Talk:Olympic Village station

When I updated the station names a few days ago, I specifically left out False Creek South Station because a licensing agreement had not been finalized. Then, User:Ckatz went ahead and moved it. Now, User:Joeyconnick has reverted one of Ckatz' changes. Let's discuss here so we don't have an edit war. Personally, I don't really care either way, as long as we're consistent. — Usgnus 22:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that you had specifically left it out and figured that was a good call. I didn't realise the station's page had been moved as well. I don't see the harm in waiting for the licensing to actually go through before updating the station name--it legally can't be named "Olympic Village" until that's approved, right? So right now, it's not accurate to call it Olympic Village, no matter what TransLink might be hoping for or what its materials might indicate. I'd prefer to wait until it's official. Joeyconnick 22:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few pages that would need to be changed overall, so I've reverted Joeyconnick's revert on the Canada Line page in order to have all the references (including the template) match for now, while we discuss what to do. As for when to make the change, I was also prepared to wait for an announcement of the deal. However, after reviewing TransLink's web pages and documents, I really think it makes more sense to do it now. Why? Consistency. TransLink refers to the station as Olympic Village, even with the caveat of the licensing agreement. They're not making any reference to the old name, much like when it changed from "2nd Avenue Station", so someone coming here from the TransLink site (or vice versa) could get confused. Also, there's no guarantee that the name will be "False Creek South" if the licensing doesn't come through. It could be something similar, or completely different. ("Athlete's Village"? "Foot of Cambie"? "Athlete's Foot"?) Anyways, let's chat... --Ckatz 05:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the "interactive map" on [1] now shows "Olympic Village" as the station name. — Usgnus 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the map to show 'Olympic Village so that we're more consistent. Naturally, it is easy to change back.

You might want to take out YVR 3, then, for consistency, since the map does not show any other proposed/future stations. Joeyconnick 03:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I take that back: you're attempting to show them with italics, right? It doesn't appear very clearly. I would go with a lighter grey for proposed/future station text and add that to the legend so people know what it means. Joeyconnick 03:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it better now? BTW, this is only a temporary map until the regular contributor has time to make an updated map. — Usgnus 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Joeyconnick 06:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot argue with the "it might be confusing for people coming from the official TransLink site." I think it would have been nice to have discussed it prior to renaming but I guess there's no huge harm done. Joeyconnick 03:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why the photo for this article contains a life buoy for a sunken BC ferry as the focal point. Seems a bit politically-motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.5.172 (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article states: "The use of the term "Olympic" has been licensed for use by the International Olympic Committee." However, the offered reference (archive.org) does not allow verification of this. The text at that page says: "Use of 'Olympic Village' as a station name is subject to an acceptable license agreement being concluded between the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and Translink and the approval of such license agreement by the International Olympic Committee." So at the time of that writing, a license agreement was apparently not concluded. --Ds13 (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)