Talk:Port of Vancouver

Latest comment: 1 year ago by CaribDigita in topic Thinking about upgrading this article.

Problems? Post a message here! edit

Now... this is my first time making a new page. If there are problems, it would be helpful if I was informed of them so I know what to do next time I create a new page. Thanks. Allan kuan1992 (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Infobox edit

The lovingly handcrafted infobox needs to be replaced by the standard {{Infobox port}}, in order to bring it into line with other port articles. Fob.schools (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 31 May 2021 edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (uncontested after seven days) (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 13:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply


Vancouver Fraser Port AuthorityPort of Vancouver – "Port of Vancouver" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME of the port and it's the name used in the infobox. The article is much more about the "Port of Vancouver" as in the port rather than the "Vancouver Fraser Port Authority" as in the port authority. BrandonXLF (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thinking about upgrading this article. edit

I had worked on the Port of Montreal article and moved it a bit better than it was, and I was considering upgrading this one as well. I was thinking about slightly restructuring this article to contain *everything* with the (Port of Vancouver (1964–2008) as a part of this full article because I bet both are going to have a lot of overlap, save for some parts which I contend could get merged into the history section.

Would that work for all here? Or is there a superior unforeseen reasoning they should stay separate? I think much of the info could be put in a past tense in history about the port's 1964-2008 structuring. CaribDigita (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply