - I couldn't find an actual press release announcing the official name change). Franamax 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On review, the article does mention GVSDD and GVWD, should probably then mention GVHC. In any case, Metro has now presumably subsumed the function of GVRD. It may still be named GVRD in law, but has chosen to adopt the trade name Metro Vancouver, or there may be a Metro Vancouver Corporation that owns the rest of them. Kmsiever does have a point given that GSVDD and GVWD are mentioned. HOWEVER no references to GVRD that I have seen (seen a few now!) use it in the context of the specific corporation doing specific things. They have all been references to the geographic entity loosely defined as "Greater Vancouver" with the everpresent possibility they really mean "Lower Mainland". This entity was best described by the original authors with the GVRD link so we should preserve their original intent. Once all the original ref's to GVRD are changed to Metro, it would be perfectly acceptable to create a GVRD article which describes its functions as a corporation operating as part of the Metro Vancouver political entity.

Note also that when I found GVRD in the context of regional districts, I changed it to "Metro Vancouver district", last word not capitalized because it seems to be called only Metro Vancouver. Franamax 05:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't received a response to my email asking what the heck Metro Vancouver is or if the GVRD still exists. For now, I don't see any evidence that the GVRD is a legal entity while Metro Vancouver is some kind of imprecise marketing gimmick. I don't believe that GVRD was ever anything besides an administrative district, or that "Greater Vancouver" was anything other than short for Greater Vancouver Regional District. Like Metro Vancouver, these aren't terms that originated with common usage or ever had much resonance beyond a reference to a legal/political administrative district. Their website doesn't clarify what these things are, but it seems like some big assumptions are being made here (and in the article). If anyone has some info, feel free to share. bobanny 06:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent them an email as well, and am still waiting for a response. --Kmsiever 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is most certainly Metro Vancouver. While still on a lot of things on the city, the old meaning of GVRD is now Metro Vancouver, even though a "GVRD" exists, it is very different. This page should most definitely named be Metro Vancouver. 64.180.230.24 (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the above discussion, Metro Vancouver is not a regional district, but includes under its umbrella the regional district organization/administration along with other bodies. there is no equivalent to this situation elsewhere in BC that I am aware of; maybe the water district etc are incorporated in the Capital Regional District....essentially "Metro Vancouver" seems part of the provincial govt's agenda to make Vancouver a "super city" like the expanded meta-Toronto, despite resistance from the non-CoV municipalities and their voters. "Today in Metro...." on the news leads is such a Toronto-ism it's rather noxious, along with that "Seriously Westcoast" byline the Vancouver Sun and the other CanWest outlets have been pushing. Here's the basic question - when the regional district board convenes at Deer Lake, is it brought to order as a meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, or it is brought to order as a meeting of Metro Vancouver? If Metro Vancouver is a body greater than but inclusive of the regional district, it needs to be a separate article; and neither should be treated as a region article, though for practical, historical reasons the GVRD is largely identical with Greater Vancouver, other than the recent addition of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.....although a few decades ago I'm not sure that outlying/rural areas would have been considered to be part of it; including Langley City/Township has always seems odd (and I think when RDs were first created in '67 maybe Langley was part of the old Central Fraser