Talk:Victoria, British Columbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Crime

Hmmm... just a thought as a pass through. The points about Victoria's crime statistics could be misleading. The City of Victoria is a relatively small center which serves as "downtown" for the larger Capital Regional District. Thus, crimes/100,000 should more realistically be measured against the population of the CRD as a whole. There are about a dozen municipalities which contribute significant traffic (and presumably crime) to Victoria's downtown.la la la la la la i love victoria british columbia! come on every one loves it.

liberator 11/27/04: yeah, that's correct. i believe there was an article in the TC regarding that some time last year that could be cited, too.

also: the inner harbour seems to be holding a monopoly over pictures used in this article, surely there could be some other areas of victoria that could be used as imagery?

Secondary schools?

While I can kind of see why somebody put a list of high schools in Victoria on the main page, is it really necessary to provide information like the addresses? Last I checked, Wikipedia wasn't a phone book; besides, places like UVic and Camosun are far more interesting :^D

Also: . . . uh, Weed School? Is that a joke?

Besides, a bunch of these places aren't even in Victoria. Av 20:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, I agree. Also, we should look at how Melbourne articles are arranged. So what would be here would actually by Greater Victoria and then Victoria would move to City of Victoria. Burgundavia 21:44, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking of rewriting this article to make it about Victoria proper, and moving everything else into the Greater Victoria, British Columbia article. I've already added a notice at the top of the page to clarify the difference. Av 20:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree with that. Wikipedia follows what people call it. Victoria is more than just the City of Victoria. Thus Greater Victoria should be here and this should be at City of Victoria. Burgundavia 20:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • True, but general convention seems to be that the main article refers to the city proper. For example, the name "Vancouver" is used to refer to greater Vancouver in the same manner, but the Vancouver writeup describes the city of Vancouver proper. Av 03:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I would disagree with that. London doesn't direct you to the City of London. Burgundavia 03:31, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

It may be usefull to note that the "City" of Victoria,distinct from "Greater" Victoria, has a population of 74,125,an area of 19.68 sq.km,and it's density is 3765 per sq km.Thanks.{2001 stats can figures}

Victoria versus Greater Victoria

A number of the neighbourhoods (see above), schools, recreational facilities, etc. that are listed as being in Victoria are actually in the neighbouring munisipalities. Do other folks find this misleading or confusing? If you check out Vancouver's article, you don't see conflations with Burnaby, Richmond, New Westminster, or other neighbouring municipalities. Fishhead64 07:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard anything about my proposal, I've removed Greater Victoria references and incorporated them into the article on Greater Victoria. Like other cities in Canada, the convention is that municipal articles focus on the municipality. Obviously, the municipalities of the CRD are pretty integrated, and I've left in references to notable sites, neighbourhoods, and institutions in the region - but since we have a Greater Victoria article, I can't see why we should muddy the waters on this page. Fishhead64 06:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Altitude?

The infobox gives 23 metres as the city's elevation. Where's that measured? City Hall doesn't seem that high, and Beacon Hill is higher at 42m.Skookum1 07:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

The collage at the top of the page. Fully four out of the seven images show the Parliament Buildings (if you take into account the backdrop of the picture of Queen Victoria). Surely, somebody should have better pictures to fill out the collage. Government street/ the view of the harbour towards wharf street/ Esquimalt/ Clover Point....anything but the same image four times at different angles...

I am going out to replace the image of the parliment buildings(The one near the bottom, the one on top is fine). The one there has a lense flare and the sky is blown out and the building is undersaturated. There is a nice overcast now I should be able to grab a good one this morning. Anybody got any other requested photo's opf Victoria? I was thinking of a shot of street people as a section on the homeless problem here is needed. HighInBC 13:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the Victoria skyline photo on top there, as I think photos of cities should go from the broad and wide down to the specific. We also need a better photo of the downtown "highrises" and office buildings, as the existing photo of Victoria's "skyline" only captures about 50% of the buildings and is somewhat misleading as a true skyline shot.

Radio stations list

I can pick up a lot more stations than this -- is there any standard on wikipedia for listing the nonlocal stations one can pick up in a given city? (Examples: KISM 92.9 and NPR from Washington state)

I would imagine they should be broadcasted from the greater victoria area. Otherwise the are not relevent. HighInBC 04:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oregon Country cat because of Fort Victoria

Which isn't this page's problem so I removed the cat after placing it, once I noticed that Fort Victoria redirects here; it needs its own article, unless there's a History of Victoria article as there is with History of Vancouver and History of British Columbia.Skookum1 06:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tis a complicated land with a rich history we live in. I learned something new today. HighInBC 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, which is from a while ago, still pending a History of Victoria article or Fort Victoria article; links to Fort Victoria currently redirect here, also Fort Camosun etc. Fishhead64 or other VancIsl Wikipedians pls note.Skookum1 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Location and Population

As a newbie, I'm reluctant to believe I should just go and change things, so forgive me for only pointing out errors and not acting...guidance would be appreciated.

Nonsensical population section --> States the CITY has a pop. of 345,000(!?!), but the greater area including all 13 municipalities is only 338,000? If you look to the sidebar, someone seems to have copied the figure for metro area as the metro population in the body of the article. Further, these messed up numbers seem to have led to a bizzare density figure -- if I'm reading this correctly -- of almost four thousand people per square kilometre?? More than Toronto? This needs significant rewriting. I'd fix these numbers at least if a senior Wikipedian suggests that's okay, else someone please help this article! Joevanisland 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

All your ideas sound fine to me. Please, be bold. - TheMightyQuill 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick suggestion that figures on seasonal populations - tourists, students, other seasonal residents - be somehow dug up and added; it's mostly the tourism figures that bloat the place in the summer, so I'd say hotel occupancy figures are a place to start; it's like Whistler also, where seasonal employees (and in Victoria's case, students) aren't counted among permanent residents, and when you add them up the actual "local" population is higher (very much higher in Whistler's case) and then there's the tourist flow. Not directly population of the city per se, but worth mentioning in population contexts; victoria's seasonal employee population's no doubt not anywhere near as high a proportion of residents as Whistler's (where they're still not counted if they live year-round for three years or more; "permanent" there means you own; non-owners are not exactly encouraged to vote, as not being soaked-to-the-gills ratepayers); but certainly Victoria's student population is significant, though not technically permenant residents and won't/shouldn't be in the census, unless they were there on census day; but they'd list somewhere else as their permanent residence, usually. Didn't mean this to be this lengthy as usual, but again just a suggestion.Skookum1 01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will be bold and make changes today. Indeed pop. density is .17 (Greater Victoria) not almost four thousand, so I'll fumble my way through my first editing attempt so that I am fixing a problem and not complaining about one. Thanks for comments. Joevanisland 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

fixed as much as I can. My bad on density, as it seems correct for city proper according to some sources. Fixed population for city proper, metro area (was 338,000km2, wow that's big), updated density. Moved reference to Capital Regional District here from intro as replacement for term "Greater Victoria" which refers to the four core municipalities, not the thirteen which is the CRD and to which the statement following refers.

HELP NEEDED on this whole article though. Reference to 14th largest "city" in Canada cites a Wikipedia page that lists the CRD population, not the population of the city, plus that Wikipedia page lists "Victoria(Saanich)", which doesn't refer to anything, as the population listed is for the 13 municipalities of the CRD, not Victoria+Saanich. We really need a decision about these articles. Three terms are being used interchangably and incorrectly leading to false statistics and statements. Victoria is the city, Greater Victoria refers to what they call the "four core" municipalities of Victoria, Oak Bay, Esquimalt, and Saanich. Greater Victoria is being intermittently and incorrectly used as a synonym for the Capital Regional District, or CRD, which is a regional government representing 13 municipalities, including the four which constitute Greater Victoria. None of these definitions are preserved and seem to be used randomly, especially in citations. Seems to me we need a single article on Victoria which explains all this and thus contains both the statistics of the city proper and of the region. Without this, most of the content of this article would have to be moved to the Greater Victoria article anyway, and it becomes difficult to describe "Victoria" as even its #1 tourist attraction, the world famous Butchart Gardens, is not actually in the city of Victoria. Whoever should make such a decision, make one either way and I'll gladly to most of the grunt work. Joevanisland 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of my edits-- horrid statscan cites

Just thought I'd clarify, on my removal of the part pointing to Abbotsford as the only other smaller census metropolitan area by land area in the country. It was just flat out wrong, and the citation didn't come close to establishing a fact on the topic. A quick browse of other census metropolitan areas, even in BC alone reveals much smaller ones than Abbotsford, such as Salmon Arm for instance. These statscan citations I removed, which are actually straight-out fact sheets about one municipality were completely non-comparative. They were added by a particular user on one day of involvement here. Others which don't say what they claim may still be lurking in there. Anyway, just a debrief note. Thx. --Keefer | Talk 09:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Made a few other copyedits, too. The 'Other Facts' section should eventually be sub-categorized, as it's getting out of hand. For a rough template check any major city's entry such as, maybe Vancouver. And yes, I'll come back and work on it more next time, too.--Keefer | Talk 10:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Would love to offer considerable help but I remain thoroughly confused as to what belongs here, vis a vis "City" of Victoria, Greater Victoria, or CRD. I'll follow your experienced advice, but I don't grasp why there hasn't been a merge. Vancouver has an article on the city and another on the district. Why does Victoria have one on the city, another for "Greater Victoria", and one for the CRD? Further, the "Greater" page identifies that term as referring to the 13 municipalities of the CRD, whereas verifiable sources exist which define it as only the "four core" municipalities. If this "city of" article was merged as a subsection of the "Greater Victoria" article, I would happily commit many hours to helping you shape a quality article here. Without the merge, I'm not able to see the point. I await your lead. Joevanisland 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What belongs in this particular article is material pertinent to the City of Victoria proper. Every municipality has its own article here and this is the one for Victoria. I'm going to start talking about the other stuff below.--Keefer | Talk 00:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado Day

I had assumed that this was vandalism due to a repeated attempt to suppress the {{Fact}} tag before a source was added. I was mistaken. However, no source I've seen has indicated that it is indeed a holiday (That it will reoccur every 21st of March that follows), rather than a one-time event. I may again be mistaken, as I don't live in Victoria. I guess it's up to you Victorians to decide what is and isn't notable. Sorry for the earlier charge of vandalism! -Etafly 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just a simple civic proclamation, every municipality makes them. It wouldn't be classed as a holiday as civic offices are open, &etc. I've noted that during my recent edits. --Keefer | Talk 08:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Regional material

(cc'd to Talk:Greater Victoria and Talk:Capital Regional District)
1. Establish as definitively as possible what is considered Greater Victoria.
2. Then decide whether its article is necessary or whether its theme duplicates much of what is in its component parts/CRD articles. I haven't done a thorough enough analysis yet. If anyone has any cites or thoughts, feel free to share them.
3. If it's established that the Greater Victoria article is close enough to the Capital Regional District article by geographic theme-- beyond noting the Gulf Island differences &etc-- then I wouldn't hesitate to suggest a merge. This would create an article in the vein of Greater Vancouver Regional District which, one might note, mentions the term 'Greater Vancouver' prominently. A merge does not mean that the material within the Greater Victoria is gone, but that non-duplicate material would be incorporated, into the CRD article. An automatic REDIRECT would be created, thus allowing the term 'Greater Victoria' to forward to 'Captial Regional District'. Also, for added emphasis, an explanatory note within the final article would state the differences.
4. If it's established that the Greater Victoria article isn't primarily duplication that could be included in the CRD in the same manner as Greater Vancouver is forwarded/included in Greater Vancouver Regional District, then it should be kept on its own merits.
5. This whole thing will probably take many days and weeks. That's just the nature of the beast.

My first impression is that Greater Victoria is mostly a list, that could be merged with the differences noted.Keefer | Talk 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO I still think the merge should be this article with the "Greater Victoria" information. This eliminates problems like the many references in this present article to things outside the city proper, including the municipalities of the CRD being discussed in this article under "Other Facts", and allows major elements of Victoria's character such as Butchart Gardens to be discussed here, where people would logically turn for information on Victoria.Joevanisland 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I do see your point, it is quite precedented here that each legal municipality have its own article. The same point may be raised for information on Vancouver, whose character might be said to include things like the Capilano Suspension Bridge. Perhaps what is needed is a separate article, as in the vein of Tourism in New York City, except in this case make it Tourism in Greater Victoria or as in the Vancouver model (Economy of Vancouver)-- Economy of Greater Victoria. Extending this article, in any substantial way, beyond the actual city limits is an unprecedented non-starter (and I think any such material should be removed), but obviously prominent linkages here to those other articles is something to consider as a way to incorporate the valid points you make.--Keefer | Talk 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just had another read-through of the all-encompassing "other facts" section and saw a few short, passing references to things outside the limits. Until such time as we sort out a tourism or economy article, as proposed above, I don't see a concern with thise few references. They don't really have anywhere else to go right now. As long as it's realized that non-city topics don't generally belong here and there is something of a thought to creating them elsewhere, then passing mentions are, I would think, fine.Keefer | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Back from dinner and I don't agree with me now, either. I see why it must remain an article on the specific municipality, the capital city of Victoria. Perhaps a section on "Local Attractions" solves this? I would think it a relevent section to a city at the centre of a billion dollar a year tourism industry, and yet it still allows a concise summation of things outside the city proper, as those things are still the literal local attractions which bring tourists to Victoria hotels. I would be inclined to think tourism should be a section here, not another article, as its literally everywhere and hard to imagine defining Victoria without it, whereas I don't have that problem with New York. Nevertheless, if you inform me of what's convention here, I'll go that way as I respect the need for consistency here. Joevanisland 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and 'sectionized' things here somewhat. The only pitfall I could foresee-- and I think it is a real one-- is that by establishing this kind of 'laundry list' of tourist attractions here, someone with vested interests will begin adding their own "tourist attraction" or "landmark" and cry foul for not including theirs. There are so many in and around Victoria, that it becomes a tricky balancing act to name some and not others and limit the list from getting out of hand.--Keefer | Talk 08:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My own feeling is that the CRD and Greater Victoria are sufficiently different to warrant distinct articles - the exclusion of the Gulf Islands and Sooke and east being the key issue. Your point on the GVRD is noted, but also note the existence of a parallel article to Greater Victoria, namely Lower Mainland. The fact is that Victoria is a city, but the concept of Victoria is more regional than that, yet not strictly coterminous with the CRD - a person from Sooke is likely to say that s/he is from "Sooke, near Victoria," but a person from Saanich will likely say s/he is from Victoria. Fishhead64 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your points and agree. I had missed Lower Mainland by looking for "Greater Vancouver". I still wonder if the "concept" of Victoria should not also be concisely explained within the Victoria article. The problem with the "GVic" concept is a consistent definition, "four core" or "CRD-lite". I agree now on three articles but wish the CRD and GVic articles be kept brief, as the main article on "Victoria" should be the article on "Victoria", no? I would like to believe one could refer to the "greater Victoria area" (no capital "G") within this article to give the proper perspective to Victoria's population, geography, and economy. Sentences like "The city of Victoria has a population of 78,659, part of a greater Victoria area with a total population of over 345,000." What about transportation? Brief mention here or leave it entirely here? Also agree with Keefer4's point about "laundry list", so scrap "Local Attractions" but I would like specific writing on both Provincial government and tourism as the main economic anchors, with mention of the parliment buildings (physically obvious defining element and a historic/economic main element) and the Royal BC Museum (since each capital has it's own provincial museum, this isn't a commerce citation leading others to "me too", it's actually Canadian Provincial tradition). Can we play with a Table of Contents on this page until we build consensus, then write the sections out later once we agree on the structure? Awaiting other's opinions, Joevanisland 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

p.s., idea just now that perhaps we use Canada Post as "official" way to define Greater Victoria, in that Saanich, Oak Bay, and Esquimalt can legally write their address as "Victoria" or the specific municipality, whereas Sooke can't, neither can North Saanich, etc. Does this not work as reasoning that has encyclopedic integrity? Joevanisland 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All very good points. The difficulty is the fluidity of the definition, which by necessity relies on experience. Last night, I drove past a billboard advertising CBC Radio 1 near Pitt Meadows, which read "Very Vancouver", replete with images of downtown Vancouver. I don't imagine that Pitt Meadowsians, many of whom commute daily to and from the city, are offended by that, nor by the notion that they live in Greater Vancouver, despite the fact that they live an hour's drive away from the city boundary.

I agree that laundry lists are bad, since they can lead to link-spamming by commercial interests. However, one feature of Greater Victoria that I like (since, ahem, I essentially wrote the article) is the placing of key institutions and features within their proper municipalities. Private, commercial interests - save a few, like the Butchart Gardens - are another matter. Do we really need to know where every freaking golf course is?

My proposal is that we keep all three articles, reducing duplication. The emphasis in Capital Regional District should be on the scope of the jurisidiction as a political entity. The emphasis in Greater Victoria should be in distinguishing the city from the larger concept, and this article should focus on a city with a helpful subsection on "Greater Victoria." Fishhead64 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on what part of Saanich the person lives re: the self-identity. Someone living by Town and Country Mall may identify as Victoria whereas someone living close to Cordova Bay or Central Saanich almost certainly would identify as Saanich-- at least to someone else from B.C. (so it is a perspective based thing too) Also, I don't quite think the term Greater Victoria can be equated with Lower Mainland-- an article I've contributed to. The times one hears references to Greater Victoria in passing reference is miniscule compared with Lower Mainland. It is used on local Victoria newscasts on occasion, having interned some years ago in the CH newsroom (although I know, I know... that doesn't count for squat here). The difference in "how often one hears it" could all be put down to the natural population/demographic emphasis on the LM. Generally speaking though, Fishhead64's idea of retaining all three in the manner presented, makes sense to me. As with Lower Mainland, the varying definitions of 'Greater Victoria' can briefly be mentioned. I don't know, it seems an even more grey area than Lower Mainland. We'll probably all have to hit the books a bit-- the Canada Post source twas a good start.--Keefer | Talk 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict/this was meant to follow Fishhead64's last post) Agree 100% on your article divisions and scope. Only unsure about citing any commercial interest (meaning privately owned --the Royal Museum is public owned) as per Keefer4's points. Though you and I agree completely on Butchart as defining and important, how do we defend excluding Undersea Gardens aside from private opinion that it's a tourist-trap? Also, forgive me please if I seemed to barge in on an article in which you've obviously invested considerable and admirable effort. I have sacrificed much to remain a resident of this city which I adore and thus the quality of its page is as important to me as if the page were about me personally! Joevanisland 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here, Joe. Me, being a native and all. The nature of this beast is that those facts have to held at arms-length from the encycploedic/Wiki process of anyone contributing from anywhere with any level of knowledge/intimacy with the subject matter. Here, everyone's an "expert" and many are snarky in their defence of that assertion. This can certainly be frustrating at times!--Keefer | Talk 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive the aside, Keefer, but your Golden Hinde pics have now forced me to change my coming vacation plans! How dare you! Though my new boots do need the workout... :) Joevanisland 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They're sure to get a workout. It's worth the 80 switchbacks near the beginning (if you approach from that way).--Keefer | Talk 10:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts now are that consensus as to table of contents, if reached first, would make everything else easier. Else consensus on what must be included, leaving issues of what could be for later. I'm feeling that stuff about neighbourhoods and boundaries belongs with Location & Population, and anything on geography or geology, if needed, should be with Climate, as they are all describing Victoria in terms of the Natural Sciences. Perhaps "Climate and Topography"? This even references the word as inclusive of local history.Joevanisland 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - perhaps we could post a sample here or on a sandbox page. As a native, expatriate Victorian, whose family has lived in Greater Victoria since the 1880s, I also have a keen interest in presenting my home region in the best light possible! Cheers Fishhead64 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That #@%$ Cliche

Reinserted the "nearly dead" cliche as "historic". Agree with Jester7777 and acknowledge Skookum1. I trust "historic cliche" is okay? [This] shows my problem; clearly largest group is "25-44", thus I don't experience this as "popular local saying", nor does it reflect the population. Actually, I'll make it "historically popular" cliche, but I'm sure not overwhelmed by elderly, and I have to wonder just what kind of newlywed couple can afford this housing market anyway! :-) Joevanisland 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

...and if someone with better eyes would add the accent to "cliche" in the article, that'd be great. :(

I fix one thing, break another. What to do about "disproportionately large" retiree population? I feel like the kid who comes in full of mud and doesn't take off his boots. (Except my back hurts and I don't feel "like a kid" at all.) I'm checking census data and even Oak Bay doesn't appear to have any significant 65+ population. Joevanisland 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Signicifant needs to be analyzied versus other communities outside Greater Victoria to gain perspective. It's certainly a commonly held perception that there are more retirees there than in a lot of toher places, but until (unless?) we get a verifiable and comparative analysis with the rest of the country it should probably go. Or be noted for what it is: a perception. Unfortunately I don't have time to look right now.--Keefer | Talk 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's changed quite a bit in recent decades, but the grey-horizon population was a feature of all of British Columbia, with Victoria only as the noticeable epicentre of it; not just the Okanagan and the Gulf Islands or Cariboo are retirement zones; so are vast tracts of the Fraser Valley and Greater Vancouver. There's a bunch of dynamics as to why it was, but post-war BC at least, if not before, has always had a larger "top end" than elsewhere in the country; partly from retirement but also with patterns of settlement, i.e. family/fertility rates among post-war settlement, which is the bulk of the provincial population, and the importation of older relations by immigration rules etc; not sure of all the details, and there's more; it's one of the problems with the load on pension funds in this province, as I recall; we're "greyer" than the rest of the country to start with, but because of both retirement and this being a hot place for "early retirement" now fashionable among the DINKsSkookum1 06:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it, and wow, Victoria's ranked 238th on the list of oldest median-age population cities in Canada. I thought it older than that. Now that's out of 728, so it's still in the oldest one-third, but 237 or fully one-third of the country has older populations? Perhaps someone with sharper statistics skills than I have could tell me if this is in any way disproportionately old, or what if any reference should be used?Joevanisland 01:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work to find that. Still doesn't establish the amount of people in Vic specifically over 65, versus other communities in Canada. A median is just that, the median age of the total population, young and old. It certainly is worth noting though, that the average age is only 40.3, versus the perception (perhaps) of it being higher. Interesting how Nanaimo is higher. Hmm wonder about Parksville, ok I'm straying here. Just checked: Parksville and Qualicum Beach first page... Keefer | Talk 01:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I was afraid it wasn't that easy. If you help with the formula, I can punch in the numbers and work it out from the census pages, but are we talking, [{(total pop. Canada=>65) / (total Can. pop))*100], compared to same for Victoria, as that's percentage of pop. 65+ comparable to nationally, isn't it? You're probably going to tell me it has to be calc'd for a sampling of individual municipalities and compared to that, which may be too boring for even me. Still like to get it right, as I may not accept the cliche is still relevant but I sure thought there were more retirees than that. Joevanisland 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a bit of perspective (though I can't give a source at the moment) that Victoria is one of the fastest-growing lowest-unemployment areas of Canada right now. It seems like the idea that Victoria is for the old is going out the window fast. And as mentioned, with the emergence of Qualicum Beach as a destination for old folks has been a factor. -- KirinX 03:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't catch that Qualicum is #1. I see your insight; Qualicum's the siphon that ends the cliches. So what do we mention about "retirees"?Joevanisland 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Any objections or suggestions on something like: "Victoria was known for it's disproportionately large retiree population, leading to a popular historic cliche that Victoria is for the newly wed or nearly dead. However shifting population patterns leave this untrue in the 21st century."

Does this need citation at this stage? I do think these retiree ideas belong in some way, and feel I disrepected Skookum1 by removing the cliche, when I could have changed the wording to "historic" in the first place (sorry Skookum1/my newbie stumble), however these attributes do seem to be myth. Joevanisland 17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would that would need a citation yes. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

the cited phrase, when it's found, will be "City of the Nearly Wed and the Newly Dead", w/wo caps; should be searchable across Allan Fotheringham columns for sure, probably searchable across writings of most members of the provincial Press Gallery, and also maybe more likely in the Vancouver papers than Victoria ones. Keefer - what's the CP style guide say? Do they have this in it? (I'd expect them to).Skookum1 18:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. But then, it's printed/published out east. And the book doesn't generally advise on 'columnist jargon', just hard news guidelines.--Keefer | Talk 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For shifts and age, I believe I have the data, but it's primary and extracting conclusions would be my OR math <-- is this correct, or not applicable as math isn't opinion and can be tested from the source data cited? Am I correct to infer we are in consensus on "historically popular cliche" and not "popular local saying" from the above statement "more likely in the Vancouver papers than Victoria ones"? Joevanisland 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(Deleted many of my own words in this section for brevity and clarity) Joevanisland 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Victoria is perceived to have a large retiree population, as evident by the use of a popular cliche ubiquitously used to describe such cities as for the nearly dead and newly wed. However shifting patterns in population statistics reveal this no longer accurately describes the city.'

