Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 3 February 2007

Vancouver B‑class 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:BCproject

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

To-do list for Hollywood North: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-08-30 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create or expand these related articles: Double Jeopardy (television), British Columbia Film Commission, Toronto Ontario Film Office Cleanup : Remove self-references. Expand : Goals: GA status. NPOV : The neutral point of view of this article continues to come into question. Please help by discussing all major changes and contributions first on Talk:Hollywood North. Update : Statistics from 2005 (Search for 2006 and 2007) Verify : Please reference all contributions from notable sources. Wikify : Create a table for the list of movies and televisions Other : Please be respectful to the process of this article.

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

Archives

1. Archive 1
2. Archive 2

Peer Review and Archive

I have elected that this article undergo a peer review: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Hollywood North. The talk page was archived because it was oversized, and also to give our reviewers an 'untainted' opinion of the article. Editors interested in reviewing previous conversations may visit the archived discussions via the archive box to the right. Mkdw 11:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was getting a bit hard to read. However, we should make sure that reviewers are aware of the issues that are causing disagreements. They can't really do an effective audit of the page if they're not given all of the relevant information. --Ckatz_spy 11:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The validity of those issues are still being question. Just let them read the article with out any outside influences. Langara College 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

note: "Hollywood North" is not a film industry term. Variety, the most well-known and respected film industry trade magazine does not refer to Canada or any of its cities or Provences as "Hollywood North" but rather as Canada's more well-known slang term, "The Great White North". This article is an advertisement for Canada in the guise of information about a "so-called" film industry term which is not even used in the film industry. It is, however, an advertising term that has been coined by Canadians who are trying to use subsidy schemes and attempting the misappropriation of the "Hollywood" name itself to try to lure U.S. film productions away from the real Hollywood. This is confusing (as there is already a "Hollywood" as well as a very real city of "North Hollywood"); and to call Canada "Hollywood" is just not factual, but misleading. This page should be renamed "The Great White North Film Production" or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donteatyellowsnow (talk • contribs)

Then why did the American edition of Entertainment Tonight just use it tonight? That program is core-central to the Hollywood p.r. machine, and is a "voice" of the US entertainment industry. Billboard magazine uses it, Variety magazine, and others (as well as Canadian-run US mags like Vanity Fair....).Skookum1 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This page was completely blanked/erased by the above people, to form a bias towards the thing it is selling: Canada as a filming location. This page should be deleted as there is no such thing as "Hollywood North" and this is a blatant attempt by the Canadian film commission to sell something... Canada. There is a "North Hollywood" and "Hollywood". "Canada" is Canada. Canada is not Hollywood. This is a blatant attempt to steal away the "Hollywood" name from the true trademarked name of Hollywood in California, where movies have been made for over a hundred years. Please review older versions of this page to see the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donteatyellowsnow (talk • contribs)

Y'know, Yellowsnow, misrepresenting what other people have done so as to make some kind of ongoing agenda sound like there's a conspiracy against YOU is very much against Wikiquette; the Archive was created for the reasons Mkdw and Ckatz have laid out quite clearly; claiming that it was "blanked" when it was archived is outright misrepresentation. Your behaviour is not verging on abusiveness. It is abusiveness. You appear to like being able to insert favourite bits on certain film and actor writeups, other than your campaign against runaway productions and those evil ol' Canadians; be advised that continued conduct of this kind is not maybe going to result in your being unable to keep on fiddling with actor/film articles. It will" result in your being unable to keep on fiddling with actor/film articles....which is all you seem to be on Misplaced Pages to do.....Skookum1 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresenting? You guys did all the erasing! Go back and look (anyone else who has any objective sense will). That's not a misrepresentation, but a fact. The constant erasing that goes on with this page shows that you guys are the ones with no "wikiquette". You have created and maintained a page which is nothing but an advertisement for Canada, and a false one, for a place that doesn't exist that you are self-titling, "Hollywood North". The proper terminology that actually IS used by the entertainment industry when making a euphemism for Canada is "the Great White North". You guys aren't Hollywood! No matter how much you try to convince yourselves of it. And yes, I would know because unlike you guys I actually do know something about the subject. So yes I do have a specialty, unlike many of you "dabblers" or Canadian nationalists who have to have their government provide welfare to support their workers because the films wouldn't come there without it. Why don't you guys just create your own independent Canadian films and hire your own workers? Why do you feel you have to steal Hollywood's industry away and then steal even the name of the U.S. film industry too. I mean, come on! Should we start referring to Eureka, California as "Vancouver South"?! Should we start calling Montreal "New York North"? Do you see how ridiculous it is.Donteatyellowsnow 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Top Entertainment Industry Mag, Variety references to "The Great White North" and does NOT reference "Hollywood North" when referring to Canada.

