Talk:Hollywood North

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Hollywood North received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Film: Canadian / Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Canada: Ontario / British Columbia / Toronto Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance).

Vancouver Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area 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.VancouverWikipedia:WikiProject VancouverTemplate:WikiProject VancouverVancouver articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Section ordering

In attempt to tweak and rectify what appears to be an odd ordering of sections, it made sense to move the section on Toronto before Vancouver (and make parallel changes in the lead) ... only to have this reverted by a clearly Vancouver-b(i)ased editor for what appear to be rather hollow reasons, first due to 'city figures' (what does this mean really?) and then due to 'chronology' (even though the article is subsectioned by cities). For numerous reasons -- alphabetically most obviously, and impartially, and also industry size and presence -- it is more sensible to have the Toronto section first. Can said editor clearly explain why it must continue to retain such an odd order? Otherwise, count on this being corrected at every opportunity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.132.234 (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about Toronto being the alpha in the terms of the nickname being mostly applied to that city. Despite it currently having a larger film industry, the first time in a decade, the term has by and large been associated with Vancouver in a much bigger way and consistently for a longer period of time over the last decade than Toronto. To use a single year as grounds to reversing the term when its been closer to Vancouver historically are not solid grounds. Furthermore, in media in 2012, Vancouver still had twice as many mentions regarding Hollywood North than Toronto did. So while Toronto may be alphabetically or a larger film industry, orderwise it still does not mean the term is mostly applied to TO. The name of the article is not 'Largest film industry in Canada' but about a nickname of a place. Even some media that does mention Toronto and Hollywood North still allude that the city is still claimant of that nickname. Calling me out on bias is a rather weird step in that IP Trace puts you as editing out of Toronto. You made the changes and I objected to them. Using WP:CYCLE as a guideline, a consensus should be reached over making the changes, and not imposing the changes to then be counter-reverted until you or consensus is satisfied. I would also be content in taking this to a neutral third party as to whether the order should be changed. Mkdw ^talk 06:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see much drawn out rationale that I and perhaps others find ... rich. First it was due to 'city figures' and then chronology. When searching for the relevant terms regardless of year, Vancouver comes out somewhat ahead (227k vs. 192k hits), but isn't there a policy which notes the possible fallacy of using web hits? Anyhow, a glance at the article history reveals attempts by others to reverse the order only to have essentially you rebuff them, which smacks of ownership. What's more, in your revert warring, you are removing my fixes of redundant mentions of '$x million dollars', e.g. ... so, I think there's something else going on here. If you believe Vancouver should be listed first based on your rationale, then please feel free to substantially modify the article to account for 'size' or chronology in a quantitative way. But my main point is that there is no firm basis to place Vancouver or Toronto first - since the latter is now, and was before, the top film industry site in Canada (with TIFF and all as well) - and, in the absence of a clear 'title holder', an alphabetical ordering is the most neutral one. I would argue the same if the tables were turned, but perhaps leave and qualify stature in the lead if need be. (As for those tables, I don't have one yet, but my talk page would not necessarily resonate with my location details.) So, please do feel free to take this to neutral parties (multiple), after which I may relent. 70.54.132.234 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave the personal attacks and tone out of this. Alphabetical order is not the reason the sections should be switched. Vancouver has been associated with the name more closely than Toronto making it the primary topic. Albeit, Toronto takes a very close second, it still is second. Also, Google search aside, if you search media in 2012, Vancouver has twice as many hits. This limits non-notable websites from the search fields in which Vancouver has a much larger gap. Why make the term about the second city when its been mostly associated with Vancouver? Even if Toronto had double the film industry of Vancouver, the term would still apply mostly to Vancouver. It would only change IF the nickname started being used to described Toronto more than Vancouver. At present, it does not. But then again, this isn't even your reason for changing except for alphabetical. Do you contest that Toronto is the primary topic of the article, because I have shown that if you eliminate articles about Toronto's size or film industry size, Vancouver is called Hollywood North much more than Toronto. Mkdw ^talk 21:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have demonstrated that Vancouver is more closely associated with the name. I can point out numerous -- actually, many -- references where Toronto alone is noted as HN, early, prior and current. If you wish to maintain that Vancouver is the first city in this regard, something which at its face appears odd in the article without qualifying it and I am sure something few sources actually suggest (contrasting the two, i.e.), the article will have to be rewritten to note this bias. As it is now, taking all things into account (not just media hits but industry size etc.), both cities have equal claim to the title. This isn't a newscast but supposedly an encyclopedia article. And so, alphabetical order is precisely the order the sections should be in. And, what constitutes a personal attack here: pointing out blind revert warring, or rationalizing why an article structure should remain static out of local bias? 70.54.132.234 (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that constitutes a personal attack. To suggest my reverts were blind or to say I'm arguing that the article should "remain out of local bias" is simply not true. They're about me and not about the article or merits to why the article should be changed. I have presented valid arguments all the way through Mkdw ^talk 22:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. And yet you have reverted other corrections in the middle of it all...unblindly? I am calling it as it appears. We know where we stand, so others will have to weigh in from this point. 70.54.132.234 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly just using the wikipedia standards of having most lists done alphabetically it would make sense for the Toronto name listing and the Toronto section to appear first. The battles over which city "deserves" the title more have been fought for years and there's never been a consensus nor probably ever will be. Purely for article reasons aesthetic reasons an alphabetical listing imo should be adopted. I think it would be helpful if we could get other viewpoints on this from those who are not particularly vested in city camps Duhon (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to have a third opinion, albeit not necessarily an outside one, since you've been involved in this and other Toronto related film articles, but I won't block consensus between regular editors of this article -- though I still would have preferred an outside opinion. Mkdw ^talk 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Hi. I'm responding to the third opinion request recently posted. Please sit tight while I have a read through. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm British and had never previously heard of the term "Hollywood North". And, though I don't wish to dent any national egos, after thinking for about a minute, I was able to name only two Canadian films, one of which may not actually exist. So that should be kept in mind in considering my opinion.