Does this not in good faith satisfy the interested parties here that "nearly dead" is not a cliche organic to Victoria, that it is a ubiquitous english-language term used world wide, and further that it is neither a locally coined nor a Canadian term correlatable to, say, Foth's use of "Lotusland"?

I of course realize google isn't itself a source for facts, but surely for showing the prevalence of a saying for the sake of this discussion, it stands. Results with (-Victoria) show thousands of other cities believe this is a saying unique to them, and without it I count far more references to Miami then to Victoria, though it shows ample usage (from non locals) vis a vis evidence for the perception as stated above. Does this not reveal the cliche as a popular english-language saying only believed by some Victorians to be unique to their culture, and thus unencylopedic to mention in that context? (Do I have a bug up my #&$ about this saying, or what? At least verifiability is my main motive!) Joevanisland 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous People or Groups Who visited Victoria

No other Wikipedia article has a similarly titled list. I suggest that this section is a collection of indiscriminate trivia, will result in an inexhaustable list, and should be deleted. I encourage others to weigh in. Victoriagirl 18:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Any given town or city has hundreds of famous people who have visited. It really adds little value to the article unless there is an interesting story or context surrounding the visit. This section should be removed. Jester7777 10:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Including such a list underscores the sense of provincialism in Victoria. Victoria is now large enough that it is visited from time to time by important persons and celebrities, and we don't have to keep a running who's who unless the visit itself created an interesting story as Jester7777 suggests or is of general interest or significance, like a G8 summit.Corlyon 17:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and I've deleted it. If consensus determines it is to stay, it can easily be retrieved from the history. However, all it seems to be doing is attracting names of anyone considered even remotely "notable" who has visited the city. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In the same vein, I've just removed the "Notable Victorians" section. It only serves to attract names of anyone thought remotely popular, with no encyclopedic value. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It does add encyclopedic value to have a list of famous people from Victoria provided that they spent a significant number of years living in Victoria and/or were born here. For example, it is certainly of interest that Nelly Furtado and David Foster are from Victoria, but currently there is no reference whatsoever to them in the article. Also, if you feel so strongly about this, then why is there still the list of famous sportspeople from Victoria? That being said, I think perhaps the list of politicians is perhaps going too far...Jester7777

Hmm... didn't see the "Sports" list = it could certainly go as well. The information about Furtado etc. would be better presented in prose about Victoria's culture, rather than as a list. List sections only serve to attract names, are rarely referenced, and there is no standard as to who is notable and who is not. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

It would make sense to have a map showing better where Victoria is in relation to the rest of the world. People from the other side of the globe are going to find the location difficult to recognize, unless it is in a wider context.

WriterHound 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Economy

The Vancouver Island Advanced Technology Centre (VIATeC) paragraph doesn't include any links to this oganization? I also noticed that it includes the sentance "VIATeC members include Abebooks". Do we really wish to encourage a listing of all VIATec members (hundreds of them) in this page? Bw022 02:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. We should take out any references to specific businesses unless they're particularily notable for some other reason, eg. historically relevant to Victoria or something like that. So, I'm going to remove any references to ABE Books, West Corp., Maximus, and so forth. Honestly, I think the only reason these places are in here is because they are call centers and were probably added by bored call center employees Zarkov (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

This introductory paragraph is factually inacurate and reads (to me) more like a travel brouchure than an encylopedic introduction. Right under the statement that the article is about the city of Victoria, not Greater Victoria, it lists the main industries as including tech and the "Canadian Navy". Isn't the high-tech (software/aerospace/tech support) sector significantly, if not purely, contained to the cities of Saanich and Sidney? So much so that the contention it is a main industry of the city of Victoria is baseless?

Worst, though, the military has docks and facilities at Esquimalt, not Victoria, and as the term "Canadian Navy" is an invented term that not only misrepresents the organization of our forces in Canada but ignores the other bases and activities which occur in Esquimalt, it really has no use here. This isn't splitting hairs; the term used, which has never existed in Canada, assumes Canada's terms and organizations are synonomous with the States, and that is hardly encyclopedic and woefully inaccurate as it removes the historical connection to England and the reasoning behind the naming of Canadian ships.

Further, note that this introduction also conflicts with Wikipedia's own article on the "Royal Canadian Navy", which also disputes the idea of a "Canadian Navy" in organization, and explains why the nomenclature is wrong (without the "Royal") .

Joevanisland 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed intro, found a compromise to still mention navy base without confusion as to "city" of victoria, added facts relevent to an intro to show importance of city economically. Deleted a paragraph of mine on this "talk" section above for length...hope that's okay. Joevanisland 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 Tech is focused in 4 "main areas".  Sidney (marine/ocean sciences, a few labs and advanced manufacturing), Keating cross road (advanced manufacturing, energy/environmental tech), Saanich (the tech park has 28 diverse tech companies on one campus and the commerce circle/vanalman area now has some of the biggest firms expanding there) and then Downtown Victoria (software development, new media/internet and ICT).  Most are not visible as they are not choosing location to sell locally but because of the city's livability and lifestyle so very little marketing or signage can be seen locally.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.64.84 (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 

Airport

Does Victoria airport (CYYJ) actually serve Salt Lake City as the article indicates? I don't believe that this true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.80.179 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

YYJ doesn't serve Salt Lake City. Look at the Airport Authority's website. You also shouldn't include seasonal flights in the article, as these are generally charter flights. 24.68.47.147 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things to add

I noticed in the Entertainment section there is no info on the city's nightlife. Also in the Transportation section there is nothing about the bus system, you could definitely talk a little bit about the double decker buses.

I tried to add picture file of Victoria Save On Foods Memorial Centre Arena and it didn't work out. Someone with more skills than I should attached a picture. Go to www.vibrantvictoria.ca to get a picture file in the SOFMC arena discussion forum.

How about adding a few of the negatives rather than creating a totally one-sided article. For example, the major homeless problem, drug problems and lack of any rail infrastructure. (VIA with its one track could barely be considered a railway). Also the high prices of ferries. I know you're just trying to paint Victoria in a bright light but take it for what it is. 24.68.47.147 (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, how about it? Don't let anyone tie your hands behind your back or anything. fishhead64 (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BC/Canada is the kind of place where people will complain that you haven't complained for them....Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

IMAX Nat'l Geog Theatre - spam or article?

I haven't been in Victoria for a while - is this on the marquee of the RBCM now? Guess I should check for Bastion Square and otehr heritage stuff, but it did get me thinking about the various tourist attractions, including the old-hat kitsch ones like Anne Hathaway's Cottage and the Small World or whatever it's called, and teh Undersea Gardesn and so on. The mini-ferries? Part of the point of corporate branding of public facilities, like GM Place and the Ford Theatre, is the corporate name gets in the public eye as a placename and high-profile centre; 'twas ever thus I guess - the Carnegie Libraries et al. - just wish it didn't sound so tacky sometimes, or look so "brand" (all-caps IMAX). Dominion Observatory in there, or would that be only in a Saanich article; the "Attractions" section is about Greater Victoria, or not? Just asking, to keep it straight/trim.Skookum1 (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediterranean Climate??

This is simply wishful thinking. By Canadian standards, the climate is very temperate and benign... but it lacks the long, dry summers and the winters are relatively cold compared to places like San Francisco, Santiago, Rome or Perth (Places that actually experience a Mediterranean climate!). At best, it is on the milder and drier spectrum of the temperate coast climate that stretches from the Queen Charlotte Islands to Oregon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.181.99 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 August 2006.

I have always been told this place is a temperate climate, I cannot imagine it being mediterranean. Any fact checkers out there? It rains alot, and only gets hot for a short while in the summer. It does not get too cold, only snowing some years. It is raining right now. HighInBC 15:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to oceanic climate. --Usgnus 15:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the official scientific name for the weather around here, isn't it? Like wet winters and dry summers, and low temperature ranges that don't dip below freezing? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it described as Mediterranean-like, which implies that it is not exactly Mediterranean. Perhaps that's a solution. --Usgnus 15:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Its now "sub-Mediterranean". --Usgnus 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

but "sub-Mediterranean" is not an official cliamte designation; or if it is, there's no Wiki article on the same. I'd venture it's more like Torquay or another mild-temperate climate; I know Torquay's not as dry, but the dry climate in Victoria is a "pocket climate"; Douglas noted it during his first contemplations of the site for the creation of what would become Fort Victoria, commenting that "Camosun" (from the camosun/camosack blue-glass beads used as a trade good) was sunny and dry - "a perfect little Eden" relative to the climate in the surrounding regions, including Saanich and Sooke which are considerably wetter. Anyway, there must be an "official designation"; perhaps on the Climatology page there might be some parameters that would indicate what the designation should be; to me "Mediterranean" (w/wo the "sub-") sounds like a marketing slogan.Skookum1 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Köppen climate classification, Victoria is Csb, which would make it Mediterranean. --Usgnus 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The article temperate say that areas with temperate climate include western North America at latitudes between 40° and 60° north (65°N in Europe).

It also describes Victoria's weather very accurately. HighInBC 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but it's more precise to say "sub-mediterranean". Victoria is as mild as but much drier than Portland, Oregon which is at 45° vs. 48° for Victoria. From a botanical perspective, there are many species that will grow in Victoria that won't survive in most parts of a temperate zone. --Usgnus 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Usgnus has a good point with the Köppen climate classification. It should be noted however we have considerably different weather than the mainland at the same latitude. I don't have a citation for this, I know it from personal experience. HighInBC 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't buy it... Based on this, Vancouver also has a Mediterranean climate (see http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/stnselect_e.html). Even London, England would fit this very general classification! What is missing is the dry, predictable summer- Victoria and Vancouver both get considerable rain, even in the summer. Rainshadows reduce rainfall at the micro level, but cannot account for a change in climate. It is no different here in Victoria than in parts of Southern England (for examle, Torquay ) and northern France. I think it should be labelled for what it is- West Coast Marine!

No, London England would NOT fit into the Csb classification, nor would Vancouver. But Victoria does. Did you read the part about the 30mm precip limit in the driest month? Did you read the overall yearly precip limit? By the way, Victoria gets negligible summer rain, less than Marseilles, Rome, or even Naples. It obviously also gets significantly less than Vancouver...24.64.223.203 06:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, parts of Greater Vancouver would fit (Delta, Abbotsford and White Rock get <30mm in July. Vancouver gets just barely over 30mm and would qualify if you use the imperial 1.2"- since it recives 1.19" in July). Seattle would as well. Marseilles does not receive more rain (see http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=005670&refer= ). I haven't checked Rome or Naples, but I find that hard to believe, at least in terms of days with rain. Incidently, using the strict black and white Koeppen system, Florence, Bologna, Venice, and many other typical Mediterranean locations would not receive a Cs designation!207.6.233.239 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if "parts" of Vancouver would fit, but the airport doesn't. http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N49W123+2100+71892W. As for Marseilles vs. Victoria...Environment Canada lists the rainfall at Gonzales (Oak Bay) as 24", while worldclimate lists 27". Either way, it is in the same ballpark as Marseilles, and it experiences a more severe summer drought than Marseilles (a key indicator of a med climate). By the way, I am very aware that Florence, Bologna, Venice etc. do not fit the Med climate model - that's because they are continental climates! They do not experience a significant enough summer drought. To find a true med climate you must go to coastal locations. It is very rare for a med climate to penetrate very far inland - heat builds up inland and causes thunder and rain. An exception would be the Central Valley of California for instance. As for Rome and Naples..Rome gets 31" per year. Naples gets 37". Both are actually a bit on the moist side for med-type climates, but they do fit the model.24.64.223.203 04:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, we need a citation to settle this. I know we have valleys that are considered temperate rainforests here. I should point out we have very different weather than Vancouver despite our proximity. Something to do with wind I think. HighInBC 04:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The climate reminds me of the Irish climate form this description: "It rains alot, and only gets hot for a short while in the summer. It does not get too cold, only snowing some years...". Ireland is almost the exact same, whatever climate classification it has. Temperatures in Ireland vary from -4C to 11C in winter and 9C to 23C in summer (average) and this year it was over 30C only 2/3 days in July 2006 (31.5C was the highest) and only below -5C a few days in winter (I think -16C was the lowest this year in February/March, but that is exceptionally rare). Jvlm.123 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that description does not take into account precipitation patterns. Ireland has a Cfb climate with no wet or dry seasons, and is therefore fundamentally different climatically from Victoria.24.64.223.203 06:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK... let's look at the facts. One needs to only compare Victoria's climatological information http://www.worldweather.org/056/c00620.htm with that of, say, Marseilles, France http://www.worldweather.org/062/c01055.htm (Mediterranean), Perth, Australia http://www.worldweather.org/185/c00314.htm (Mediterranean) and Paris, France http://www.worldweather.org/062/c00194.htm (West Coast Marine) or Cardiff, UK http://www.worldweather.org/010/c00036.htm (West Coast Marine). Which one does it most resemble? You can peruse any weatherstation's data anywhere in the world to see that Victoria is much more similar to the southern regions of northern Europe and NOT the northern regions of the Mediterranean world. Case closed... Victoria's climate is a somewhat drier version of West Coast Marine. It may be Mediterranean-like or whatever, but it is NOT Mediterranean. 207.6.233.239 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is original research. Anything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Find a published reliable source, and you can add the material, citing the source. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 10:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You are comparing Victoria to Csa climates (or in layman's terms, "hot mediterranean" climates). Victoria is a Csb climate (ie. "mild mediterranean"). For other examples of mild mediterranean climates, see: San Francisco, coastal Chile, etc. A "Mediterranean-type" climate is NOT, by definition, "the same climate as you would find in the Mediterranean basin"...At least not if we are talking in terms of scientific definitions. The climate is defined more in terms of mild/wet winters and dry summers. Summer temperatures can be hot (Athens) or mild (Porto) depending on distance from the open ocean. Summer temperatures really don't factor in when defining a "Mediterranean-type" climate. Unless you are trying to determine between Csa or Csb. Whew.24.64.223.203 06:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok according to these 2 sites [1][2] it is officially sub-Mediterranean. Any help? HighInBC 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No response, going to add the term with citations to article. HighInBC 15:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You waited four hours? Not everyone is on-line 24 hours a day. The sources are not the highest quality, but I'm not going to contest them. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Four hours is plenty, nothing I did was un-reversible. HighInBC 10:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This source has a World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification from the Department of Natural Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna. It clearly shows southern Vancouver Island in the Csb zone. (I found the link at the WP Köppen climate classification page. And while Wikipedia is not a reliable source, that page lists Victoria as one of the examples of the Csb climate.) Eron 02:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the same map shows the same climate for the entire Puget Sound area, including Seattle. Another Koeppen map referenced in WP under Köppen climate classification shows everything north of Redding, California as Cfb. The intent of the Mediterranean classification is to identify an area with a climate similar to that of the lands bordering the Mediterranean Sea... Anyone who is familiar with that part of the world will tell you the region of the Pacific Northwest (Victoria included) is not in that category. Bottom line- it rains significantly all year, the winters are relatively cold and wet, and the summers are not long and predictable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.233.239 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2006.

It does not rain all year in Victoria. Summers are very dry, drier than Marseilles, which you cite above. Victoria gets a lot less rainfall (66.5 cm) than Vancouver (111.7 cm) and Seattle (94.5 cm), much of it during the winter storm season. Rome gets 76 cm a year. Victoria get 2,223 hours of sunshine a year, Florence gets 2,500. The temperatures are generally lower than near the Mediterranean Sea, which is probably why it is called the unofficial "sub-Mediterranean", but it's a lot closer than you think. --Usgnus 16:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you are right that Victoria's summers are drier that Marseille's, but the "sub-Mediterranean" term is incorrect, since there's no such animal. It's a Csb climate, it fits into the definition plain and simple. A Csb climate has mild, wet winters and dry, mild summers...the common name for this climate would be "mediterranean-type" (note the lack of a capital 'm'). I vote that the term used in the article should be "cool mediterranean". Should keep everyone happy and is more correct than "sub" mediterranean.24.64.223.203 06:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool mediterranean works for me. --Usgnus 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am glad it is not our job to personally classify the climate here as it sounds complicated. This should be as easy as reflecting what valid sources say and providing citations. If you find citations that say "cool med" please let me know, I have only seen sources that say 'sub med'. HighInBC 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if it's between 'sub med' and 'mediterranean-like', I would go for the latter, for what it's worth.70.66.136.40 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the Victoria airport is not in Victoria, it is just outside Sidney,BC. For what it is worth. HighInBC 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Victoria Airport gets from ten to twenty inches more precip. annually than locations further south, like downtown and especially Oak Bay. It is further from the influence of the Olympic rainshadow. However, Victoria Airport is still significantly drier than Vancouver, and even Seattle.70.66.136.40 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see alot of OR discussion going on here, and that is fine, but none of it can be used for the article. I agree that the 2 citations I have found are of low quality, one is the city's website(and possible biased), and the other is a tourist website(no citations or explanation). Now, I have searched a bit but only found these, I suggest that the speculation be put aside and a better citation be found. Failing that I think it is fine how it is.

It is not our place to look at Victoria's weather patterns and compare them to existing standards that is creating WP:OR by combining established sources. See WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position for more information. HighInBC 17:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Victoria's climate meets all the criteria for a Csb Mediterranean climate under the Koppen classification system. It gets less rainfall during June to August than Rome, Naples, Barcelona, or Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssmurray (talk • contribs)

As I said before, just above your comment, It is not our place to look at Victoria's weather patterns and compare them to existing standards that is creating WP:OR by combining established sources.. Now, if you can find a citation saying what you just said I would be very gratefull as the citations used for the current sub-Mediterranean climate are not independent. HighInBC 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...it's "snowing" in Victoria right now. Mediterranean climates don't get snow. Does L.A, S.F Perth, Rome or any city on the mediterranean coast recieve snow to the degree Victoria does(extended days of below freezing and snow accumulation).Granted it doesn't snow as often as east of Hope and when it does, it's treated like one of the 7 signs of the apocalypse,but to put Victoria's climate in the same leauge as the before mentioned cities just seems desperate. It's like trying to be something it's not....California.

I'm reluctant to add another entry to this long (and trivial, really) thread, but here it goes... Victoria's climate should be categorized for what it is: Temperate West Coast with Mediterranean characteristics. I don't care if it meets the strict Csb criteria (the Koeppen classification is full of flaws- even the southern parts of Greater Vancouver and parts of the Puget Sound area meet this!!) The references cited are self-serving tourism articles that cannot be deemed reliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.217.31 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Do you have a citation? That is all we need. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Koeppen classification may be full of flaws, but it's where the concepts of "mediterranean", "temperate" and "oceanic" climates come from. You can't have it both ways. And it does not have a "sub-Mediterranean" classification, or "Temperate West Coast with Mediterranean characteristics". There seems to be a misconception here deriving from the fact that Victoria is drier than Vancouver. Maybe it is, but does it get 35mm of rain during summer and 13 times as much as that in winter? Part of the definition is the stark contrast in winter and summer rainfall.

I live in the city that is frequently identified as having the epitome of a Med climate: Perth, Western Australia. A friend of mine moved to the Vancouver-Victoria-area to get away from the hot and dry summers here. And the pictures I have seen of Victoria and Vancouver Island do not say "Mediterranean"; it is just too cold in winter and too green in summer. Where is the bone-dry, yellow vegetation of a real Mediterranean summer? It also has sub-arctic vegetation rather than the Mediterranean vegetation found in California.

Have you ever seen Victoria in the summer? Everything that isn't heavily watered is exactly as you described it: bone-dry and yellow. Also, I really can't fathom what you're referring to by 'sub-arctic'. Do you mean the confierous Douglas fir trees? They are a California native that thrive as far south as San Francisco, and can be found even further. A lot of the other vegetation found here is also California-native, ie. Arbutus trees, Garry oaks, etc. I could go on but won't.~~

It is natural for the B.C. government to talk up the climate, but no other reputable source would describe Victoria as being Mediterranean. Grant | Talk 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick google search reveals an enormous amount of pages with the term sub-mediterranean, many of them science related articles. Admittedly, a lot of them are about Victoria, but not the majority. I'm not saying it should apply to Victoria necessarily, but the term does exist. It's not simply a product of Victoria's PR department. - TheMightyQuill 07:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My main point is that it is not a Koppen term.

Returning to my point about vegetation, this article mentions three species that are also found in California as examples of Mediterranean plants. That is negligible and it would not be surprising to find them in a non-Mediterranean zone relatively close to California. This paper says, quoting/paraphrasing Werner Greuter of the Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum Berlin:

Mediterranean regions including the Mediterranean, California, central Chile, the Cape of Good Hope region and south-western Australia "total some 70,000 species and represent a major part of the higher plant diversity of the world, exceeding the combined floras of tropical Africa and Asia." The reason for the large number of species is that many have very small ranges and the diversity in any given area is not so large.

There may be a degree of biodiversity on Vancouver I., but it is not in native Mediterranean-type species.

Grant | Talk 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh? What constitutes 'mediterranean-type species'? If you're talking about drought-tolerant, scleroyphyllous vegetation like the evergreen madrone/arbutus, manzanita, prickly pear cactus, drought-loving garry oak, etc...then yes, Victoria certainly does have 'mediterranean-type' species. Garry oak meadows contain some very rare species found all the way down in southern California, some even as far south as Baja.~~

The problem is, that if you take a scale, then apply information to it to get a result that is WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. What is needed is a citation that interprets that scale for Victoria. I agree that the current information is less than perfect, but we need citations. Show me a citation that says Victoria is Oceanic' and we are set, until then we will settle with the sources we have. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have solved this, complete with neutral language and references. Please feel free to comment or re-edit. 66.183.217.31 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the source provided in the table, and the source's sunshine data are different to that shown in the table. I have double-checked, but I may have missed something. If the data are incorrect, could they be amended? Rossenglish 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to ramble on a lot about the climate being so perfect. The fact is we get WAY more rain than most places in North America. Also the Csb classification means Victoria is "Steppe" - which we are DEFINITLEY not. We live in a rain forest and Iit is quite a cool climate and tourists even find it cold here in July! It should be written as West Coast Temperate. Your article has far too many dubious claims in it, cite those sources! 24.68.47.147 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)24.68.47.147 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be extremely misinformed. Victoria is not and has never been a rainforest. We do not get "WAY more rain than most places in North America." We get about 27 inches a year, quite a bit less than most places in North America actually. Furthermore, many places with Cbs/meditterranean climates have quite cool summers, for example San Francisco. Maybe you are confused because you've heard about BC's temperature rainforests; believe me, while we do have them (nearby) there is a world of difference between Clayoquot Sound and the Straight of Juan de Fuca. Just ask the First Nations people who used to harvest camas bulbs after annual summer fires in the dry garry oak meadows that covered the Victoria region. Since most of those meadows are now covered in housing subdivisions, the difference may now be harder to see, I guess.66.183.95.29 (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

racism in victoria

anyone know what the racism scene is in victoria?

What's a racism scene? Does racism exist in Victoria? Yeah, though I'm a white guy so my experience with people being racist at me is limited. I don't think there's a local KKK chapter or anything, though. Lord Bob 03:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to be the typical message-board poster here, but I'm not sure you can gauge racism like that, either 'yeah, they're pretty racist' or 'we love minorities' or whatever. There's so many faucets to racism it's hard to categorize. In response though, I'd say that I think Victoria is a pretty liberal, progressive city. Every town isn't without its big fat jerks though. And Langford's pretty bad, I think.

ive read about racism in vancouver and wasnt sure what it was like in victoria. i also spotted several instances of racism in discovervancouver.com forums.

Victoria is mostly white, and mostly kind of stuffy I guess. So there definitely is racism going on here. But it depends on who you're hanging out with. A lot of people in western canada have a thing against french canadians, and that's definitely true of a lot of people in Victoria. There's also a lot of chinese people here, and some people have a bit of racism against them, but very few. There are so few black people in Victoria that I imagine anybody of african heritage would probably feel a bit strange here, just because of the looks. but dont worry if you make the right decisions you fine, and besides victoria is a beautiful place. A Great White Bird 20:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And I think the Satanism scene would be far more interesting and "unique".....and not just because of Brother Twelve, There's a lot of neo-paganism in Victoria, too, and other than the late Robin Skelton it goes back to the Reincarnation of Isis and, apocryphally, Judge Begbie. Victoria is supposedly ranked among the top three locations for the unspeakable, after London and Geneva....Skookum1 08:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me clear this up. the satanism rumour about victoria started way back with an article saying we had more satanist per capita than any other city. However it was a nonsense study as any non-mainstream religeon was lumped into satansim. In other words any sort of paganism earth worship, or creativity in religeon. HighInBC 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, what I'm talking about predates the neo-pagan revival and the presence of alt-cults like Brother XII and any spinoff from Wicca (including Robin Skelton) and acolytes/followers of Anton LaVey; what I'm talking about dates back before WWII and is spoken of darkly by the cocktail crowd; crypts broken into in Ross Bay, mysterious rites in the woods around Mt Work; supposedly Victoria was ranked among the top three satanic-cult cities in the world, after London and Geneva, and ahead of Prague. Only hearsay though, because you won't find the Colonist writing about it....Skookum1 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh, that thing... hehehe HighInBC 14:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Victoria is mostly white, and mostly kind of stuffy I guess. So there definitely is racism going on here.

So you're saying any city that is all or mostly-white is automatically racist? or are you saying white people are all by nature racist and any city with a sizable number of them is bound to be an atmosphere of racism? That in itself could be considered a racist comment. --Nazrac 05:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're responding to comments made a year and a half ago. It doesn't look like that user has contributed to wikipedia since. - TheMightyQuill 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Victoria is NOT mostly White, there are other cultures in Victoria (Chinese and East Indian for instance), plus there are a lot of native people. For instance, Victoria has a Chinatown. Gr1phOTR (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Can anyone provide some stats on ethnicity in Victoria? I can't seem to see any one wikipedia. This would be a useful addition to the article. The statement that "there are lots of cultures in Victoria" doesn't help to provide an image of the diversity (I presume "cultures" was meant to mean "ethnicity"). My spouse and I are considering a move to the Garden City but have concerns re the lack of ethnic mix. As such, we're trying to do our homework about the diveristy in Vic. Thanks very much, Hu Gadarn (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters I think it's Richmond that's the "Garden City"; can't remember Victoria's sobriquet, maybe it's "City of Gardens" but I don't think so. As for lack of an ethnic mix, if you're concerned with moving to a mostly-white city then your own racial attitudes are the problem, not Victoria's. Victoria is very tolerant and because it doesn't have the overwhelming ethnic mix the Lower Mainland does I think you'll find it doesn't have the same racial tensions; certainly there's no ghettoizing/self-segregating tendencies as have emerged in the Lower Mainland, as Chinatown is just a tourism district and not a population/power-focus in the same way as Vancouver. Some of the 'burbs like Metchosin and Colwood, which can be kinda redneck, might be a bit alienating but I doubt it; Islanders are a pretty easy-going bunch, despite the Anglo-Saxon hardcore in Oak Bay and the Peninsula - Oak Bay happens to be where many wealthy Asian immigrants have chosen to settle, so it can't be all that bad (even if money does excuse everything in a place like that). The mellow neighbourhoods are many; I'd venture that James Bay and Fairfield or Fernwood, I think it is, would be more than amenable, and they're central; out the Peninsula is way nicer, if you like countryside, though; it's all fine; what racial tension there is in Victoria is largely Indian/white and that's only beer-parlour stuff, if at all. I don't think you'll find any problems at all; not like you might in the Lower Mainland or more redneck-y towns in the Interior or North Island....Skookum1 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • OK, thanks for the lesson about my "racial attitudes" and your lengthy yet qualitative information. I believe if one reads my original posting, I was clear that the concern was not about a "mostly-white" (your words) city but about a lack of ethnic mix. I will refrain from making personal comments as my fellow wikipedian chooses to do so. In addition, I thought I was clear in my question that I am seeking info on ethnic statistics in Victoria when I asked "Can anyone provide some stats on ethnicity in Victoria?". And perhaps I should have been more clear. So, can anyone provide some statistics about ethnic statistics in Victoria or a source? This seems to me a legitmate use of the demographic section of the article. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Census Canada is the place to go for ethnic breakdown. I think "lack of ethnic mix", if that was in the article, is wildly off and is/was even without visible minorities taken into account. Other than the usual pioneer/settler cast of Scandinavians, Finns, Ukrainians, Italisn, Germans and many other Euro-ethnocities (and not all Canuckified but still heavily accented, as the bulk of British Columbians wherever they're from, including the UK, are only one or two generations from the auld sod. My best friends in Victoria these days are some Serbian immigrants - now naturalized, excuse me - and there's all kinds of recent European immigrants, just as there always has been in BC. Ditto lately with Latin Americans, though probably not as numerous as in Greater Vancouver; but I think you'll find lots of East Europeans, quite a number of different kinds of African and South Asian (there's a Sikh community but also Bengali, Sri Lankan and more, though not to the same degree as on the Mainland, or in the Sikh case, almost anywhere "up Island", where Sikh communities are highly visible. Even the UK element is very diverse and often people who didn't fit in back home; there's the Tweed Curtain of course but high society is high society no matter wherever you go. Vic can be a bit stuffy at times, but it has a lot more to do with class than race. As for taking it as a personal comment, it was meant only as a lesson; to me, the equation between being concerned about a lack of ethnic mix is another way of saying for whatever reason you have reservations about living in a white-dominated or at least monoethnic community; that's subconscious racism of the kind whites get picked apart for as a result of similar casual observations; a lack of ethnic mix does not mean intolerant; Nelson's very white, but it's also one of the most ethnically tolerant places in BC, and there's other examples; Victoria is one of them....Skookum1 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll check out the Census Canada web site for the stats. Regarding my own attitudes, I don't think you'll actually see any comment I've (ever) made re a concern about too many whites. My comment was about too little diversity. It's the diversity I seek, not a high or low % of white people. I personally wnjoy mixed societies more than ones that are less mixed. I've never made a comment about being pro and anti white (or any other race). To conclude, it's the stats I want(ed) to see as they are more meaningful to me than qualitatives assessments (like "lots" or "few"). Thanks again for the info and assuming good faith, Hu Gadarn (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • FYI, I've sourced the data as perf Skookum1's suggestion from Statistics Canada's 2006 census (references in article). I've created a table to allow a simple comparison of the #s using the classifications presented on the Stats Can website. To address the issue here (in case you're too lazy to check out the article), the % of non-visible minorities (european descent?) is 88%. The largest vis-min group is Chinese at 4% of the total pop. for Vic. Thanks again for the reference and I hope this info is useful/ of interest. Hu Gadarn (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not you, but it's the same kind of sublimated racism that sets the categories as "not a visible minority" and then goes "Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino". You'll note that the Vancouver breakdown gets into the palette of European ancestry; not doing that would mean the Chinese/Korean/Japanese/Filipino "Asian" category should be used; except of course there's arguments over its meaning. This doesn't matter to you, it matters to me; I find it offensive to lump people on teheone hand by not-being-visible (i.e. white) and by specific ethniciteis within the Asian group in the other (Chinese, Filipino); that South Asian doesn't get broken down either is part of the same systemic bias which I wont' go on about here; just a reminder of the sensitivies involved and to ask you to find a breakdown by UK components, German, Ukrainian, Norwegian etc; and the elusive ethnicity "Canadian" which more and more people fill in their self-identification on customs forms. My brother's godfather and godmother were Persian and Malay Dutch respectively; Bill would never have considered himself a "visible minority" - that would be because he was fully assimilated, I suppose, but "not a visible minority" doesn't mean someone doesn't have those ethnicities on-board, as has been shown to be the case with the family links between Barack Obama, Dick Cheney and Brad Pitt....Skookum1 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Those are the categories used by stats can. I used their content. I welcome you to source addl references and as such detail. Alternatively, if you have a better source of info besides the Statistics Canada census I would welcome your amendment to my contribution to the article. Hu Gadarn (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did some digging in old articles and their histories; it looks like the former ethnic-breakdown data on Vancouver and Demographics of Vancouver has been replaced by a visible-minority pie-chart breakdown; I haven't dug into the histories yet looking for the dumped material....I went to StatsCan to try to find something and I see that the bureaucrats have decided what it is people want/need to know and your visible-minority data is one of the only easy-to-get-at stats on ethnicity, though I did find a national breakdown by top 10 ethnic groups......aha, just found a top-10 ethnic groups in Victoria table and various summar comments, including:

The census metropolitan area of Victoria has a long history of British settlement, which was reflected in the ethnic origins reported in the 2001 Census.

• More than four in 10 people (43%) in Victoria reported English ethnic ancestry, double the national average of 20%. The proportion in Victoria was higher than in any other metropolitan area, except for St. John’s (43%) in Newfoundland and Labrador.