Valley Regional District; Anmore/Belcarra was "outside the city", likewise Fort Langley etc; as a concept Greater Vancouver, to people from outside the region, might even include Abbotsford. Abbotsford's own goal is to be seen as a separate city, of course (would help if they had a real downtown, though...), but then Surrey had the same idea (and it's only just now starting to build a real downtown, or planning to anyway). I'm wary of all our provincial government's re-branding/consolidation efforts; "Metro Vancouver" is as noted above a marketing gimmick, meant to make Vancouver sound bigger and more important than it already thinks it is; another such term that rankles me is "Kootenay Rockies" and it, likewise, replaces what local people use with a new marketing-firm-invented re-tooling of reality. Back to the subject; a "terminology" section shoudl explain how Metro Vancouver differs from the GVRD, and how it inclucdes other non-RD bodies; it's like the difference between TransLink and the name of the bus company it operates....(which I've forgotten the specifics of). Metro Vancouver is an umbrella organization, the GVRD is a regional district included in it; and it only happens that Greater Vancouver as a term coincices with the GVRD more or less (I wouldn't consider places north of Lions Bay, for instance, as part of Greater Vancouver). also, the term "Greater Vancouver" WAS current before the cration of the GVRD in '67.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to be an issue again, here's my understanding: the GVRD changed its public name to Metro Vancouver and that is how it is most well-known, so that's how we should refer it. Howver, the entity kept its corporate name, which is Greater Vancouver Regional District. That can be noted (as it is in the version to which I've just reset), but it's bo great bone of contention. It's not much different than if 622539 British Columbia Inc. decided to call itself Lululemon from now on. How is it referred to in public? As Metro Vancouver, with that exact spelling. Whether or not it says GVRD on purchase orders is immaterial. Franamax (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Helloo? What is with the edit war going on? Remember about using the talk page to discuss? I'll say once more, the public name is Metro Vancouver, as the article notes. The legal name of the discrict is GVRD - this was the previous name of this article. I've once again reverted to the correct wording to describe this. The area is also basically (but not necessarily exactly) synonymous with "Greater Vancouver", which the article already notes. I don't understand Iarecooll's efforts to say thye same thing twice in the same paragraph. This article is about the political entity, called Metro Vancouver, legally titled GVRD. Franamax (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, Iarecooll wants to use the term Greater Vancouver as (s)he thinks that people use that term more often. From what I understand, the region has never been known simply as Greater Vancouver, it was the GVRD. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 06:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And that's where the confusion arises. Sure, there is and long has been "something" called Greater Vancouver, it's the thing that's bigger than the City of Vancouver and smaller than the Lower Mainland, and when people don't want to be precise, they use the general term to refer to "where all those houses are". That's not the subject of this article though, this article is about the political entity, Metro Vancouver / GVRD. You can describe the governance of Metro Van/GVRD, but you can't do the same for "Greater Vancouver", because there is no such leegal entity. Now we could have another article titled Greater Vancouver, but it would basically say "GV is MV plus maybe a few more towns, if you live just on the other side of the MV border, when you see the weather report, they're talking about you too". That's why GV redirects to MV. GV doesn't need any more explication than it already has in the lead, it's a rough synonym, that's all. Franamax (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually (speaking as someone born in 1955), in regards to:

