Talk:South Main

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vancouver Portal	This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

[edit] Untitled comments

Please help with this one - I'm relatively new to the area. --Yottabite 04:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What help are you looking for? Hu Gadarn 05:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated material removed

I removed some text from the article today. This material is not directly relevant to South Main (Vancouver). There is a disambiguation page (for other "SoMa"s, and "Soma" and SOMA... But *this* is not a disambiguation page. In addition, there were statements about the intent of developers that were not referenced. A reference was provided but the link did not work. Let me know if you have any comments about this. Thanks for helping to keep this article focussed on "South Main (Vancouver)". Hu Gadarn 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored the developer bit with a cached version of the article. The significance of the name for the neighbourhood comes from it being an allusion to other Somas, so it's not just a DAB to mention them; it's not so much a neighbourhood of Vancouver (see Mount Pleasant article for that, or Little India) as it is a developer gimmick). I also removed a sentence that didn't make any sense and didn't have a real citation (SoMa name ridiculed because there are 60 blocks of Main, referenced with a map to show 60 blocks). Bobanny 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. Here's why: (i) no where in the cited article does it say that 'entrepreneurs and developers [intend] to carry out a "relaxed kind of gentrification"'. The use of the quote is misleading because that's not how it appears in the article; (ii) thereis no mention of the drink or vedic ritual in any reference; (iii) the name does not inherently build upon SoHo, etc. - All of the comments I see are an interpretation without any direct reference. Unless you are or know the entrepreneurs and developers in the area, how could you possibly know their intent? I propose that these statements be removed unless they can be properly referenced. However, I do not want to waste your or my time in an edit war so I welcome comments from others. Looking forward to comments. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(i) citations don't have to be direct quotes; gentrification, i.e., developing poor neighbourhoods to raise property values and attracting people with money, is intentional by nature. If it were some kind of organic process, which you seem to be suggesting, there wouldn't be "developers," only "development." I'd be curious to hear your interpretation of what that phrase means in that article(ii) The direct reference to Soma can be found in any dictionary - soma is what they named this neigbourhood. If the acronym was "crap," the dictionary definition of that would be relevant as well. Soma has a subcultural connotation, going back at least to Aldous Huxley, which is why giving it that name is the 1st step to making it trendy, or "New York-chic" as the article states. Mood-altering substances, urban living, Aldous Huxley - that's the definition of "hip," not some novel interpretation on my part. (iii) I'm not sure what you mean by "buiding on SoHo, etc." It is an allusion to established trendy neighbourhoods in other cities. That's obvious, just as obvious as Hollywood North being an allusion to Hollywood, California.

It's hard to assume good faith with your criticisms, not because you disagree with me, but because you're pushing your own interpretation and not being up front about it, at least that's what I'm getting from your edits, which is that 1) The name SoMa is simply a shortened form of South Main 2) Whoever coined the name must not have been paying attention to geography, because it is inaccurate in view of the full length of Main Street. This is what I dispute, and here's why: 1) It's "South Main," not "the South end of Main Street" or "in the southern portion of Main Street." In this context, South Main means south of the north end, which conveniently distances it from Main and Hastings. Saying it is a misnomer is simply wrong unless someone reads your particular interpretation of what "South Main" refers to. Moreover, even with your interpretation, it's nothing new for such inaccuracies, but I don't think it needs to be spelled out on the Mount Pleasant article that it's not really a mountain. 2) citing a map to make a point is not a proper use of citations, it's original research. 3) there are 2 interpretations on the table here, one that the SoMa name is stricly local and is therefore an illogical name for this neighbourhood. The other is that SoMa is a marketing tactic to make an association with trendy neighbourhoods in other cities in order to gentrify it. My problem is that you are scrutinizing my use of citations to make your point, rather than support your own interpretation with citations.

It's an old issue so there's not that much on the net except condo ads. But to support my interpretation (which I believe the articles already cited do), here's one from Michael Kluckner, noting that the name is a knock-off, and here's one about a Vancouver business owner trying to do the same thing for his area, which he calls BwayNo; the allusions are spelled out in that article.

I'm not interested in an edit war either, and if my reading of your edits and comments are inaccurate, I'll happily apologize. You can do with it what you like with my comments and the article, because it's not a subject I'm currently interested in putting any more energy into. Bobanny 06:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Back already to apologize for attributing the map citation and misnomer edit to you, Hu Gadarn, when it was added by User:Tensevenbizzo. Another point to consider is that this is a stub, and if the article had more content, it would probably seem less fixated on those other places. Bobanny 06:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. I don'r care enough about this page or discussion to pursue it. I'm "unwatching" this page now because I don't want to descend into the kind of bickering I see elsewhere. Thanks and good day, Hu Gadarn 02:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my extended rant/ramble put you off; that wasn't my intention. Maybe refrain from pointed comments of other people's work if you don't have the stomach for "bickering." Personally, I tend to think of it as debate or discussion, and find it more productive than passive aggressive indignation. Bobanny 04:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)