This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: British Columbia / Vancouver / Communities This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related This template is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This template is supported by WikiProject Vancouver. This template is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Most of what is on there now seems to go together-- Gastown seems to be an exception, being more a community (a tourist 'landmark' community perhaps, but...). I was thinking of either adding Chinatown (Vancouver) or removing Gastown and leaving out neighbourhoods altogether. Any thoughts? --Keefer | Talk 09:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could have physical landmarks and landmark communities in the same box? Yaletown, Granville Island? Luke! 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granville Island I could go for. Yaletown not quite in the same category, imo. Although if the Roundhouse there had its own article (or rather, when it does) it would be a definite addition. Anyway, added Chinatown and G.I.--Keefer | Talk 22:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the template gets too crowded, we could always deal with that when it happens. I'm not sure about neighbourhoods though. I think of a landmark as something that's visually distinctive. The gateway in Chinatown is a landmark to me, but not the area, IMO, whereas GI is more of a product than place, so I'd agree that's a landmark. Historically or culturally significant isn't a criterion for me. I'd question the cannery that's on there as well, although it does highlight the lack of non-City of Van proper landmarks. Someone needs to get a photo of the train at the Roundhouse one of these days, since you brought it up. bobanny 03:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That raises the question of whether we should refer to this simply as 'Vancouver Landmarks' and ditch the non-city stuff. I think folks in Richmond would consider the cannery a landmark. There aren't a lot that spring to mind, frankly, outside the city-- and I spend most of my time in the 'burbs these days. Point Atkinson lighthouse... which doesn't have an article presently(?) Burnaby Mountain(?) I'd be willing to convert to Vancouver only. And re: the neighbourhoods, I agree... personally I don't think Gastown or Chinatown belong, even though I added Chinatown... hmm--Keefer | Talk 08:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Richmond, off the top of my head there is: the Golden Village, Steveston Village, and the Buddha temple. I'm sure there are others. Luke! 18:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a lot of people in Vancouver proper probably wouldn't consider them landmarks. The Sikh temple on 120th in Surrey for example, a definite landmark there... It's just another perspective thing, really. What is considered a landmark in the 'burbs wouldn't be to a city slicker, and in some cases, vice versa. Perhaps each city should have a template(?) Just looking for ideas on the direction of the template here, that satisfies a regional perception of 'landmark' really.--Keefer | Talk 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, the Ross Street Temple is a real bona fide landmark on Marine Drive, so's the one by Highway 1 between Broadway and 1st....; but then so's the Blue Boy Hotel, and Bridge STudios..........Skookum1 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not sort them by groups, as in {{Calgary landmarks}}, {{Montreal landmarks}} or {{Toronto landmarks}}? --Qyd 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. consistency across Canadian cities is good too, where appropriate. But would that mean going from a green to a blue template? There's already a "neighbourhood" template for vancouver too. I don't know the burbs at all, but surely there are distinctive landmarks within these places, rather than lumping in the whole area? bobanny 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage to the list. The Stanley's neon sign has been a key recognizable component of South Granville since the 1940s, and the Stanley has been described as "the heart of South Granville." South Granville Business Association Newsletter (April 2007), page 3 (PDF) Any thoughts/objections? Moisejp (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver City Council also calls the theatre a "landmark" building: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/960730/p1.htm Moisejp (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't seem to be any objections so I added it. Moisejp (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been adding things to the list and tweaking it every once in a while guys. I got rid of the line breaks when I realised that people use all kinds of resolutions or use small windows, and it looks dumb when displayed like that. If there is something I added that you guys think is wrong, by all means delete it. I was just trying to add a few major items that seem like they would not be controversial. For instance I added the Central City Tower, as not only is it the largest tower in Surrey, the second largest city in Metro Van after all, but you can see it from Coquitlam and New West, etc. Sorry to step on anyone's toes.24.83.90.35 (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same person as above, but on a different computer. I categorized the list to make it easier to understand and to make it conform to the other templates. 209.121.155.196 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it's not "Cypress Mountain"... that's the name of the ski area, located in a geological formation called "Cypress Bowl", which lies between Mt Strachan and Black Mountain. Should the link name be changed to "Cypress Bowl"? Note that whatever the link, it seems to always go to Cypress Mountain Ski Area, which includes details about the area's names. Diaphane (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for the line breaks in this navbox? It looks better to me without them. Didn't want to make the edit before asking. Jake 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In face of seeing incomplete hotels added here, presumably just because they're tall/visible, I added some items that are clearly landmarks to people who live in Vancouver, i.e. places you'd orient yourself by, or give directions using. I'm uncomfortable with the "Locations" section althoguh added stuff to balance out the presence of Golden Village but don't think any of them really belong, although a "Beaches" section seems a propos. Re teh city's designation of the Stanley Theatre as "landmark", why don't they say the same for the Ridge or Park or, for that matter, the Orpheum and QE Theatre? I'm wary of template-bloat here; maybe the hotels could all be in their own section? "Locations" you'd think would also include Point Grey/UEL/UBC and Newton and other Metro locations.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City Square: No use trying to link that as you can guess where it goes to, and there's no disambig; does it have its own article.....?Skookum1 (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum1, I understand your feelings about not wanting to see this template get bloated, but if we compare it to Toronto's or Montreal's landmark templates, I don't think the number of items in Vancouver's template seems out of whack. Montreal's and Toronto's templates are divided into lots more sections than Vancouver's is, though, which might be an idea for this one. It seems to me that because, as you've indicated in your heading, what constitutes a landmark is so vague, it is very difficult for these lists to not get quite long, because anytime something gets added, somebody thinks of another landmark that is equally valid. About the theatres, I agree definitely the Orpheum and probably some others such as the Park and the QE could be added to the list. I am going to add the Orpheum for now and if anyone wants to add the others, I wouldn't argue. I don't believe the Ridge has a Wikipedia article yet. Moisejp (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we cut the Bayshore Inn since it doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, at least until such an article gets made? Moisejp (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should at least stub it up, I'm not sure who owns it now - is it the Westin Bayshore? Date of construction and other stuff I'm fuzzy on, though it was one of hte city's "flagship" hotels until things like the PanPacific and Wall Centre got built; and very much a landmark; I guess I put it on the template not only for that reason but in the hope someone would start the article ;-). As for what a landmark is, in my reckoning it's either something highly visible and/or something you'd give directions according to; which is why, re visibility, I included Mount Baker because it's part of the skyline, albeit in Washington; I suppose the Golden Hinde and Mount Elphinstone should also be there since they're definitely aprt of the (distant) skyline; but then, from South Surrey, so is Orcas Island....hmmmm. Anyway I took out Fort Langley because while it's significant it's not really a landmark, vs that big flagpole at Guildford which definitely is; around Vancouver proper things like hte Seaforth Armoury and next-door brewery (Molson's?) are at least as much a landmark as Science World or the Planetarium are. The Landmark Hotel and Denman Place likewise.....and as noted, a separate "Beaches" section is a propos since Kits certainly ain't hte only one (and is in fact oen of the smallest, albeit among hte busiest).....Skookum1 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if the template's supposed to be Metro Vancouver in coverage, Burke Mountain, Coquitlam Mountain, Mount Judge Howay, Mount Robie Reid and Sumas Mountain are all definitely landmarks....plus Thornhill in Maple Ridge; maybe a separate "mountainscape" section? Also if Metrotown's in here then maybe the other town centres should also be - Lougheed, Coquitlam, Guildford, Surrey Centre etc.?Skookum1 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW given the coverage given to hotels not even finished (or started?) construction yet, it's downright odd that the Bayshore doesn't have an article yet....not your problem, but....come to think of it wasn't it a CP Hotel? i.e. not a "railway hotel" but in the CP Hotels chain....not sure when the Westin monicker was come up with, and "Fairmont" is AFAIK the rebranding of CP Hotels in times since.Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Vanier Park considered a landmark? OlEnglish (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; but it's listing should maybe be alongside that of the PLanetarium and Maritime Museum, if they're even in there...or combined with them; worth noting the other features in the Park - the Archives, Conservatory of Music, the "Gateway" statue/sculpture, the Coast Guard dock....all more for the article on the park; I guess the issue is which of the items is the more "landmarkish"....the Planetarium certainly and I suppose it's not technially "in" t he park, unlike the Bard on the Beach tents and the sculpture and Maritime Museum....Skookum1 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And granted, since the Archives are mostly udnerground, they're not really a landmark. Not a visible one anyway ;-)Skookum1 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the Int'l Buddhist Temple and contemplating the Ross St Temple and other Sikh temples, and other religious buildings like St. John's Anglican and Christ Church and St. Andrews Wellsely and First Baptits and Holy Rosary - "Religious buildings" should maybe be a subection; "downtown hotel/bank/mall complexes" another (with a better name), armouries and other large public buildings yet another section; esp. since the template is supposed to be for all of Metro Vancouver, not just Vancouver City; once you start adding in Deer Lake, Lougheed Mall, Coquitlam Ctr, Guildford, and lots, lots more the "Buildigns" section is gonna get unwieldy and "hard to look at").Skookum1 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]