Videotron won't pay in fund fracas Cabler unhappy with fund's management

"Videotron, one of Canada's leading cable operators, has decided to stop financing the Canadian Television Fund, one of the main motors of TV production in the Great White North."

Posted: Wed., Jan. 24, 2007, 4:00pm PT

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117958021.html

Posted: Wed., Jan. 10, 2007, 2:14pm PT

Alliance Atlantis sold for $2 billion CanWest and Goldman Sachs pony up

"CanWest, which has print and broadcasting assets in Canada and radio and television interests in Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, missed the boat on the pay television explosion in Canada. However, the AAC acquisition further entrenches CanWest as one of the two largest media companies in the Great White North."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957101.html

WGN to 'Gas' up on Canuck series World Brief

Posted: Sun., Nov. 26, 2006, 6:17pm PT

"'Corner Gas' draws around 1.5 million viewers in the Great White North; the fourth season is airing on CTV. Created by and starring Brent Butt, the sitcom is about life in the fictional prairie town of Dog River, Saskatchewan."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117954523.html

Donteatyellowsnow 04:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Variety magazine - Canucks consider their options: "Hollywood North has in fact geared up for an unprecedented surge in film and TV service work"

Variety magazine - Exex seek Calif. job growth, tourism boost: Eisner calls for relief to stop runaway film prod'n: According to Eisner, it can be $4 million-$6 million cheaper to shoot a film in Canada. "The issue is real and should be addressed. It's almost become part of the entertainment culture that there's a Hollywood and there's a Hollywood in the North."

--Ckatz_spy 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Eisner uses the word "almost". "Hollywood in the North" is not "Hollywood North". It really isn't even "almost" Hollywood in the North, except by a possibly linguistically challenged over-burdened now ex-film executive. Eisner is not putting those words together the way you are inferring in any way, shape or form! The intention of the article is completely the opposite. Why don't you quote what the article is really about! About the PROBLEM of runaway production! What the 2001 article and Eisner does say and imply are that, QUOTE: "Movie executives and tech companies Friday pleaded for tax breaks to boost business and job growth in California. Speaking at a state economic summit organized by Gov. Gray Davis and held on the Disney lot in Burbank, Michael Eisner, chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Co., called for investment... to attract runaway film production back to California."- Donteatyellowsnow 05:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can claim I've misrepresented the quote. The headline text says "Eisner calls for relief to stop runaway film prod'n" and Eisner says "the issue is real and should be addressed." If, as you claim, the intention is the opposite of that text, then I guess he must want productions to come north. -Ckatz_spy 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A city and even a country can have more than one nickname. It's ridiculous if you think a magazine determines the name of a place. Think about New York City and its countless names it has. "The Big Apple", "The city that never sleeps", "The Big City", etc. etc. However, just because TIME Magazine names that city by New York most commonly, doesn't mean its called all those other names. The same with Hollywood North and no magazine has the ability to change its nickname used by people. It should also be noted that the government of Canada as well as various other film agencies around the world are quoted as calling Vancouver, Hollywood North. If you're saying a magazine has more legitimacy than the government of the place, then the United States would no longer be called the United States, seeing how the media all over the world, especially in communist countries have called the US and the western world many other names. This could not be a more perfect example of WP:SNOW. Mkdw 10:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambig Vote

This is a vote for all. A disambig. link is a great idea and contributes to Misplaced Pages's clickability. However, what that disambig links to is another question. We'll vote:

• I think its most likely that a reader will be searching for a Hollywood related name than the district of North Hollywood, California. I think the Disambig should link to Hollywood (disambiguation) as per the article Hollywood. Doing so will not only give the reader a wider selection, but also Hollywood (disambiguation) as a link to North Hollywood, California. Mkdw 10:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Protologism in Wiktionary

From the Protologism article in Wiktionary[:

"The term “protologism” is considered a neologism. Although its use has been verified through durably archived citations, there are no references in any major dictionary.

"The citation of “protologism” may be restricted to certain contexts that have not been fully investigated, such as industry jargon or regional use. If so, the term may not generally be understood even within those contexts.

"Most neologisms are also substandard—possibly slang or even illiterate—in which cases a term would not be used in formal writing except in quotation or italics.