I think the issues with the article are more fundamental than whether Toronto is cooler than Vancouver or vice versa. I would expect this article to give a rundown of the history of the term "Hollywood North", but a lot of the content is about the history of filmmaking in the two respective cities. I would suggest that this content might be suitable for separate articles, or could be merged into cinema of Canada. We would then have a shorter article for Hollywood North, and one that would not need separate sections for Toronto and Vancouver.

This is not the easiest of solutions and it may not be the one you were expecting, but please give it some thought.

Incidentally, I note that Montreal also claims the title [1]. Formerip (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems relatively reasonable. The below sections have not done much to contribute to the term Hollywood North except for outline what is already mentioned in other articles. Thanks for your time in this matter and we'll see what the others say. Mkdw ^talk 02:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose some sort of merger may be reasonable. The majority of the content in the article does relate more to the specific film industries in each city than purely to the term. It's probably debatable how much of an article is really needed for purely the term "Hollywood North". Perhaps a merging of this article with cinema of Canada under the header of "Hollywood North", and a re-direct of "hollywood north" to that article's sub-section? Just spit-balling here. Duhon (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose such a merger, there's a big difference between Cinema in Canada and the outsourcing of American/Hollywood films to Canadian sets/production companies, which is what the term Hollywood North refers to (until hijacked by Toronto in its zeal to be glamorous....). This article is or should be about the branchplant productions; Canadian film doesn't actually shoot very much at all in Vancouver......this is not about Canadian film, it's about American and other productions using Canada as a location/production office.Skookum1 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps the city sections could be merged but I think there's still value in having an article about Hollywood North. Especially if history of the term and its growth were the focus and possibly a less contentious subject since its not based on present day facts. Any mention of the term today could be summarily defined as the term being claimed by both cities regularly in the media. Mkdw ^talk 11:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise whereby the city sections can be merged in a way that there is enough content for purely the term "hollywood north" to warrant a full article is to be seen if that can be achieved. Perhaps we can find other examples of "nicknames" shared by multiple cities and see how those articles handled such situations. This game of one-upmanship between cities leads me to think that there is more relevance to simply merge this article with "cinema of canada" as there may be more warrant to that based on the content of the article. Duhon (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some form of rewrite that reduces the "who's best" format would probably go a long way to help stabilize this page, which has certainly seen far too much in the way of disputes. I'd ask the IP, however, to stop reverting as this is under active discussion and such moves are counterproductive. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can alphabetizing names in a glorified list be counterproductive? The prior structure seems at least to not have much support. On the contrary, the boosterism of editors like the commentator (and an administrator, at that) is far more detrimental to the stability and quality of articles here ... particularly reversions like this [2] elsewhere, which favour uncited subjective content as opposed to referenced material and touched-up content.

Again, this is under active discussion; your changes were initially reverted and - per WP:BOLD you are expected to participate in the discussion and wait for resolution rather than repeatedly reverting in your preferred material. You argue that "the prior structure seems at least to not have much support", but then neither does your version. It would also be advisable to register an account (although not required, of course) and to edit a wider rage of topics so that your reverts do not appear to simply be that of a single-purpose account. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, I have reverted your reverts for the reasons stated above. I can do full well to observe the opinions of other editors about this article, but the body of comments so far clearly does not support the status quo; at least another third opinion supports alphabetizing with more drastic action being favoured. (My actions would be different if opinions were otherwise.) How long do you propose editors sit back and suck up an article version skewed, or at least structured, to favour one site and not another? Also, frankly, through your current and prior history on this article, you demonstrate no authority to outline what and how I should edit, and continue to revert for hollow reasons. I will register if and when I am good and ready. 70.54.132.234 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well all do respect 70, you left the discussion entirely once you got what you wanted with little interest in improving the article which is what others have been talking about subsequently. I'm in favour of leaving the article intact as it was and continuing our discussion that has since left order and focused on either a merge proposal or rewriting to balance. Mkdw ^talk 21:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been monitoring the discussion to suss out what others have to say -- after all, 'third opinions' were solicited -- but commentary such as yours is easy to dismiss. If editors would like this article summarized, have the content added to 'Cinema of Canada', and redirect this article, I would be happy to do so in short order. Quite frankly, you and similar have had many moons to enhance this article, but your own bias has precluded this and perpetuated it as a haphazard article. And, again, why should the article remain static to satisfy your boosterism? No. Enhancements can continue to be me made and I am happy to assist in this regard, but skewed content or arrangement of same will not continue to stand and will be corrected at every opportunity throughout. 70.54.132.234 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dismiss all you want but your lack of present suggested that you weren't involved anymore. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe you've been regularly checking in considering the nature of the single purpose edits. You've also breached the WP:3RR. Mkdw ^talk 06:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I do not see the need to comment on everyone else's comments out of self-validation or to monopolize the discussion, nor to act as if I owned the article, but I comment when needed. As for 3RR, check again ... but it takes two (or in this case, three) to tango. In fact, we wouldn't be at this juncture if it weren't for your obstinacy regarding, what, alphabetizing sections? Please. 70.54.132.234 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm tired of your insults and trolling. It's clear we're not going to see eye to eye and the fact that it takes two, but in this case other editors have reverted your edits, I have checked it against 3RR. I'm not alone in my opinions and made an effort to improve the article which you haven't been interested at all except for insulting the editors here. Mkdw ^talk 21:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm tired of your pedantry and whining. One other editor believes as you do (through your reverts) ... and both of you have acted rather oddly throughout. All I see from you is talk and veiled boosterism. If you were serious about improving the article, it would've been done by now. So, do not chide or criticise me for inaction over a fairly short timespan when you and compatriots have had months. So, get to it, or get lost. And, with that, I am shuttering this tortured thread. 70.54.132.234 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

boosterism????? Man, I've never liked the term myself, and I'm from Vancouver, I like it even less that Toronto stole the term and ran with it, making it mean something different; but here ya go, an article in the Los Angeles Times that very clearly uses the term in reference to Vancouver/Canada. I'm tired of your constant attacks on this term, under whatever IP address you may currently use; you're reocgnizably someone from the LA film industry who has a WP:OWN problem with the term "Hollywood". Give it a rest, the LA Times is a reputable source, you're not.Skookum1 (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, observe this article in CityNews Toronto, which says something rather different. But, you will perhaps contend that a local news outlet is biased as well. Amidst all of this, despite the passage of 4 months, nary an editor has even refined the article. Perhaps you can blow smoke elsewhere? 70.54.134.84 (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should take your own advice.Skookum1 (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver is hollywood North. 86% of Ontarios film and television production in 2014 was domestic production, it had nothing to do with hollywood or foreign film production. Despite being 4x the sizes Ontarios foreign film and location production (ie hollywood) is only 446 million for 2014 compared to Vancouver's 1.1 billion. BC has over 2x the absolute level of foreign production and over 7x the per capita level. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.20.88 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://cmpa.ca/sites/default/files/documents/industry-information/profile/CMPA_2014_eng.pdf

update from LA Times

This article has material in it that could be added, but more importantly proof that even in Los Angeles the term "Hollywood North" is used to identify the Canadian branch-plant industry, specifically Vancouver's.Skookum1 (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hollywood North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hollywood North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120823052253/http://www.ontario.ca:80/en/initiatives/progressreport2012/ONT05_040343.html to http://www.ontario.ca/en/initiatives/progressreport2012/ONT05_040343.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hollywood North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouverfilmstudios.com/history.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www41.statcan.ca/3955/ceb3955_003_e.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509163914/http://www.nmfilm.com/filming/incentives/ to http://www.nmfilm.com/filming/incentives/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018183234/http://themovierulz.com/category/hollywood/ to http://themovierulz.com/category/hollywood/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hollywood North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update based on 2017/18 data?

I wonder if some of the discussion needs updating, since a lot of it refers to statistics from 5-10 years ago? A 2018 report from the Canadian Media Producers Association can be found here. According to the report, for total film and TV production in Canada in 2017/18, BC accounted for $3.576 billion (40% of the national total), while Ontario accounted for $2.892 billion (32% of the total). When you look at "foreign location and service production" (consisting mostly of US companies filming in Canada - which is what most people think of when they think of Hollywood North) BC's lead is even greater, accounting for $3.04 Billion or 64% of the Canadian total versus $0.91 billion or 19% of the total for Ontario.

[1] ttp://cmpa.ca/sites/default/files/documents/industry-information/profile/CMPA_2014_eng.pdf

[1]