Talk:Metro Vancouver Electoral Area A

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I've deleted the table of adjacent municipalities from this article. As nice as it is (I've used it in several other articles), the nature of the Electoral Area makes the table quite confusing. Surrey appears to be located to the west of Vancouver, while the North Shore would seem to be to the south of both Surrey and Vancouver. --Ckatz 06:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  North: Squamish-Lillooet D  
West: Lions Bay, Surrey
Greater Vancouver A East: Vancouver
  South: Musqueam 2, West Vancouver, North Vancouver DM, Anmore, Coquitlam, Barnston Island 3  
I agree, it does seem confusing. I think that box should be for the parts of GVRD Electoral Area A that have articles (i.e. Barnston Island and University Endowment Lands). Makes it easier to follow. Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 06:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buntzen Bay[edit]

I was in Buntzen Bay today, the road that goes there is nearly impassable now, there were cars dumped along it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.5.132.51 (talk • contribs)

wow[edit]

wow without the univeristy endowment land there are less than 1000 people in electoral area A, that's not very many at all, and begs the question why is it included in the GVRD exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyTempo (talk • contribs)

Good question. Personally, I don't see why they didn't incorporate these areas (especially since North and West Van's northern sections are uninhabited anyway and can be mistaken for GVRD A). I'd much rather see the mountains incorporated into North/West Van, Pitt Meadows and so on, and have the University Endowment Lands as its own municipality. Weird wacky world, I guess. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the Endowment Lands residents voted against incorporating. Could be mistaken, though. As for the North Shore, the District of North Vancouver considered adding the lands to the north, but rejected it due to the cost of servicing/providing fire protection/etc. Again, don't have anything in front of me to validate the info, but I seem to recall it from quiet a few years back. --Ckatzchatspy 07:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing validating that info either, but I do recall the UEL voting. There was an article in 2006 in the Province about possible incorporation, but I can't seem to find it. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The UEL did vote not to incorporate.RGB2 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

I'm not sure where the numbers came from, but the Aboriginal section of the table doesn't make sense, 60 First Nations should not equal a Total Aboriginal population of 55 --Thaklos (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

often there's some discrepancy between census figures and IPNA figures though IPNA doesn't seem to be the reason; I'd guess is that the one figure came from the GVRD source, the other from StatCan; Statcan's tables vary in usage with "First Nations" and "Aboriginal". I'm puzzling as to who these people would be, as Indian Arm is kinda depopulated and there's no Tsleil-waututh residents up there, possibly camps though but no reserves, then there's Howe Sound other than Lions Bay, and the UEL......conceivable that 55 people, students or residents, are FN/Aboriginal - UBC staff/profs/students particularly grad students though. As far as those figures go, other than a difference between STatCan and GVRD figures - or between two different census years - is why that's there. Curious given my UBC observation there are no Metis though. There's also in the census "North American Indian" which can include Native Americans.Skookum1 (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article move[edit]

While we have an official legal name change for the regional district, do we have a reliable source that this name change has trickled down to the name(s) of the electoral area(s) yet? This article is about the StatCan census subdivision within the regional district, which retains Greater Vancouver in its name as of last week's census release. If there is not a reliable source that explicitly confirms the subsequent renaming of the electoral area yet, perhaps the move should be reverted until there is evidence or we find confirmation that StatCan is renaming the census subdivision accordingly due to the regional district name change. Hwy43 (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 Canada Census is an outdated source. It's information that is only relevant to the day of 10 May 2016. The name change of the regional district didn't occur until 30 January 2017, long after the census survey. The official name according to the Metro Vancouver website is simply Electoral Area A. Perhaps the article should be moved to either Electoral Area A (Metro Vancouver) or Electoral Area A (Metro Vancouver Regional District). Northwest (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no disputing that the Foo Electoral Area A naming format is the most appropriate. The two alternatives proposed are unnecessary. It is just a matter of what Foo truly is at the moment. StatCan publishes lists of name changes, status changes, boundary adjustments, etc. of census subdivisions on an annual basis. Unfortunately, because of the January 30 effective date, we won't find out if StatCan will change the name of the census subdivision to match the new regional district name until late 2018 (based on the past historical publishing precedents). This assumes StatCan will even be informed of the regional district's name change in the first place as a trigger to rename the electoral area. If they don't change it by then, I think we may need to revisit the name of the article, with the most likely preferred option to revert it back to the previous until such time StaCan catches up or there is evidence elsewhere to support the new article name. I'm committed to researching other sources periodically to find evidence to support the new name however as I think your assumption was a safe assumption. Hwy43 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro Vancouver Electoral Area A. 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:

When 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro_Vancouver_Electoral_Area_A&oldid=1205000115"