"From what I understand, the region has never been known simply as Greater Vancouver, it was the GVRD"

It's only been the GVRD since 1967, when regional districts were invented as an end-run on growing calls for better regional government and regional planning in BC, i.e. reconstituting the province along poularly-defined lines; the GVRD and its sister RDs were created to give existing municipalities some presence in regional government, but largely as entities with limited powers to prevent them from rivalling the power of the province itself (I'm not making this up, this ws current in political op-ed columns of the day); this was because the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board had come up with proposals for regional development and regional gofernance which would have up-ended the autocratic system of control that is the nature of the provincial govenrment. Over time, "Greater Vancouver" did become syonymous with the GVRD, or rather vice-versa, but the term "Greater Vancouver" already existed in 1967 (when the GVRD, again, came into existence) but was much smaller than the GVRD is now; it ended at the Pitt River and the Surrey-Langley boundary and only marginally included White Rock and Tsawwassen; it was pertty much the North Shore, Vancouver, Burnaby, PoCoMo, New West and Richmond, plus northern Surrey; not until the development of North Delta and the expansion of metropolitianization into Langley and White Rock did those areas become considered part of Greater Vancouver; that term has been in existence sicne at least the 1940s, if not as any kind of legal entity but defeintely in terms of a marketing/urban concept. Langley was Lower Fraser Valley, with Aldergrove part of the Central Fraser Valley (as defined by phone books, sicne RDs didn't exist yet); Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are of course recent editions and were part of a region known as the Dewdney-Alouette - a term which I believe (but am not sure) was wearing htat name before thet creation of the now-cancelled Dewdney-Alouette Regional District and the much-later federal riding by that name. to me all this boils down to, fundamentally, is the confusion of legal entities, i.e. politically-defined regions, vs "natural" social/cultural-defined regions and why in general I don't like RD categories as parameters to use for BC. the GVRD now includes Lions Bay, Anmore and other non-urban areas (or rather always did, but in terms of what was meant when people said "Greater Vancouver" they weren't part of it, rather just outside it). Growing suburbganization has changed everything; Richmond is no logner a "Valley town" (although thte mayor of Richmond is still included by the phrase "Fraser Valley mayors", though oddly enough - to me - is New Westminster; which i.e. as a city wasn't really part of the Valley, which was sort of a cultural/agricultural-region concept; it was always odd to me to include Port Coquitlam as a "Fraser Valley town" because it was in Greater Vancouver; now it's odd for me to htink of Maple Ridge, especially the farther-than-Haney areas of Maple Rdige, and likewise southern and southeastern Langley as part of "Greater Vancouver". They're part of the GVRD, but they weren't part of the area once known as Greater Vancouver (people did use the latter term without meaning hte GVRD, which was only referred to as such as a governing body; only in recent years has it come to be used as a description/name for the region). A regional district is not a region; it is a governing body assigned territories comprising chunks of different regions and the two should not be confused. And because one is legally defined only means that t he provincial govenrment has gone to the measure of making such definitions, irrespective of other sources and usages; e.g. the Malahat is parto f the Regional District of Cowichan Valley, but it is not in the Cowichan Valley. 70 Mile House and environs may be in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, but they are in the Cariboo (as are other parts of the TNRD, including in many conceptions Ashcroft-Cache Creek); the Chilcotin, on the other hand is in the Cariboo Regional District but is not part of the Cariboo; other parts of the Cariboo are in the SLRD/ the West Kootenay may be in the Regional District of Central Kootenay, but there is no region that people refer to called Central Kootenay, there is instead the West Kootenay and its subregions (e.g. the Slocan Valley). Anyway rest assured that "Greater Vancouver" existed as a term and concept long before the GVRD was created (much to New West's chagrin, as it had been the first city in the region and its burghers would ahve preferred to see the whoel called "Greater New Westmsinter" - the Land District for the region is, in fact, the New Westminster Land District (which also includes much of the FVRD); which is another and perhaps more important geographic definition (certainly older; LDs were created by the Lands Act of 1860, RDs by legislation only in 1967). Oh, by the way, some earnest wag has started supplanting "Greater Victoria" references with "Metro Vancouver"....what's next? Metro Nelson? Metro Kelowna? Metro Fort St. John??Skookum1 (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW BCGNIS and other major sources, including CGDNB and innumerable government and academic studies reports, use the Land District system to classify places by "where they are" and do not refer to RDs. Another highly important region-classification, more relevant outisde the Lower Mainland, is the local Forest District, e.g. academic papers on Pavilion Lake or Fountain Lake start off with "....is a lake in the Kamloops Forest District", even though the subject isn't forestry (in those cases, the reports I'm thinking of are in astrobiology and paleobotany); historical writign often uses the same paramter - though the older you go it's more commonly going to be teh Mining District rather than the Forest District, or the more general usages like "the Nicola", "the Cariboo", "the Omineca", "the Peace" are equally as common. RDs are a modern invention, and also highly awkward in geographic terms; they may be convenient for people needing to classify things based on perceived legalities/priorities, as wikipedians are so obsessed with doing, but in reality RDs are only one way that the province's political geography is broken up, and are actually among hte least important of the various arms of the divisions of the province created by the provincial government. The Forests Districts almost invariably have more power.....except in and around urban aggloomerations, I suppose....still, if you get out into the wilds of the GVRD, the truism about Forestry and other branches of government being actually more relevant/powerful remains true.Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand why people use the term "Metro Vancouver" a lot. Cant it just be called Vancouver or the Greater Vancouver area instead of Metro Vancouver? There is no CITY for Metro Vancouver and there is no district named Metro Vancouver Regional District. Yes Metro Vancouver makes sense, than Greater Vancouver to be more specific, but people, I think its really annoying - I see everywhere people are just curious about a new name that HASNT BEEN CHANGED IN A LONG TIME. I think people in the world [including TORONTO] think we are curiously obssessed with some new name. 24.83.20.5 (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a troll? Metro Vancouver is the name of a political entity formerly known as the GVRD. You can call it whatever you like. Apparently some people like to call it Metro Vancouver, probably because that's now its official name. TastyCakes (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK, anyone? єmarsee ^(Discuss) 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a troll, or a duck; I think it's a perfectly understandable reaction from people to the civic rebranding; the term "Greater Vancouver" has been around since before the Great War (aka WWI) and existed before the regional district did; neo-era rephrasings like "seriously westcoast" in the Sun's banner these last few years (and the phrase "that's so westcoast") are icky-neologistic to some of us, as was Znaimer's "VI-Land" for Vancouver Island. Just because the mass of the population are sheep (one supposes) and ready to accept terminiological rebranding without a whimper doesn't mean everybody likes the change; and it does reek of Toronto, and "Torontofication"; there's all kinds of p.r.-agency renaming going on in BC ("Kootenay Rockies" e.g.); and this is a case where the region-name/usage "Greater Vancouver" remains in current use, and "most common public conception", and "Metro Vancouver" is explicitly a reference to the regional district as an administrative body/cocnept. Yet without including the term "Regional District" in the title (despite being the most powerful regional district in the province). It's rebranding and obvious enough; yes, it's the official name now; but this is one of my examples of why regional districts are not useful as region-demarcators within Wikipedia; their nature is political not geographic. And rebranding, in this case, is political as well as p.r. I'm fine with this guy's complaint, and sympathize with it quite a bit. Greater Vancouver is a place, a space; Metro Vancouver is an administrative body with a subtextual agenda of civic unification (which is endlessly on the backburner in BC politics); it's really a city-province in the making; or perhaps the California term "City County" is ultimately more apt. "Greater Vancouver" is a perfectly useful term; "Metro Vancouver" represents Vancouver's desire to be taken seriously, and to mimic Toronto which of course has been so succesfful at getting the rest of us to take it seriously (like it or not).Skookum1 (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What?? If metro vancouver is not the legal name why on earth is it the article name?? That's goofy. That's like calling British Columbia" Beautiful British Columbia, it's plate slogan, not a name. I vote we rename this article to it's proper and legal correct name "The Greater Vancouver Regional District" and go tell the marketing guru's (who no doubt are the same imbeciles who did our olympics logos (cause Vancouver is the land of japanese anime and the Inukshuks)) who's boss. Just because a marketing group says so doesn't make it so, and the "legally" titled GVRD should be referred to by it's legal name, and not some marketing gimmick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyTempo (talk • contribs) 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Metro Vancouver is an official mark of the Greater Vancouver Regional District ("GVRD"). "Official marks" are like a trade mark for public bodies: refer to the Trademark Act (Canada). Technically, GVRD licenses the "Metro Vancouver" mark to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District ("GVSDD" - created in 1956 by the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act)and the Greater Vancouver Water District ("GVWD" - created in 1924 by the Greater Vancouver Water District Act). The Boards of each of the GVRD, GVSDD and GVWD are similar but not identical (because not all members of the GVRD are members of the GVSDD or GVWD. For example, Bowen Island and White Rock are not members of the GVWD because they have their own sources of water and have decided not to join the GVWD). The GVRD is a "regional district" as defined in the Local Government Act. The province incorporated the GVRD through Letters Patent dated June 29, 1967. - Lynda Stokes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.110.198 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

• Greater Vancouver A, British Columbia has nothing on it that can't be merged into this article; EAs have no reason at all to exist as separate articles, and this one in particular is in three (four?) widely dispersed chunks with no commonality other than being the lumpengebiet of the RD....Skookum1 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Two years later, but I agree with this. Wikidsoup _[talk] 19:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Greater Vancouver A is a census subdivision.[5] Past consensus has been that separate articles for Canadian census subdivisions are acceptable. Hwy43 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per Hwy43. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

K, thx Hwy43 for informing about the past discussion on this. Sounds good. Wikidsoup _[talk] 22:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on removing section "Livable Region Strategic Plan"

The section "Livable Region Strategic Plan" was added sometime around Sep/Oct 2012. It's great the amount of detail and thoroughness that went into the content, however the LRSP has been out of date since July 2011, when it was replaced with the Regional Growth Strategy. The content therefore is pretty useless at this point, as there were huge changes between the two plans (the LRSP was created in '96!). While one option could be to update this whole section to reflect current content of the RGS, the RGS is only one of eight management plans that Metro Vancouver has to guide its actions (see 2013 Action Plan, page 11 under Governance Structure). I don't think we want to get into the details of all eight management plans.

I am requesting feedback from other contributors. My opinion is that we should remove the "Livable Region Strategic Plan" section. Your thoughts? Thanks! Wikidsoup _[talk] 18:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going ahead and deleting the section. I have added a reference to the LRSP in the Metro_Vancouver#Regional_planning section so that readers are aware that plan is now obsolete. Wikidsoup _[talk] 22:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Site with list of Regional Parks

this site lists and maps all of them. Time-snob as I am I can't be bothered will filling out {{tl:cite web}} so will leave that to someone else to add; needs their own article; the name change to Metro Vancouver Regional Parks is fairly recent, until a while ago it was still Greater Vancouver Regional Parks.Skookum1 (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Tsawwassen IR not part of the GVRD

This is included in the population table but it is expressly not part of the GVRD or a member of the Metro Van board; and is a good example why RDs re not viable as geographic units or core articles; same with the Kwantlen, Squamish, Burrards, Katzie etc....Skookum1 (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna leave it for now, as "treaty First Nation" is in the lede to this section; but does the Tsawwassen Treaty make them part of the GVRD/Metro board? Like Westbank and the Burrard and Squamish and others, they have non-native residents in developments on IR land; are that who these figures are, or their band population? The membership is out to cancel the treaty last I heard....re treaty nations, I'm not sure at all that the Nisga'a are part of the RD of Kitimat-Stikine or that the Sechelt Nation is part of the Sunshine Coast RD; though they both have municipal status now....Skookum1 (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the press release from when Tsawwassen joined Metro board, if it's any use .... Wikidsoup _[talk] 08:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah found similar on tsawwassenfirstnation.org or whatever their site is; should be better noted in the article that this is the only FN with Metro Van membership....Skookum1 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the second last paragraph under section "Members, population and size" cut it? Wikidsoup _[talk] 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

New GVRD Membership: Tsawwassen

Since this page was last updated Metro Vancouver has gained another member: the Tsawwassen first nation (as a result of successful treaty negotiations under the BC treaty process). This should be included in the "Municipalities" section, but population figures may be needed to fit with the existing format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.48.252 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that this has long since been addressed. Wikidsoup _[talk] 20:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Governance

I was surprised to see no mention of governance of the page. I propose adding such a section, including referece to Boards, the CAO, etc. Thoughts? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 22:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==Out-of-date MLAs== The list of MLAs is two years out of date and includes many who lost their seats. Canuckle 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's now August and the list in the infobox is still out of date. Why do we even have them listed there? Canuckle 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a 'Governance' section awhile back, which I put board info in, and I've just now added a bit of info on staffing. I think this suggestion has now been dealt with. Wikidsoup _[talk] 20:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fuel tax?