• Canadian, Scottish, Irish and German followed English in Victoria’s top five ethnic origins.

Ditch the visible minority stuff, OK? It's offensive to non-visible minorities, even if the bureaucrats aren't offended, no matter who offensive their high-handedness gets......Skookum1 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• As per my earlier comment(s), I encourage you to strengthen the article. I have read the material that you suggested (Stats Can) and incorporated it into the article using the terms from the census.
  • PS - the blanket statemnt "It's offensive to non-visible minorities" may be partly true but is not completely ture; I am not offended by the use of the terms and I am a NVM. You may have made an assumption about my race, which if so, is incorrect. Perhaps if you would like to discuss further you might use my discussion page so as not to extend our dialogue any further here.
  • In conclusion, I thank you again for your initial valuable direction re. the source for statistics and I will assume good faith on your part (and hope you feel the same way). Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

THIS is what I was lookingfor....which is much more relevant and less conpetuialoly-POV than simply saying "visible minority charts is all could find". This is a good faith comment, Hu, but it's also a criticism that "you" (Canadians trained to think a certain way...) though only the visible minority/not a visible minority stuff was relevant over any other kind of information; thesyndrom carried over into B C history where all that trained-seal Canadians know about or are told they want to know about is minority histories, without realizing that there are other minorities, and other realities than the p.c. version more recent generations have had shoved down their throat and think it's normal. No, it's waht's called Newspeak/Newthink (see 1984 (novel) and take a refresher course....). "Here is a looking glass I want you to see the world through its jaundice-tinted lens". I also think it's time overall for Canadians to stop obsessing about division by race; and one thing the ethnic chart I just linked to points up is that diversity in Canada is about a lot more than race. I had a really bad stomach flu yesterday so will be recovering today but will convert that table tonight, doesn't seem like it would make a colour piechart because of so many tiny components. As for the "not a visible minority" question on the Census forms, that's not something people "identify as", it's what the government wanbts to identify thenm as; it's not who answered the question, it's who asked it that's the problem....Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Racism does exist in Victoria as it does in many smaller towns. Articles in Wikipedia do not usually address racism though the information would be very useful to minority visitors. Two of my family members recently visited Victoria separately and were both harassed by residents there. Customs officials essentially accused one of having been in prison before letting him through. Another was called "the N-word" as soon as she entered the town. Both felt uncomfortable and left the town immediately. Both were educated professionals who did not appear to be criminals in any way. Prior knowledge of racism could have prevented them from being taken by surprise. For example, when I visit Napa Valley, I expect for the hotels to have lost my reservation and to be suddenly full, and I don't bother visiting small restaurants that are likely to not serve me. Knowing that many of the wineries will want me to leave before I enter them prevents me from becoming uncomfortable when I'm shown I'm not welcome. This way, I can still enjoy my vacation.Onionhound (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to establish that Victoria is racist. Unfortunately, without quantitative evidence (which simply doesn't exist), no one can reasonably make claims about Victoria being more or less racist on average than other Canadian communities. fishhead64 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Border guards in Victoria are also not representative of the Victoria populatiion - in fact, probably, they're from Alberta, Ontario or the Maritimes or wherever (often they're not posted in teh aeras they come from, just like Mounties). A bit shocking to find this at Ogden Point - this was coming on off the Coho sounds like, or the PacifiCat from Seattle? The N-word I rarely hear in BC, even from hardcore redneckes; on teh whole in BC people who have anti-Asian sentiment don't generally have anti-black sentiment (and some BC blacks I know of are anti-Asian...or rather anti-New-Asian). Much more racist re blacks in Canada are Ontario, Quebec and teh Maritimes, perhaps expressly because of the historical black populations there; in BC even conservative people are verr self-conscoius about not offending what few black people they come across (as was the case until recent times) and while they may make a gaffe saying something wrong or having a self-conscious attitude about someone's blackness, they're not trying to offend, as was the case with these border guards. Who, by the sound of it, were bo-hos from smalltown Ontario or Nova Scotia, not from BC.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PS I think you'd find, if you could get past the attitudes of the border guards, that the little restaurants in BC most likely to find reasons not to seat you and/or just look at you funny, would by in the vast majority Chinese restaurants, and more than one person of non-Chinese visible minority origin has found themselves treated, er, oddly, by security guards and shopkeepers in Richmond's big Chinese-oriented malls. Whites sometimes have a hard time getting seated in some Chinese restaurants, being made to wait while Chiense customers are seated ("no reservations required" the signs say, though); black acquaintances have told me it's often even worse for them when dealing with Chinese (or Korean, but not usually Japanese) businesses, though the tourism-orientation of Victoria's Chinatown suggests that won't be the case there; only in "ghettoized" Chinese areas of the GVRD where even white customers are rare. All anecdotal of course, but I think you or your folks would find that most areas of BC have no problem at all, in fact they're more than likely to be politely inetrested/friendly than not, with black people (especially well-clad ones in a nice car, and I don't mean in hiphop bling with a spiffed-up "ride"); maybe different up north, I know there's a lot of ahrd attitudes up there, and around the Okanagan there's a lot of Albertan influence.....but last summer I was in PG and spoke with a number of the Africans working there (mostly tree planters, interestingly) and they said they had found no racist attitudes against them; but they're a tiny minority there - less than 300 or so - and the racial divide there is Indian/white; most of the Chinese restaurants in Prince George (all 85 of them) are owned/operated by white people btw....Skookum1 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

....which is only fair, as most honky-food diners in BC are Chinese owned and operated ;-) (think the Canyon Hotel in Boston Bar or any number of corner/roadside cafes/diners....).Skookum1 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Capital Irony

Saw this:

Victoria is also famous for its Capital Iron Building which is a prime focus in its downtown core.

I wasn't sure if that was meant sardonically or not; certainly more central buildigns go unmentioned, though it's true Capital Iron is a focus for locals - not quite as extensive as a Home Depot, in some ways more diverse; but at the very northwestern edge of the pedestrian core, no? It's true that Capital Iron is very important/notable in Victoria's history, and also for its mercantile endurance and status as a popular institution of sorts, and taht that area was at one time much more commercial and lots of things became parking lots. Anyway there seem t o be a large list of buildigns not mentioned that should be; the "focus" of downtown would have to be somewhere betwen yates & Douglas and the Ledge.Skookum1 (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Event-bloat in intro section

I'm not sure where to truncate the info and move all of the secon d paragraph, and much of the first, to a "Public events" section; there's way too much for an intro and not enough is said about where Victoria is; putting all these events first makes it sound like that's the city's primary economy, or actually that it's more of a public events venue than anything else; the syntax/context of the remainder of the first paragraph would need adjusting but in any case the intro doesn't say very much once these events are trimmed out; putting them first was perhaps a WP:COI promotional sort of thing; whoever did it, it's inappopriate and over-done, especially considering all those redlinks.Skookum1 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Expansion Topics

Well, the History section could stand for some serious expansion, and the Other facts section should really be split up into more specific topics. Comparing this article with Vancouver we could include sections on Governance, Transportation, Education, Architecture, Arts and Culture. -- TheMightyQuill 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

With the upcoming games in Vancouver, there has been alot of press about how Van's cleanup will drive the homeless to Victoria. It is just speculation now, but they think the homeless population in Victoria may triple for the duration of the games. I would not add anything till this actually happens and there are reliable sources backing it up, but it is an idea for the future. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like an expansion of the issue of sewage treatment. Victoria dumps all of its sewage UNTREATED into the Straits of Juan de Fuca. NOT the ocean as stated in the article. The open ocean is 75+ miles away. Endangered Orca whales have to pass through Victoria's filth to enter Puget Sound. It is a disgrace. Victoria can have no credibility on environmental issues until it addresses this huge problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.38.58 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess this fits best in here, transplant if need be. I certainly don't want to make yet another subsection, but I'm having an issue with the statement "The only Canadian Forces Primary Reserve brass/reed band on Vancouver Island is located in Victoria. The 5th (British Columbia) Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery Band" in the "culture" section of the article. The reason for this, is that whomever wrote that segment seems to have forgotten the Canadian Scottish Regiment (Princess Patricia's) '"A" Company Regimental pipe band, which is always in prominence during such things as the Victoria Day parade in May, as well as their own functions and even providing service from time to time for the USMC. I should know, I played in the band for about 5 years. Aces&Eights (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)