How humorous that this term would be invoked by someone complaining about lack of citability. The ongoing superfluous and very POV alterations of this article by Yellowsnow are well into the pale of the well-defined term "Vandalism", however....Skookum1 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is up for speedy deletion for the reason: neologism (specialized and unclear terminology and/or misnomer) per Wiki criteria. There is no such place as "Hollywood North" and it is undocumented and unverified exactly what "Hollywood North" is. It is also confusing because there is a real city called North Hollywood as well as an already existing Hollywood, California -- so it is misleading and confusing. It is also attempting to make contact with major Hollywood producers by nefariously trying to associate itself with the real Hollywood film community, and attempting to benefit from it financially. This page also has original research as well as unverifiable and/or uncited or completely inaccurate or self-serving PR-based research and propaganda. It is also blatant advertising for the Canadian film industry and various related groups and companies. If not SPEEDY DELETED, this page should absolutely be renamed the "Canadian film industry". Donteatyellowsnow 03:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See Hollywood (disambiguation) for a full listing of the many places named Hollywood, or with names derived from the Hollywood film industry (e.g. Bollywood, Lollywood....there's also "Brollywood", another nickname for Vancouver but that doesn't have as much currency as HN). And also see, as Mkdw as already pointed you to, WP:SNOW, meaning that you're way out of line and your deletion agenda "doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell".Skookum1 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And a term that's been in widespread use for over 15 years is NOT a "neologism", not even by the most anal intrepretation of Wiki policy.Skookum1 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You do realize the article is about the term and nickname, not about 'the place'. French kiss is an article about a term, not a place. Not every article has to be about a location. Mkdw 06:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not documented its use (per Canada) or anything else for "15 years" as you state. If that is true then DOCUMENT IT. It is a neologism in that it is "vague" and doesn't describe one particular area. It is used colloquially to refer to almost any place other than Hollywood that is to the "north" and was actually used first to flippantly refer to San Francisco and the film community that had migrated there (including George Lucas' Skywalker Ranch, Francis F. Coppola) etc. LONG before the Canadians borrowed even THAT term. So it is a neologism in the sense that it is a) vague b) not specific to one area and c) really just based on slang. And wiki is not a dictionary. So since the page is going to exist, it must be complete and all references to it must be included (particularly the first ones) before any MORE parasitic bastard child film communities can cannibalize the term any further (and you know they will). Hmmn. What will be next... Romaniawood... Irelandwood... UKwood... NewZealandwood. It's ridiculous. But if you're going to insist that it exists, then it's a free-for-all... isn't it?Donteatyellowsnow

San Francisco and the Silicon Valley

I'm happy to include San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Ulan Bataar, Narvik or anywhere else in the article if there is something behind it. I've looked into the sources for the recent edits and I'm finding that they don't support the assertions made in the article. I’ll start with the section that my heading comes from.

1. 1 This source, a tour guide, is cited as the first use of the term “Hollywood North”. I can’t find the term in the book at all, let alone any sort of claim to the creation of it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
2. 2 This source,, is used to claim that George Lucas refers to the area as HN but the article is only titled that and there is no reference to Lucas, or anyone other than the writer, using the term.
3. 3 This source, is used to show the claim that the Silicon Valley is referred to as HN. The article does not contain the term.
4. 4 This blog entry is used to demonstrate the same claim as #3. However, it refers to the Hollywood North/Silicon Valley South nexus and is actually describing films financed by Silicon Valley types but filmed elsewhere, such as Syriana and Good Night and Good Luck (actually filmed entirely in the LA area).
5. 5 This source, shows that the term is used to refer to Santa Barbara but is only used in the splashy title by the journalist and doesn’t demonstrate any other usage by anyone else. In any event, the article is about the Santa Barbara International Film Festival which honoured mostly (genuine) Hollywood films (such as Paul Reiser’s The Thing About My Folks, filmed in NY/New Jersey) and not film production in the area per se (or at all?).
6. 6 This source , a blog entry with the title “Hollywood North?” with much the same problem, describing two film festivals (the title in my opinion refers to one in Bakersfield, California) and some film production in Bakersfield. This is a good example where the author, Scott, has mused that Bakersfield could be (probably with hyperbole) HN but is obviously not suggesting this is a term that he is familiar with, something I expect such a source to show (not that I’d accept a blog anyway).
7. 7 No link is provided. There is only the line”Entertainment Tonight" entertainment news show reference to Sundance as "Hollywood North" January 25th, 2007 show”. I’m always uncomfortable when someone uses their memory of a tv show as source. In any event, I imagine that the context makes this similar to Scott’s usage above but since there is no source to scrutinize (and sadly I don’t watch Entertainment Tonight) I can only wonder. --JGGardiner 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmn. It's interesting that you don't accept use of the term to verify that it has been used in situations other than the Canadian ones, yet you don't use this same scrutiny on the citations regarding the Canadian entries (most of which are bogus at best -- many coming from the PR sites of Canadian film commissions or which are advertisements for the industry). Put the microscope up to your own work and the work of all the Canadians who have tried to make this into the Canadian film commission web site before you go deleting my very valid entries. -Donteatyellowsnow