Why the section on the fuel tax? It doesn't seem to add much and there are so many more activities that are of greater and wider interest. Any thoughts about deleting this? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 05:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Noting that this comment is no longer relevant as the 'fuel tax' section doesn't exist anymore. Wikidsoup _[talk] 20:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Federal/provincial politics do not belong here

For starters I object to the following wording:

The Metro Vancouver region is also represented by two Conservative senators – Yonah Martin (Vancouver) and Gerry St. Germain (Langley-Pemberton-Whistler).

Metro Vancouver is not a region, it is a regional district and the two terms should not be so casually interchanged. The region is Greater Vancouver, which should be a separate article. This article should be about hte regional district and its functions only, it should NOT be a a region article. Towards this end federal and provincial representation are NOT part of the functions of the regional district, and presenting them as if they were is undue weight to the concept of regional districts, which are subordinate to various other jurisdictions even within the provincial government's hierarchy; federal politics and representation in particular do not belong; in the Minority Rerpesentation section, also, the only minority politicians and politics here should be those in municipal governments and in the regional district government itself; "minority firsts" are for one thing a trivia item (and biased towards visible minorities vs. invisible minorities) and also focusses on federal and other upper-tier governments. What's relevant here is the availability of municipal and RD services in a multiplicity of languages, and maybe the ethnic composition of different parts of the RD. Federal and provincial representation is NOT RELEVANT. Also, Senators do not have "districts", they are province-wide in nature, unless somebody's gone and rewritten the Constitution (which no one has, other than by fiat/convention but it's still not constitutional). "Langley-Whistler-Pemberton" is news to me. If the Senators have gone and created districts for themselves that's extra-constitutional and, if mentioned, shoudl be discussed and cited as such.Skookum1 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is no longer an issue. Federal/provincial politics don't appear in the article. Wikidsoup _[talk] 20:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Article needs split between REGION and "regional district"

A regional district is not a region and this article should not be written as a geographic-region article; the geographic region is Greater Vancouver, which could either be its own article or a subsection of Lower Mainland, considering the overlap with Fraser Valley. See previous section about improper inclusion of federal and provincial upper-tier politics; RDs are so far down the ladder from them it's not even funny; other regions are at play in administrative structures, and should not be subordinated to the RDs or treated as if they are a function of, or defined as part of, their jurisdictions. Wikipedia, a long time ago, started treating regional districts as some kind of valid geographic breakdown of British Columbia which they are NOT. The Fraser Health Region, the Vancouver Forests Region, the New Wesstminster Land District, the Ministry of Environmenta Lower Mainland Region, and a host of other provincial jurisdictions all exist indepedently of the Municipal Act; and all are "regions" every bit as much or moreso than the term "regional district" is or should be meant to be used for. Regional district articles should be about regional district governance/structures ONLY. It's time to end the original research and synthesis that classifying general geographic information and extraneous political structures by regional district constitutes. It is unencyclopedic and contrary to WP:Undue. This article is the clearest case in point of this problem; the only parks here should be regional parks, not provincial parks; hospitals are governed by another region-system, schools by a separate Act and a separate districting system which only happens to coincide with most municipal boundaries (that's partly because many of the municipalities followed the school district boundaries when they were created). REgional districts only date to 1966-1967 and are "paper tigers". I've gone on about this before but every time I see an expansion of non-regional district content in regional district articles, or the equation "regional distrct = region" it is very grating and entirely without real substance; the only place it's given substance is in Wikipedia, which is creating a new paradigm by doing so, rather than reflecting the existing paradigms. The only way to integrate the overlapping jurisdictions/districtings is by general geographic articles like Lower Mainland and Greater Victoria and Okanagan, which are geographic articles and can have things like federal representation, hospitals etc etc. Things not governed by the regional district should not be in regional district articles.Skookum1 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't want to be accused of a POV fork....Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Think we can safely say this issue has been addressed. Wikidsoup _[talk] 20:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Metro Vancouver. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090208010221/http://www.wd.gc.ca:80/eng/10654.asp to http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/10654.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)