And regarding the ET reference, that was something noted by your pals who contribute to this page. They have cited it many times. Donteatyellowsnow

If you agree with them and I don't, I think that makes them your pals and not mine. --JGGardiner 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete your entries at all. I started with that section first because it is, well, first (reading top down which is the style here). As for the Canadian part, it already survived an AfD on pretty much the notion that the article contains that usage is already accepted by the community here. In any event, my problem with your usage is that what you've written in the article goes far beyond what the source demonstrates. If something is a commonly used term or has some history behind it, that's fine. If it was used once in a headline, that's fine if that's what you're talking about but the article goes well beyond that. I also have other concerns about the fitness of the sources which I mentioned (many being blogs).

Putting the microscope up to my own edits, it seems that my only edit here was to remove a paragraph that you inserted twice. I don't expect to have any problems sleeping at night because of that one. --JGGardiner 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, your bias leads you to delete and put anything I edit under a microscope after-the-fact. A microscope that NONE of your sources could hold up to (and why this page was up for deletion as the "nonsense" in the first place).

Yet what about these "so-called" sources which you don't ever question (just to name A HALF DOZEN... there's more):

8. ^ CBC: Searched for 'Hollywood North'. CBC News. Retrieved on 2007-01-02. (how can a search count as a source? -- this is nonsense. AND the search was limited to just CBC news. Again, Canadian bias)

9. ^ "Hollywood North Vancouver". Google Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-01-01. (ditto: a search used as a source when half the searches turn up PR sites and/or people selling something regarding almost anything. PLUS it is limited to Vancouver.)

11. ^ New numbers confirm Toronto's rank as Hollywood North. City of Toronto. Retrieved on 2007-01-01. (propaganda: use of the term by the very people benefiting/creating the use of the term does not count as a source for reference).

13. ^ "Hollywood North Toronto". Google Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-01-01. (again a search is used as a reference and is limited to those containing Toronto -- bias, vague, not a real source)

14. ^ a b Hollywood North: The Canadian film industry. Statistics Canada. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. (Statistics and propaganda from the Canadian government which is benefiting financially from the subsidy scheme).

26. ^ Some 'useless' facts about Vancouver. Vancouver dot Travel. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. (Okay: this reference is CALLED "USELESS FACTS" it is also a travel-realted reference. You did NOT question this though!)

27. ^ Mayor's Office Release. City of Vancouver. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. (again... propaganda/PR in an effort to promote his city for film business/ runaway productions)

32. ^ What Makes Canada Cool. Canadacool.com. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. (This is the equivalent of "Useless Facts" - It is vague and undetermined what if anything really is "cool" and totally subjective)

Unlike most of my sources you have cited NONE absolutely NONE that define the term "Hollywood North" or that even discuss it. You have framed all of your research around Canada only. That is why there needs to be another page dedicated to all these lists of useless production statistics about Canada called "The Canadian Film Industry" and this page should just be about the colloquialism "Hollywood North" which has been used to describe just about any location outside of Hollywood, California that is to the North.

- Donteatyellowsnow

I'll remove all those web searches. I think the point behind those were to prove that the terms are used widely. I don't know about the other cites you have problems with, but Statistics Canada surely isn't a propaganda mouthpiece for the Canadian government. Carson 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have problems with our citations and then insert you own, equally 'useless' citations, you forego your right to criticize the Vancouver citations. Langara College 05:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

San Francisco

I've just replaced San Francisco with Greed as the earliest film to be shot in San Francisco (it predates the former by twelve years).

I have two concerns about the quote from the San Francisco travel book ("Some of filmdom's most important studios are camped in the Bay Area and the local film industry is frequently referred to as 'Hollywood North'."):

1) The quote provides no indication as to how long San Francisco has been refered to as Hollywood North. True, American feature films have been shot in the city for over eight decades, but this in no way means that San Francisco has been known as Hollywood North for a similar length of time. I am hoping that the guide provides more information than what is contained in the quote.

2) In his posting of 22:49, 30 January 2007, JGGardiner relates that s/he was unable to locate the quote in the book. Would Donteatyellowsnow please provide a page number? Victoriagirl 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class Vancouver articles
• Mid-importance Vancouver articles
• WikiProject Vancouver articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists