Jump to content

User talk:Skookum1/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15


meta:Wikimedia Canada - something you might be interested in

Hey there Skookum, just asking if you wanted to add yourself to the list of WikiMedia Canadians. :) -- œ™ 06:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

sunshine valley

thanks skookum. I'll get to it asap. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just Made Arctomys Cave

Just made a stub for Arctomys Cave; there isn't a LOT of info out there on it but there was enough. At, if I'm correct, 536 meters deep, the cave is Canada's deepest. Pretty impressive I'd say. My next creation I have going on is the Robson River, a stub that has been needed to be created for quite a while now. AndrewEnns (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Okanogan Range re North Cascades

Heya, yep I saw the stuff about those categories, and thought your points about naming problems were right on. In the last few days I've been looking at the North Cascades area, improving some pages and making new ones, mainly on mountains. It is such a geologically/geographically complex region and I'm only just getting a better grasp of the many sub-ranges and such (for example I only just now discovered where the Skagit Range is exactly--and not where I expected, it doesn't seem to be very close to the Skagit River, unless my map is not good). I got caught up wondering how some of the oddly named mountains got their names--names like Mt Terror, Fury, Damnation, Triumph, Challenger, Redoubt and nearby Nodoubt, etc; and the pair American Border Peak and Canadian Border Peak. I think I got a lot of the naming history figured out (big peaks by explorers, lesser ones by miners (Eldorado etc), surveyors and rangers (Fury, Terror, etc), and quite a few by climbers (Damnation, etc).

American and Canadian Border Peaks used to be the Border Peaks; see the BCGNIS entry on Canadian Border Peak. The CJ names were apparently conferred by the US Forest Service and/or US govt surveyors (Seahpo is one of those - from fr. chapeau). Why some native names like Shuksan and Hozameen got recorded, but in the case of Coquihalla Mountain it would seem to be named for the river.Skookum1 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, yea, my focus is pointed in this direction, so... The "North Cascades of Washington" category should be renamed as you say, especially now that there is a "Canadian Cascades" category (I almost wish the two could be one as the international boundary slices right through a coherent geological unit, but political borders are a reality). On whether the Okanagan Range is part of the North Cascades I don't know. That page confuses me a little about where exactly the range is. I don't think the term Okanagan Range is used for anything in the US--at least there is no USGS GNIS entry for it (or various spelling and term variations), and the name does not appear in the WA topo map atlases I have. Perhaps the page could be made clearer? "South of the Similkameen" is not the best description from a WA perspective, since the lower Similkameen enters the US near the Okanogan River... but I don't think the range is south of just the WA portion of the river, no? Perhaps more to the west and what WA people call the Pasayten region (roughly=Pasayten Wilderness)? I'll look into it at least.

About the Okanagan Range - "huh!". I think it's in Holland's book (i.e. re its stateside boundaries) but as you note it's NOT in the GNIS search for "Okanogan" - nor is Okanagan Highland even though Holland says he borrowed the term from a US geographer. The logic with the name Skagit Range is "the mountains towards the Skagit River", as seen from New Westminster and the south-of-Fraser towns. It's interesting that the Canadian landform names/usages don't cross the border and I suspect there was some willful intent on both sides concerning that (i.e. we'll do it this way to be different from them etc); as well as some choices of style - small mountain ranges are nearly all named "Range" now, while it's only the largest groupings which get "Mountains", and in various GNIS entries you'll find there was a certain period where e.g. Boundary Mountains became Boundary Range (partly to avoid confusion, in that case, with Boundary Mountains). Hence the conundrum of Cascade Range vs Cascade Mountains; USGS uses the former; BCGNIS/CGNDB uses the latter; if you go into the Coast Mountains BCGNIS ref you'll also find there a discussion of the older and near-official usage of "Cascades" for the Coast Mountains until a certain date/publication. The Hozameen Range BCGNIS, for instance, says "extends south into the US" but doesn't say how far, but there's no Hozomeen Range in the US, only Hozomeen Mountain (and, frankly, it doesn't look much like the terrain on the Canadian "side" of that range). AFAIK the Pasayten region is only the Pasayten Wilderness, which looks to be limited to that basin's river; most of Cathedral Provincial Park is the basin of the Ashnola River and country west of that; is the upper Ashnola in the Pasayten, in US-speak terms? And in the Geography of the North Cascades article the description "south of the Fraser and Similkameen" is not complete; in the BCGNIS for Canadian Cascades (i.e. on that page; Cascade Mountains redirects to Cascade Range), there's a very specific boundary which includes the lowermost Thompson River and the line of the Nicoamen River, plus a few other creeks south-southeast from there to the Similkameen. I'll send you the links to download Holland; the map is excellent, you'll like it; a bit old fashioned though but adds to the charm. So anyway, yeah, it would help if there was a border-spanning name for what the US calls the North Cascades; though note precedents for Canadian Rockies being a subarticle of Rocky Mountains....Skookum1 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That aside, I think yes, the North Cascades in US usage includes a large region east of North Cascades National Park--all of the Okanogan National Forest at least, and probably Loomis and Loup Loup State Forests too. If nothing else the town of Winthrop is definitely in the North Cascades, as are all the mountains to the north, along the Chewuch River, Methow, etc. A distinction is made between the national park and the national forest, but that is more jurisdictional--it's all the North Cascades. Maybe you can tell me what the geological difference is for the Okanagan Range--although I am reading about the topic already, so may find out myself.

Lots more lava formations, basically; I'll see what I can find; somewhere out there on teh Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources website there's a great geophysical map of BC, I'll see if Uesr:Black Tusk knows where to find it; I used ot have it on my wall, very psychedelic...Skookum1 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Entiat Mountains definitely are part of the North Cascades, as are the equally significant Chelan Mountains and Sawtooth Ridge (on either side of Lake Chelan). A mountaineering guy I used to work with once pointed out to me the often-overlooked but quite high peaks of the Sawtooth Ridge region (eg, Mount Bigelow, 8,460 ft; Star Peak, 8,690). Anyway, babbled long enough. Perhaps I will make a page for the Entiat Range and others, as I am working on such things anyway. It is the curious placenames that get me--Goodenough Peak, Orthodox Mt, Crazy Man Pass, Skull and Crossbones Ridge, Mix-up Peak, and so many others. There's gotta be stories behind these names. Pfly (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the Chelans, that was another one I meant to move the category for. Our names on this side are not quite so interesting, other than Jackass Mountain although Tulameen, or its site, was Campement des Femmes, no doubt a popular stop over for the crews of the brigades, whose trails met there....Skookum1 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
About those Forest Service names like Terror, Fury etc - any chance some were labelled by Jack Kerouac in his time as a fire lookout dude?Skookum1 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked into it some more and discovered the difference between geologic and geographic boundaries. When WA is subdivided into geographic regions based at least in part on landforms, it seems common for the "North Cascades" to bound the "Okanogan Valley", or even the Okanogan Highlands with the river as the boundary. But all the geology sources I looked at today (all 4 or 5) agreed that the North Cascades (and the Cascades as a whole) end at the Chewack-Pasayten Fault. West of that fault is the Methow Valley (or Methow terrane, graben, etc), which includes Winthrop and Twisp and most or all of the Methow River apparently. To the east of the fault is something else--the book I have in front of me now calls it the Quesnella Terrane, which it groups not with the larger Cascades region but with the "Omineca-Intermontane belts" of the Interior BC region. One map labels a region just east of the "Methow Basin" as "Okanogan Range". It looks like there is a significant difference in geology east and west of this fault, with the Methow Valley of the North Cascades on one side and the Okanogan Range on the other. I suspect that because this part of the "Quesnella Terrane" only barely extends into WA it is often grouped with the Cascades for simplicity. The Okanogan Valley feels like a clear dividing point between the Cascades and the highlands to the east. That the Okanogan Range has a different geology than the North Cascades might be less striking given that the geological character of the Cascades changes even more dramatically in south WA and OR, with a somewhat similar zone of arid and basalty "foothills" extending east of the main Cascades. Anyway, I learned something, although that regions are differently delineated geologically and geographically (physiographically?) is no surprise. It is nice to know, at least, that geologically there is a very precise eastern boundary to the North Cascades. Also, that the term Okanagan Range did not turn up in GNIS or the few topo books I have does not prove the terms non-use in the US. GNIS doesn't seem fully stocked with mountain range terms anyway, and my map books are a bit sparse in showing them.

The logic of the Skagit Range made more sense one I remembered the upper course of the river. I forgot quite where it went after Diablo Lake.

And yes, it appears that the upper Ashnola in the Pasayten, in US-speak terms. The Pasayten Wilderness extends east clear to Snekumption Creek. Cathedral Peak, which appears to be directly south of Cathedral Provincial Park, is right in the northern heart of the "Pasayten region", if my understanding is right. The Wilderness incluedes more than the Pasayten River basin--the upper Chewuch River, trib to the Methow is part of it too, as are other Methow tribs (Lost River) and some Skagit tribs (Canyon Creek, trib of Ruby Creek->Skagit; and various rivers flowing west into Ross Lake). As far as I know people use the word "Pasayten" for the region more or less identical to the wilderness.

Terror, Fury etc - any chance some were labelled by Jack Kerouac in his time as a fire lookout dude? I don't think so. The Picket Range peaks (Fury, Challenger, Terror, Phantom... as well as "Picket Range" itself) seem to have all been named by Lage Wernstedt in the 1920s. Kerouac worked in the region in... 1956? Probably too late to have had the chance to name much of note by then anyway. The Picket Range is one of the more difficult and wild areas and got names applied late as it was. But who knows. ...Now I have the urge to go camping up that-a-way... maybe when the snows melt... Pfly (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and: It's interesting that the Canadian landform names/usages don't cross the border and I suspect there was some willful intent on both sides concerning that (i.e. we'll do it this way to be different from them etc) -- that's probably partially true, but another factor, I think, is a fundamental difference between "interior BC" and "interior WA"--the Columbia Plateau is so clearly distinct from everything around it and it extends far enough north that there isn't a huge region left between it and BC. Maybe my impressions are wrong, but I get the sense that WA folks--at least western WA folks--think of eastern WA, east of the Cascades, as mainly the largely flat but scablanded Columbia Plateau, plus the Palouse in the southeast and, in the northeast, a miscellaneous smattering of largely unpopulated highlands and mountain ranges that really belong to Idaho and BC but just happen to poke into WA a little--ie, not generally worth dividing up into many range names--easier to just say "Okanogan Highlands" and "those mountains in the far northeast corner", etc. The Columbia River and the Colville Indian Reservation also play into it I think. The region north of the Columbia and east of the Okanogan seems little visited or thought about by most Washingtonians. Maybe I am wrong--people from Spokane might feel differently. Pfly (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

One more "oh and": Peakbagger.com defines the Okanogan Range rather broadly, http://www.peakbagger.com/range.aspx?rid=12503 -- including most of the Pasayten region. Go figure. Pfly (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"superfluous plug for particular ecoregion classification"

I can see I'm not the only WPedian who thinks that WP has tilted too much in favor one particular ecoregion hierarchy definition. :-) —hike395 (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a spluttering spark by comparison to what I'd written a few minutes/edits earlier at Wikipedia Ecoregions. "You know me" :-) - why pull out only one stop when you can pull them all?Skookum1 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Marron River

Hi Skookum

Have a look at the Marron River article & tell me what you think of the changes I made to the "mouth" section. Tell me what you though of them. Cheers AndrewEnns (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I also posted a reply to your comment on its talk page. You may want to read that as well. AndrewEnns (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

re:West Kelowna

So far, their edits seem to be in good faith, albeit somewhat misguided. Your warnings will hopefully be sufficient, but I will watchlist the article. Resolute 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Crown Lake Falls

You have, on several talk pages, mentioned a Crown Lake Falls that supposedly drops into Crown Lake in its canyon near Pavilion Lake. I found this photo of a waterfall at Marble Canyon dropping toward either Crown or Turquiose Lake. Could that be it by any chance?

Also, on the Pavilion Lake article, shouldn't it say its outflows are underground, since that is what you said they are on Talk:Marron River. Also, which lakes of the 3 (Pavilion, Crown & Turquiose) are drained via Pavilion Creek? Pavilion Lake is at 2641, Crown is at 2631 &, strangely, Turquiose is at 2638. Is it possible Turquiose has no outlet or does Pavilion Lake have 2 outlets? Can you explain?

Your Friend

AndrewEnns (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's Crown Lake Falls, known to ice climbers as Icy BC. What you see in the shot is only the lower falls; it's a double-waterfall, with the higher one, I think, having more vertical than the lower one; I think there's a pool in between but I've never seen that part up close; it's difficult to access, though I've sat on the ledge at the top of the upper fall (you get there by climbing down the creek canyon from the forest service road in behind, which climbs up from the farther end of Turquoise Lake, or between it and Crown, can't remember just now. I have some b&w sinter/frozen shots of it, though they're on an external hard drive which I don't have running just now (maybe in a few days, provided I can find the repairman for my adapter-/powersupply problem). There's a listing for Icy BC in bivouac.com and maybe one of my pictures is there, can't remember if I posted on or not. The latlong on google images is slightly wrong, as the waterfall is across the lake from where the pointer shows up at.
And I didn't realize about the elevation issue re the three lakes - that Crown is the lowest. The height of the Marble Canyon Pass is southeast, near the rodeo grounds, so I just assumed that everything northwest of that drained via Pavilion Creek (rather than Hat Creek). There's no direct outlet of Pavilion Lake to Paviion Creek, or if there is, it goes underground pretty quick and doesn't emerge until a few miles closer to Pavilion. The area is a limsstone-lignite karst and it's to be expected there's underwater channels and curiosities about water tables due to the porosity of the rocks. What could make Crown Lake lower than the other two is a pressure effect of some kind; there's no creek connecting any of the three, though Crown and Turqouise are so close you'd think it woudl be the same watertable...I've never noticed 8 m, or even 8 ft, lower than Crown but if that's what the survey says...interesting. The floor of Pavilion Lake, by the way, has three tiers/floors and in the middle and bottom caverns the freshwater "corals" (microbialites) have different shapes; the lake ihasn't been explored enough SFAIK to determine underwater outlets/inflows but NASA/JPL has been working on it for a few years; much of that work may be classified, but the CBC doc that's linke on the Pavilion Lake page is a pretty interesting thing to watch. It might be worth writing them (NASA/JPL researchers in charge of it) why Crown Lake is lower. The drill/test pits for the Hat Creek coal project are immediately south of Crown and Turquoise, jsut behind that ridge (see http://www.cayoosh.net/marble.html, bottom of page, for old pics of the digs.
I think you'll find that there's lots of lakes in the Cariboo and Chilcotin which don't have outflows; none I can think of that have named rivers running into them, though. Potholes, lava sinks, swamp country, alkali lakes...think I've got some aerials of some on http://www.cayoosh.net/ somewhere but they're pretty common throughout the drylands and plateaus of the Southern and Central Interior...Skookum1 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Just looked at Basemap, which I can't get to display the lake elevations for me; I'd have thought hte elevation was over 3000' - it's pretty cold in there in March or so, but that's a question of shadow as well....but just wanted to comment that the bog in the middle of the rise of ground between Crown and Pavilion Lakes doesn't have an outlet either. There must be water table studies around there; not sure what hte provincail Water Rights Branch might have but there might be reports in their files/website because of th Hat Creek proposal, which would impact drainge/environment in this area; NASA/JPL are more likely to have up-to-date details though...Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

North Shore move

Please do not write comments about your inappropriate move to Metro Vancouver, The article title would've make the corrected title to North Shore (Metro Vancouver). The region was named Greater Vancouver on the North Shore article title. In 2007, The GVRD supported unanimously by changing it's name to Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver is also the name of the region and the name of the governing body it's both. the move to North Shore (Metro Vancouver) is not inappropriate, I already made comments at the North Shore's talk page. And another user made comments at the North Shore's talk page as well. I type the search Greater Vancouver then it redirected to Metro Vancouver. If you want to read my comments about the North Shore's move to (Metro Vancouver) that is not inappropriate and is also a region. Got to North Shore's talk page then to talk to me, or to User:Skeezix1000 at the North Shore's talk page so we can resolve this discussion. Steam5 (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Another user by the name of User:Skeezix1000 has proposed to rename the article North Shore (British Columbia) but my propose title. Note that Greater Vancouver was the old name of the region. The new name of the region is also named Metro Vancouver. If you want more on the proposed title that is not inappropriate North Shore (British Columbia) go to North Shore's talk page to read Skeezix1000 and my comments at the talk page and then talk to User:Skeezix1000 between my move North Shore (Metro Vancouver) and the other user's move North Shore (British Columbia) both of the proposed article titles are not inappropriate. Steam5 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CWNB Stuff

Hey Skookum. From the Moves, mergers and splits from the CWNB I removed:

  • 2010 Winter Olympics - p.r. piece, very official-toned, no discussion of public controversies or other related news, big on talking about VANOC and associated politicians though....not quite prime for a POV tag, yet something definitely like spam, so definitely in need of de-promofying and additions of alternate views/perspectives/protests - in fact Category:Politics of British Columbia is almost warranted; a separate article is a possibility but woudl risk being a POV fork....Skookum1 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really a discussion about a move merger or split, and the mention of Politics of British Columbia exists as an article already. I haven't checked the 2010 Olympics site to see if anything has been cleaned up but you may want to relist it under requests for comment. It might get a few more views that way too. --kelapstick (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also it looks like the move discussion you initiated in August last year at Nk'mip Desert is overall supported, so it could probably be moved at any time. It looked like South Okanagan Desert was the right name (from the discussion).--kelapstick (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of Saskatchewan

Out of curiosity, do you use Google for site-specific searches of Wikipedia?

I find this approach very useful for identifying articles on Wikipedia about a specific region.

The Transhumanist 20:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: to contact or reply to me, please use my talk page, because it triggers Wikipedia's auto alert feature. I forget about threads otherwise. Thank you.

Congregation Emanu-El (Victoria, British Columbia)

Thank you.Historicist (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just self-nominated the article for DKY.Historicist (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the information on Oppenheimer will be added to the page Congregation Schara Tzedeck, which does need work. I'll see it I can add something.Historicist (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

English-French review request

When you get a free moment can you please take a look at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Sswonk/Bac_%C3%A0_sable#G.C3.A9ographie. It is a very short geography section of an article with a map, done in my twisted and possibly toxic French. Please change any errors you can fix and leave me a note there at the bottom of the text. By all means feel free to ask me for any assistance you may need in the future for your projects, drawings, maps, photographs, templates and edits, I'll be happy to return the favor. Sswonk (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

We could sure use your help at WP:WPOOK.

Please consider joining.

The Transhumanist 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Outlines of the Canadian provinces?

What are your plans for these?

I would suggest building a template with all the common elements of each, and then using it to create them all.

That's what I did for the country outlines, and the U.S. State outlines.

In one window I had Template:Outline country. And in the other I used linky to execute Google title searches of Wikipedia for 50 countries or so countries at a time, using search parameters similar to those explained in the message post on google searching above.

Looking over the google search results, I placed links that showed up on most of the countries into the template.

Let me know if you are interested, have any questions, or need help.

The Transhumanist 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Outlines

You asked on my page "what are you plans for these?" just at a time when I'm feeling myself overwhelmed by all the different wiki-pies I've got my big fingers into....as you know I've updated/amended that page quite a bit and will try to do some more; one time-issue for me is in the course of repairing/expanding/honing it I wind up spending time on lists and articles linked and/or associated research and it's like a tree that just keeps on growing, and there remain complexities/issues with the structure/content that I'm avoiding for now, pending input from certain other editors (e.g. re the Law section, from a Wikipedian who I know is a lawyer...).

I'm not prepared to take on any more work, e.g. on teh other provinces - all of which are structured differently than British Columbia is, by quite a bit in each case (especially Quebec) and in each jurisdiction there are different structural/categorization issues that I'm not going to begin to explain here; I'm in Nova Scotia right now and don't know much about the place and there's no outline started and I'm not sure I'd want to get involved....I'm trying to have a real life outside Wikipedia and it's taking up more and more of my time....I can advise on the other provinces, when they come around, if I'm still around (and I may not be), but I can't really help much with Saskatchewan because I've only ever driven through the place (without stopping, except for coffee/donuts).

One shortcut I've begun to use in completing the BC Outline, also, is to link categories if there is no relevant article or list; and I think linking categories in the Outlines is superior to linking lists, as lists need to be manually updated whereas categories are self-updating; when there are articles, e.g. Land districts of British Columbia I've linked those; when there are layers upon layers of subcategories I won't, so Landforms of British Columbia I won't link to Category:Landforms of British Columbia but will have to try and create, or begin creating List of landforms of British Columbia (hierarchical, and not alphabetical). Alphabetical lists like List of British Columbia-related topics I find completely pointless, and also if fully complete would be MASSIVE; it's why List of British Columbia rivers is arranged hierarchically, i.e. according to the tributary tree.

Anyway these are just some thoughts; I'd meant to reply to you but have been mulling my reply as well as mulling over how I can retreat from Wikipedia to get on with my life, which takes just as much energy and creativity and in fact needs me to focus my energy and creativity on less mundane/pragmatic matters (I'm a musician/composer/songwriter in search of a career and a living...which I don't have at present...).

Indulging in cataloguing exercises is not really how I came here or what I'd prefer to spend my wiki-time doing; I rarely write anything but stub-content lately, but I started in here as an historian and know there's various articles that I'd like to finish contributing to before....disappearing from Wikipedia at some point.

I'll try and finish the BC Outline as much as I can before that time - I'm one of the few BC Wikipedians with the broad knowledge/expertise about the place to be able to do so - but I really have no room to work on other outlines, which means coming to terms with how all the other provinces are structured.....and lots more work unrelated to my core interests and also unrelated to my personal future, or personal ambitions anyway....Skookum1 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. First things first: take a deep breath. A really deep breath. Deeper. Deeper. Hold it. 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10... Longer... Longer...
Now exhale. Aaaaaaah.
Now repeat that 10 times.
(A few minutes later)...
Relaxing, isn't it?
Remember, moderation in all things. Including moderation. :) (We all need the occasional binge).
Keep in mind that it's better for Wikipedia if you work on this encyclopedia slowly and steadily, rather than in one mad rush followed by burnout. As you get older, you'll get wiser (hopefully we all will), and Wikipedia will benefit - but only if you're still here!
If you are addicted, there's only one cure: an immediate wikibreak. Return only when you are able to keep it rational. You need to focus on what's truly important to you...
Work on your career and family life. Those come first. And when you are ready, spend a few minutes on Wikipedia each evening if you can, or a few hours on weekends. Keep it within the spare time you can truly afford to spend on it, that is, without sacrificing more important things.
Maintain your perspective.
And be sure to write a song about Wikipedia.  :)
The Transhumanist 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Boundary Ranges infobox

Have you checked out this Web site? It lists most of the Alaska state parks, and there might be some in Southeast that you could use. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: McDonald Falls

Hi Skookum

I do plan on making a trip out to the falls this summer. I've actually been to the falls twice before & they are quite interesting & powerful (despite the small size of Murdo Creek). It has been officially measured & is 36 feet high although Bryan Swan says it is 90 feet high because he includes the stuff between Lost Creek FSR & the actual falls. I took some pictures the second time I was there but I can't find them... I looked for them yesterday but failed to find them amongst numerous CD's of mostly family stuff. I will almost surely be going out there sometime this summer.

Can you do me a favor? I just made Swiftcurrent Creek (British Columbia) & my only reference for that article, the BCGNIS page, has some info about how the creek was named on it. However, it is written in a very confusing way. Could you re-write the info about the naming onto the article in way that all of us could understand? I'm asking you this since I know you work a lot with BCGNIS pages & because you are very good with history of BC.

AndrewEnns (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see what I can do...on the Cascade Falls Regional Park page from the FVRD it says Cascade Falls are 30m high....I've never seen them, despite driving by their lots....Skookum1 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You have never seen them but you have driven right by the parking lot eh? Funny that you say that since that is the exact same thing that happened to me when I was in the area. The only difference is that I have been to the falls before. Last time I was up there I was in a rush to see if I could find little-known Thunder Falls (Teripocki Creek) so I didn't get to check out Cascade. I did not reach Thunder, (then again, it's not like many do considering the terrian around) but I did get to McDonald Falls, which, like usual, was roaring. I took some pictures but as I said earlier, I lost them. I will make sure I have time this summer to not only reach the falls up Lost Creek FSR (Thunder Falls being a possibility) but also Cascade Falls.
Here is Bryan Swan's page on the falls, whose upper drop is 84 feet high & the lower drop is 48 feet high, with 15 feet of cascades in between. People have actually jumped the upper drop (some have lived & others have died, very dangerous stunt indeed) & some crazy kayakers ran the lower drop. Cliff (or waterfall) jumping is something I kind of like so I hope one day to possibly jump the upper drop; there is a large pool below it however one has to be a strong swimmer if they want to jump it because the current in that pool is likely quite stong. This is for sure something not just anyone should try; many people have died doing this or from falling while climbing around the falls' crest. I met one chick who is now afraid of heights after jumping the falls. She was like "I'm afraid of heights cuz I jumped a 120 foot cliff near Mission". She didn't say "I jumped Cascade Falls" but I knew she was referring to them since that is the only major cliff jumping area anywhere near Mission unless you count Cliff Falls on Kanaka Creek, (a location I've been to) which is a series of baby steps compared to Cascade but on a bigger creek. I've jumped Cliff & the hardest part of it is getting back up to the top (I ended up climbing up the waterfall at the mouth of the North Fork Kanaka Creek, which enters the main creek just below the falls, to get back to the top of Cliff).
Anyhow, I would reccommend checking out Cascade Falls yourself; it's a mighty fine place! If you want more info on it just ask me & I will tell you all you need to know about the falls. AndrewEnns (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't live in BC anymore, Andrew, I'm in Nova Scotia now....I went to Mission High, though, and jumping from McDonald Falls was popular back then too, also the ones on Suicide Creek. There's also guys I know who've jumped off Ruskin Dam - really dangerous, and takes a running leap/swan dive from off one of the buttresses between the gates so you clear the bottom of the dam....not my kind of fun....Skookum1 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Where abouts are these falls on Suicide Creek? I've heard mentions of some falls on that creek but I don't know where they are. AndrewEnns (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
dunno, never been in there, only know they're there...I think I've been to Thunder Falls, though, once long ago...and there's a falls dropping into Stave Lake that you can see from the col where Florence and Morgan Lakes are (above the Alouette Powerhouse); might be Terepocki Creek, I'd have to look at the map again. Somewhere in my photo files on some hard drives in storage I have a distant picture of them (from up by Florence/Morgan Lakes)Skookum1 (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mount Robson Provincial Park

I got a little problem right now. The Basemap doesn't show the boundaries of Mount Robson Provincial Park & I am trying to create a stub for the McLennan River but I don't know if its source (the Mclennan Glacier) is in the park or not. Where abouts are the boundaries of the park because I really need to know before I create anohter river article for that area. AndrewEnns (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While I am waitng for a response I will make List of crossings of the Thomspon River. AndrewEnns (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a switch in Basemap to turn on boundaries - look under "Layers" on teh main menu along the top of the map.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Which one is it & by the way, why when I tried to check one of the features did it not let me check them? AndrewEnns (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories don't self-update

Categories are updated manually, though indirectly, by editors adding tags to the articles to be added to the categories. Without the tags, there are no categories.

The Transhumanist 22:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course - what I meant was there's no need to maintain the category as there is with maintaining the lists; people tend to be much better about making sure things are in teh right categories, than wehther or not they're in the right list or not (if there IS a list, and in many cases there aren't, e.g. the Health regions).Skookum1 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:Ashcroft Manor

Oh I understand. It's best if we leave it out of the article unless something actually happens, in my opinion. The information is encyclopedic should it actually occur, but since we're not the news and it hasn't happened it would be a bit irresponsible of use to (no pun intended) soil the business without cause. I hope that makes sense. Once again, just my opinion. Keegan (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Congregation Emanu-El (Victoria, British Columbia)

Updated DYK query On June 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Emanu-El (Victoria, British Columbia), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 08:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at AndrewEnns's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AndrewEnns (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Mountain Index row

Thanks for bringing it up, Skookum. The main problem is that the template itself is really fragile --- even the slightest change seems to break it (notice that the Granite Mountain page now has strange spurious spaces in the Canadian section). It would be great to have a real template programmer look at this: I have no idea how to fix it.

In the meanwhile, would you like to design a brand-new Canadian version of Mountain Index row? That may avoid the template breaking problems. I think you are the best WP editor to design it.

Looking forward to working with you further! —hike395 (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a coder at all, and I'm overloaded right now both within Wikipedia and especially outside it, both in the net and off.....I'll see who I can think of at WPCanGeog who maybe can take it on; I know what has to be in it, I just don't understand the code-language; I can make election tables and rows of ghost towns but nothing much more complciated than that; I've tweaked various tables and boilerplated a few, but designing one with funny switches/parameters, I dunno...and like I said I'm already overhwlned, even been pondering a wikibreak...which must come eventually as I'm planning on travelling/relocating in the fall and "disconne=cting from the web", other than for reasons of musical/creative connectivity.....geography, history and politics here, and politics in BC blogspace which is direly necessary right now, is eating me alive.....tweaking content on articles I can handle, whole new concepts I really can't....not now anyway.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Skookum1 and Hike395 I have fixed the problem. But now there is a large gap in the United States section for some mysterious reason. Black Tusk (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
IN sleeping on this overnight, it came to me (before bed, not in my dreams) that such templates, especially if applied to global-context articles, should not be designed solely from a US context. It's not just a Canada issue; Switzerland has cantons, Norway has fylker (which can be translated as county, but not quite accurately), Russia has oblasts (more the size of states and provinces though) and smaller divisions I don't konw the names of, France has departements, and so on....so always there should be some flexibility in titling columns/fields or the template should simply not be applied on articles where the result is unsuitable/incorrect. Wikitable works just as well - and is sortable. What advantage is there to using mountain index row over a plain wikitable anyway? Another thought, in general about such lists/tables, isa final column for locatoinal and other comments shouldbe present, e.g. "17km NW of Dease Lake" or "site of an airline crash" or "in such-and-so park" etc.Skookum1 (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Premier of British Columbia

Off hand, I'm not sure I see a problem with this series of edits. WP:AUTO generally does not apply to images. Wikipedia/Commons has accepted numerous images submitted by the subject of the photos. Lacking any real edits to the prose, I also have a hard time being worried about a conflict of interest. Truthfully, I think the new image is superior to the old - it is a cleaner shot and a better profile. As such, I'd consider the change a net benefit to the article. As far as the placement of the image, lacking a free seal or coat of arms of the office to use, I personally tend to prefer to use an image of the incumbent in cases like this - it's the most neutral image, in my view. I do think that you can certainly add photos of previous premiers in the article as well. At 200px, you could probably fit two more images in this article given its current size. Just my thoughts. Resolute 02:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver article needs help

Did you know that Vancouver may lose FA status? The article was listed for FAR on June 18 but there wasn't much response. It has since been listed as a Featured Article Removal Candidate. I am contacting you because you are one of the top ten editors of the article by number of edits. Would you be willing to work on improving the article? If so, you may wish to comment on the review page and join the discussion on the talk page here. Sunray (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Frederic William Howay

Just came across this fellow. I recall your past references to his work. --KenWalker | Talk 01:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! it's a bit of raw boilerplate from its CenCan sources, I'll add some of the material from Robie Lewis Reid into it and links to online works.....wound up on a merry goose chase as a result of your note here, as by dropping by the Reid article I followed the American Historical Society link, which was misdireted to American Historic Society, which is teh commemorative-plates/coins/lampshades memorabilia company, and puttered around WP:Companies and the American Historical Association talkpage before getting back here ;-)....see Talk:American Historic Society, which almost could stand a PROD now unless someone at WP:Companies comes up with corporate data on it....btw Reid, like Howay, was a lawyer; see that bio; both interesting dudes....with nice-looking mountains named after them.Skookum1 (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know Howay was a lawyer or much else of him until I came across his article and had not heard of Reid. Interesting, thanks. --KenWalker | Talk 15:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm Back

I'm back from Hawaii. It was just as good as I expected it to be. It was from everything from starring into craters on volcanoes to swimming with sea turtles in coral reefs filled with a zillion different types of fish! I went to Maui by the way: just giving you a better idea of where I went. In all it was probably my best ever vacation!

I will be leaving again though on Tuesday or Wednesday to go to Penticton for a while. It won't compare to Hawaii, but it'll be fun. Many of the images that I take will hopefully find a home on Wikipedia including some of the Marron River if I have the time to go out there. I really hope I do have time to go check out the Marron River; a little photogenic proof would help cease some of the unsureness out there as to whether the river really disappears in that lake. The reason I wrote that on the Marron River article, by the way, without simply labeling it as speculation was because both Google Earth & the basemap suggested that the river does disappear into that lake. I suppose any further info I get if I make it out there will be WP:OR (& I have had past issues with that so that doesn't help my cause) but will find a way to get it in there without it sounding like original research. Lost in all of this, Penticton, while not even remotely as nice as Hawaii, is still a pretty nice place to go on holidays to.

I got lots of places to go these days! AndrewEnns (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

About Penticton, a couple of shots that would be good to have for Wikipedia would be a shot of the Okanagan River canal, maybe with tubing, and another of the little canal on the east side of downtown, don't know what it's called; and right in that same area there's a mini-pagoda/column commemorating the old Chinatown which no longer exists; shots of the quasi-pedestrian area, the Art Gallery of the South Okanagan, and maybe the Skaha Lake beach/shoreline or a shot of Skaha Lake/Penticton from the southern approach from Keremeos would be good to have; if you're off to Rock Creek from there the route down the east side of Skaha Lake has good views of Kaleden and we have no pics of Okanagan Falls (either the town or its little falls...) or of the Skaha Bluffs, one of the mini-deserts....suggest you visit both the Okanagan Desert Centre adn the Nk'mip Desert Centre in Osoyoos; one's at the west entrance to town, the other is part of the Nk'mip Resort on the hillside east of town, its driveway is just before Highway 3 climbs Anarchist Mountain.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to Rock Creek until later in August. I was thinking of getting a shot of the Okanagan River Channel (I've kayaked the channel by the way, most people inner tube it though) but I thought if I do make it to the outlet of Skaha I will take a shot of the river just below what is left of Okanagan Falls. There it is more river-like & if I'm going to take one of the channel I will want to mention the channel on the Okanagan River page so people don't wonder why the river, in the image, between Okanagan & Skaha Lakes, looks like a canal. If I'm gonna put a picture of the channel on the OK River page, the channel & maybe some of its history has to go on with it. I've made a few edits (mostly minor ones) to the Okanagan River page & I wanted to mention the channel but didn't cuz' I don't know the history behind it. It'll have to be mentioned on there somewhere & some point. I'm also surprised, considering how important of a waterway the OK is, that its page has no images. One does wonder...
In the refs on the OK river page, maybe in the content already, but somewhere out there, is a figure on how much/little of the river is still natural waterway; the volume that you see in Penticton is grossly diminished by the time it reaches Oliver because of diversion for irrigation and also evaporation; it's a canal through Oliver, lined by bike paths. There might be a visitor centre in Penticton for the canal itself, I think, or someone at the tourism office would know something more. The shot of Skaha I really had in mind was a transverse shot of the campgrounds/beaches on the Penticton shore...Skookum1 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I am hoping to take some photos of Skaha Lake but it already has an adequate photo on its page so any pics I get of Skaha may not be needed. The ones that I hope to get of the Marron River sure are needed though!
By the way, when you said that canal on the east side of the downtown, were you reffering to heavily polluted Ellis Creek, the other major tributary of the OK between OK & Skaha Lake (after Shingle)? AndrewEnns (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, not sure; is it canalized? If you go east/towards the hills from where the Starbucks is downtown you'll come to a little footbridge over what I'm thinking of, don't know the street name, and I think it too has a walking path along it; in the same area, just south, is the pillar/column commemorating Chinatown. Shots of downtown Penticton would be cool to get too, if you ese anything worth taking a pic of; there's the Ogopogo statue on the Lake Okanagan shoreline, maybe it's already in teh Ogopogo article though...Skookum1 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You might be thinking of Penticton Creek; it flows into the lake at 49°30′16″N 119°35′27″W / 49.50444°N 119.59083°W / 49.50444; -119.59083, not the river. Oh yeah forgot, someone finally put a picture of the OK River on its article; it was about time. By the way, why has so much of the river been diverted into channels above the US Border? AndrewEnns (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm leaving in a few hours. Here are all the things I hope to take pictures of for Wikipedia:

Just remember, I will probably only get to take pictures of maybe half of that list. If this is a perfect world, I get them all but this ain't a perfect world! I'll do my best. By the way, am I spelling Okanagan the Canadian or American way? AndrewEnns (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadian - the American version has two o's. It's used for the river article bercause the majority of its length is in the US (if not the majority of its basin).Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver Island Exploring Expedition

Have been meaning to do this for a while. Any cats to add or corrections/additions to make? --KenWalker | Talk 07:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Maple Leaf Award

A Barnstar!
The Golden Maple Leaf Award
Thanks Skookum1, we're really fortunate that you're a Canadian. Keep up all the great work. Ϫ 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak now official (2 wks min)

This is the blurb I'd had on my userpage:

This is a notice of an impending wikibreak, maybe a short one, maybe longer, beginning Saturday July 18, 2009, of indeterminate length. I've been uprooted and am going to go for an adventure...probably to Labrador and points between until some time in August. If you have anything urgent you want to assail me with before I head out, please put it on the menu and I'll see what I can do. No big projects please, I've got enough that I'd rather have finished before this had to happen, ranging from improving the British/British Columbian/Canadian perspectives/POV on the Alaska and Oregon boundary dispute articles, the renaming/fixing of various categories, monitoring various BC political and history articles for "political spamming" and the massive work yet to be done on the Outline of British Columbia. I will NOT be logging into Wikipedia during my sojourn into the bush country, but will likely log in to my email a couple of times a week if there's anything urgent. Those of you who hate my guts are welcome to gloat in my absence but I hope my wiki-friends monitor my user and talkpages for signs of vandalism or just downright insultingness ;-). I'll be back around later in the fall, but am anticipating global adventures through the course of the winter so will be taking a much longer wikibreak then....other than adding pictures etc on places I may get to.....brave souls who take on the much-needed updating to the BC Legislature Raids article and its cousins/stepchildren will receive a wikistar for valour; I've avoided doing them because on the one hand it's so damned massive to update/cover, and on the other it's hard for me not to be POV......that's all for now, amendments to this once Saturday comes...

I'm off to Labrador via Matane-Sept Isles, think I'll be taking the traing Sept Isles-Wabush/Labrador City. Might come back via Belle Isle/Gros Morne/L'Anse Aux Meadows/Port aux Basques....have to be back in Hali at the start of August so only a brief adventure, but I'll mostly be offline. Anything urgent pls email me, though I will be checking in when possible. Any pic requests or needed local info on anything on my route please ask and I'll try and fulfill, battery life permitting...Skookum1 (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

creating reqphoto categories

Ahhh.. I was responding to this when my computer crashed and I forgot all about it. I just added {{Reqphoto}} which adds a redlink category at the bottom, which I clicked on and created with Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in British Columbia. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Beaver Pass

Hey Skookum, apologies for the move. I looked the name up on BCGNIS on the assumption it would be exhaustive. Guess not. I've created a disambiguation page at Beaver Pass as suggested. The Tom (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at AndrewEnns's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AndrewEnns (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

re Van diversity pie chart

Actually Whites/European origin are a minority (less than 50%) in Vancouver so it doesn't make sense to label them "not a visible minority" since there is no majority. TehranIran (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Only the census terminology is acceptable content; anything else is WP:Original research and/or WP:Synthesis. My bitch with the piechart is it doesn't show "invisible minorities" (or rather isn't one for all minorities - not just people of a given descent, but members of non-visible minority cultural/linguistic origins e.g. new Poles and Yugoslavs etc who have their own communities; current minority politics and defintions are race-based, ironically enough, given the secondary treatment it gives minorities other than the visible ones. But all that's my own opinion, and it can't go in an article, any more than your choice of terminology for the pie chart, which has to be what's on the source table....if you're so interested in pie charts, please make one for the ethnicities, not just visible minorities...Skookum1 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I fixed the issues with the chart and re-added the new version. A pie chart for ethnicities is not practical since it would have too many categories for cities such as Toronto and Vancouver. This is why Census Canada chose these categories. By the way, four of them are ethnicities (eg. Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Arab). TehranIran (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Which clearly is a politicized confusion of ethnicity vs. race.....the ethnicity pie charts need only have the top ten/fifteen ethnicities, with all the smaller ones as "other" or grouped by region, e.g. " (other) Slavic origins" ("other" because Yugoslavs, Poles, Russians may qualify in the top group), "Baltic origins", "Scandinavian origins" (which includes Finns) etc.....but proportions of Germans, Italians, Irish etc are important to represent in a city like Vancouver or a province like BC.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


I agree, but we will have to go by the Canada Census. TehranIran (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly, which is why German, Ukrainian and other large minorities can be shown individually and (other) Germanic origins and (other) Slavic origins can be shown as groupings, since Germanic origins, Slavic origins, Mediterranean origins etc are already Census Canada groupings.Skookum1 (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper Editing

I noticed you did some changes to the Status of First Nations treaties in British Columbia which is great but remember that you need to make a wikilink you need to have two [[]] brackets around the word groupings to create a successful link. You were only using one bracket. I recommend you check out Wikilinking for beginners for some helpful tips. -- Esemono (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're lecturing the wrong editor - look me up and you'll find I have something somewhere over 40,000 edits. Rather than jumping down my throat like a newbie (as you also did below) you should just fix it and recognize a typo as a typo. I've been travelling and my laptop has a sticky board, so dropped characters might occur. Next time you find a typo, don't be so prepared to leap down somebody's throat....and I have a VERY large throat. I recommend you check the background of another editor before presuming to lecture them next time.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Whooo calm down. I was just trying to helpful. I just assumed that because you made the same newbie mistake like five times and then failed to see your mistake that you were a new editor. But you know what they say, If you assume you make an ass out of you and me! So take some deep breaths and relax because I did clean up your piping mistakes. I also followed your advice and created probably around twenty First Nation articles ( hopefully they won't get deleted right away! Fingers crossed! ) Then after you get your panties unbunched you'll also see that I went back and added NA templates to the newly created articles talk pages just like you told me too. I also came across some images that I uploaded to the commons but am unsure what specific First Nation they are so don't know where to put them:

So again sorry didn't mean to offend you, lets improve these articles like a team! -- Esemono (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The first one is Slavey, the others are all Danezaa/Dunneza (see talk page of one of those, re name of article issue for wherever Beaver people/Beaver language redirect....one appears to be an alberta spelling, the other is the BC spelling, i.e. the ethno-correct one; User:Billposer may be able to resolve that issue...aS to which First Nation-in-the-sense-of-particular band, that's almost impossible to know; but band and community / reserve articles would be better illustrated by images of modern people, rather than archival ones which work better imo on ethnogrphic and language/history articles....and doln't take my sharp writing style as anger, it's just "pith and vinegar"....Skookum1 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please add {{NorthAmNative}} and {{WikiProject Canada}} with appropriate bc=yes, yt=yes, nt=yes etc switches to all the FN-related articles you've created, and see my new notes on Talk:Status of First Nations treaties in British Columbia. And please don't mis-pipe things to wrong-target articles; e.g. Cape Mudge Indian Band needs an article and so should be seen as a redlink; directing it to Hamatla Treaty Society is incorrect. Bluelinks for the sake of bluelinks is counter-productive. What you could do is make all the remaining band government stubs, using existing ones as templates....most un-made ones are in the Kwakwaka'wakw and Dakelh areas....Skookum1 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

While you've gotten away with it for a while sooner or later someone is going to come around and start deleting your First Nation Stubs for either lack of content or lack of Notability. To prempt that I was creating central articles were multiple First Nations were mentioned thus hopeful able to avoid AfD. -- Esemono (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Any such AfD would fail; deleting a band government article/stub is like deleting a country or a state/province, deleting an ethno article on the grounds of notability is anti-anthropological (all ethnicities are separately notable). Guidelines on the breakdown of band/ethno/language articles have ben lengthily discussed in {{NorthAmNative}}, and in two years of those stubs' existence nobody until now has challenged their existence; the idea was to put in place an infrastructure of articles which could be fleshed out by local or other contributors, and to delineate the distinction between government, people and language articles. "What I've gotten away with" is a proper cataloguing/categorizing of the complex map of BC and other PacNW indigenous peoples; and many of the stubs, such as teh Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwaka'wakw ones, have indeed taken root. Again, deleting/AfD'ing a people or a government is not likely to succeed simply on the premise that the article is only a stub, i.e. a basic definition. If you aren't aware of the many articles where multiple indigenous peoples are already listed/tableized I suggest you look around more; and rather than complain about the stubs, why don't you just expand some of them????Skookum1 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What mountain is this?

Hi Skookum. The image you see here I took while I was standing on the Rock Creek Canyon Bridge, itself worthy of an article (it's like 900-1000 feet log & some 273 feet above small Rock Creek). In the background is a mountain as you can see. You were suggesting that, while driving between Osoyoos & Rock Creek, I snap a shot of Anarchist Mountain. Is that mountain Anarchist? If it is this image is going to it's Wiki-Home (I don't think I have to name what that is)!

???Anarchist???

By the way, I'm sorry that the picture is so blurry. I think it is the haze from the fires in Kelowna. AndrewEnns (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

which direction were you facing? If north/northwest, it's probably Little Baldy, where the mini-ski resort is. anarchist would be, I think , SW of Rock Creek, I'[ll look at Basemap.Skookum1 (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually didn't take it from the town of Rock Creek but I took it from the Rock Creek Canyon Bridge, a very cool & high bridge. I just looked on Google Earth & you're right; it's just Baldy. I don't think Baldy has an article though but i aint't the answer to that. Anyhow, I didn't have a map with me ( a proper one at least) so I wondered if that was Anarchist. AndrewEnns (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Mount Baldy Ski Area exists, but there's a call for a separate mountain article from the ski resort article...it appears that Anarchist is a southern subpeak of Mt Baldy, and is north of the highway, not south of it; more of a ridge-point than a real peak....it's only gazetted as a peak, by rights it should be gazetted at least as a locality as well, with the locality in the area of the highway; I'll take it up with BCGNIS folks, who I'm in contact with, at some point....for now that article is both a cmomunity and a mountain article....in the same area was CAm p McKinney, hence the name of the road to Baldy, which as a really rich gold camp earlier in the 20th Century..>(one of the very richest).Skookum1 (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
In that case I'm glad I made the decision to keep that image... I was going to either leave it with no tag & let it get deleted on its own or was going to ask an admin to delete it but I can see it was a wise decision to not do either. By the way, I think I will make an article for the bridge; it is a pretty damn high & impressive bridge; you don't come across these every day. AndrewEnns (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of Pauline Johnson

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Pauline Johnson/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kittil Falls

Hey Skooks, have you ever heard of Kittil Falls? I was looking through a road atlas I it showed a small recreation site at the falls, which may or may not be on the McGregor River (it may be on the unnamed stream that enters there since, looking at Google Earth, the water on the river appears to be calm & flat there). It is located at around 54°05′19″N 121°10′38″W / 54.08861°N 121.17722°W / 54.08861; -121.17722, either on the river or an unnamed tributary. Bryan Swan doesn't know of it & it isn't in BCGNIS however it is marked on a road atlas. Something's fishy here... don't you think? I typed it in on Google & the only thing that came up was a list of recreation areas in that area (the Fraser Valley above Prince George is the area I'm talking about) & sure enough the falls were amongst the long list. Nothing more though. That is all it said. If there is a recreation site there, why isn't it better known? You'd think it would find it's way onto the net. I mean seriously, it's on a road atlas but not in BCGNIS or anything... WTF? Got info?

Speaking of waterfalls, I think you can see that based on several detailed reports I've written on them that I have officially become the first person to fully (maybe not fully but thoroughly) scout Similkameen Falls & report it to the net. Too bad the same hasn't happened with Kittil! I can't wait to tell Bryan about that one by the way. Alright, I'm tired & I really got to just get off & go to bed... goodnight. AndrewEnns (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There are tons of un-gazetted falls in BC that have local names and appear on various maps and local guides; I won't even start listing them here, there's so many. Some quite well know, e.g. Crown Lake Falls in Marble Canyon, or Marshall Falls, a small "spout" adjacent to Road 40 where Marshall Creek enters Carpenter Lake, or Hurley Falls just below Bralorne (which someone from that area I'll get a photograph of; it's quite large...); there's Rainbow Falls on Rainbow Creek in Whistler, also, among others in that area (though that maybe is in BCGNIS, I'm not sure). The main thing is citability, even if it's only a Ministry of Forests recreation map....usually there's more than that. In the case of Kittil Falls, I can tell you that's most likely a Chinook Jargon name - from "kettle", or quasi-jargon anyway as that could simply be a loan word in the Sekani language rather than via CJ, which is (I think) rare in that area). BTW "Fraser Valley" is not the right way to refer to that area - the Robson Valley, note Category:Robson Valley. Anyway, just because something's not in BCGNIS doesn't mean it's not official, or doesn't exist; the provincial gazette/crown registry (BCGNIS/Basemap) is only one of many possible sources. Ultimately there's hundreds of named waterfalls in BC, and thousands of unnamed ones.Skookum1 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of Hurley Falls, how big is it? I suppose it might deserve an article? I've heard it is hard to see because of trees. Byran has Marshall on his database although I've never seen a picture of it. Is Hurley the spout (have a look at Google Earth) at 50°47′29″N 122°50′23″W / 50.79139°N 122.83972°W / 50.79139; -122.83972? There are also several other spots upstream & downstream of that spot that look waterfallish. AndrewEnns (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've only been to it once, & we'd approached it from Honeymoon Hollow/The Loop, which is the neighbourhood of Bralorne on the west side of Cadwallader Creek which was a spur off "the old Hurley" (the old Hurley Main FSR that is). That FSR doesn't show on Basemap; the best view of it will be from the FSR on the north side of the river, which you get to by taking the turn in that direction at the bottom of the descent from/ascent to the Gywneth Lake plateau; gonna be real rough, jeep or bike only; looks like it faces the falls from the north. I'm not good at estimating heights, but you could try writing the folks at http://www.bridgerivervalley.ca and see if they would know; they might be willing to donate a pic There used to be a very rough though unmapped forestry campsite at the end of the road from the Loop. The HUrley's a big river, so vlume-wise anyway it's large; and fairly high but I couldn't see hte bottom from where we were, and it was in heavy shade at the time. There's a big falls on Piebiter Creek, also another on Hawthorne Creek, and much of Cadwallader between Pioneer and Bralorne is a "staircase" of small falls; I think there's a falls on Noel Creek, just above the confluecne with Cadwallader , also....
It sucks you don't known how to estimate heights well. Oh well, I will go see for myself. Now, sites say Hurley is located below the confluence with Cadwalladar but (by the way, I'm using Google Earth again) there doesn't appear to be anything more than rapids below there. There appears to be some stuff going on just above though. There are like 3 major spots that look like waterfalls with cascades & rapids in between in a stretch of about 0.9 that ends at the mouth of Cadwalladar. The biggest drop looks like it is at least 30 feet high & I gave you the coordinates in my last post but there are 2 others just above & they appear to be quite significant. I really don't think the falls are below the mouth of Cadwalladar, I think they must be above. A look at the 0.9 stretch above the creek's mouth on GE will do the talking. I believe that the falls are said to be one drop but for all we know they just haven't been fully discovered yet. HMMMM...
I did find the falls on Piebiter & Hawthorn Creeks though. The one on Piebiter looks like a long, continuous, sliding cascade that is likely very hard to view because it is so long & often surrounded by what looks like thick brush (the best way to explore that one is probably by helicopter) & the one on Hawthorn looks like a very impressive horsetail with major cascades above & below. At most, both these ones are about 800-900 feet. The horsetail part on Hawthorn looks impressive on GE even so I cannot imagine how impressive it is in real life. It's probably easily from the bridge over the creek below it on Kingdom Lake FSR & may be possible to access closely from the Hawthorn Creek Trail, which is on the creek's west side. Didn't find anything on Noel Creek though. By the way, why is the road that follows Cadwalladar Creek up to it's headwaters called Kingdom Lake FSR? Kingdom Lake is located closer to Gold Bridge than anywhere, yet the road goes by that name all the way up the creek valley. Strange. AndrewEnns (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
FSR roadnames are all new and often nonsensical; the West Pavilion Road is now the Slok Creek FSR and it goes way past Slok Creek (used to be Red Creek) almost to Watson Bar Creek. In the case of Kingdom Lake (used to be Kingdome, though still pronounced the same way), the plateau between that lake and the drop-off to the gorge of the Cadwallader-Hurley is known as the Kingdom Lake Plateau, which helps explain that name. The falls on Piebiter, when I saw them, were hidden by tree cover and not likely to be seen from the air, but were just below the lip of the hanging valley. Hawthorne's I never got a good look at, just know they're there. If you go up that way, Kingdom Lake is stunning to camp at, but if it's got gorbies with RVs take the trail from the south end of the lake to Fairy Lake/Noel Lake, a couple hundred yards south. Both have huge rock crags towering over them; which in winter have a bunch of icefalls and such because of seepage; I think there's a small falls at the outlet of Truax Creek's hanging valley; and if you view Mt Sloan from either of the Gun Lakes there's a beautiful little string-fall coming from that hanging valley, though the scenery is marred by ugly logging gashes. Various waterfalls on all the ways into that country, whether via the Hurley or up the Bridge River from Lillooet, and Whitecap Falls in Seton Portage is large and worth a visit, and there's a falls at the outlet of the hanging valley of Lost Valley Creek.Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Spotted Lake

Hey Skookum, I'm looking to make a stub on a really cool lake near Osoyoos called Spotted Lake. It is a saltwater lake. It is visible from the highway but one cannot go check it out because it is on private property. Anyhow, I'm planning on making a stub for it. Is is the only saltwater lake in BC? I want to mention if it is the only one but I'm not sure if it is? Do you know? AndrewEnns (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you find a source that says it's the only saltwater lake in BC, you just can't say that; it's WP:Original research. And I have my doubts about it - isn't it just an alkali lake? In which case there are lots of them. Also along the coast there might be lakes with high salt content from being tidal in some way, I'm not sure. As far as alkali lakes go, the Cariboo is full of them, also the Peace District and I wouldn't be surprised in the Omineca Country either; and elsewhere in the Okanagan; there's a few near Hwy 97 just south of Clinton and some more over by Jesmond/Big Bar....Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that. I'll ask on the WikiProject Lakes disussion page. Or you can, if you desire. AndrewEnns (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Aitchelitz First Nation

That took you 30min? Wow, you do have a sticky keyboard. Don't worry though I cleaned up your mistakes in article again. Here is a great article with some helpful tips for Using ref tags. Of the over 40 FN articles I've created in the last couple of days I always make sure to correctly create the article. Don't worry though everyone makes mistakes! Have fun editing! -- Esemono (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Snotty insults instead of apologies and fixes...are you a teenager? See my reply on your talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
OK take deep breathes, I understand how learning new editing tricks can make you frustrated! I've been there! But you don't have to worry I'm sure you'll catch up to the amount of First Nation government articles I've made. Remember its not a race! Good luck! And maybe use the show preview button before finishing your edit! Just a little advice to make things easier for everyone. -- Esemono (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You're an insulting and irrelevant fool. Have a look at the creation logs for the bulk of BC band government articles, particularly the Tsilhqot'in, St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Okanagan and Secwepemc ones, plus a lot of the Kwakwaka'wakw, Central Coast, Nuu-chah-nulth and Tahltan ones, plus a score of templates. You don't know who the bloody hell you're being patronizing to. Mahsh opoots maika.Skookum1 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
and do those references so properly, as you insist was a "mistake" of mine for doing them in basic form.
Actually the mistake you made was surrounding your ref with the end tag </ref> tags when you should first use the <ref> tag THEN the </ref> at the end of the ref. But hey if you don't use references in your articles it's simple to make an easy error like that. I do it all the time. -- Esemono (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Instead of bein g a patronizing sophomore about ref formatting, if you're so picky just fix it and while you're at it, when creating articles, why don't you use the RIGHT references and the RIGHT names?? The ref you had for Acho Dene Koe was the Lyackson First Nation on Vancouver Island; and you created a parallel article to Dehcho First Nations in the form Deh Cho First Nations Tribal Council. And calling the Tlowitsis government "Tlowitsis Yribe" was downright yanqui, and placing them in the Georgia Strait instead of where they are (Johnstone Strait-eastern Queen Charlotte Strait) was just downright dumb. I note you've put First Nations at the head of your projects list. Why don't you educate yourself some first before going off half-cocked creating articles and topics you haven't fully researched and clearly know very little about???. Being picayune over web reference formatting is just twaddle by comparison to CONTENT.Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Penelakut First Nation

By the way a couple of days ago when I was creating a bunch of FN articles I created Penelakut First Nation. It was created before but was deleted a while ago because it was a stub and had no content. We should keep an eye on it in case the admin who deleted it before decide to delete it again ... I'm pretty sure it's Penelakut First Nation, I've made quite a few new articles so it gets confusing. -- Esemono (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indian Wars

I'm inclined to agree with your suggestion that the article be reverted back to the redirect, but I'm interested in whether the originator has plans to expand the new article into an actual expansion of the specific time period he seems to be interested in. I think the major problem with doing that, however, is the fact that there are already several articles that already have spun off from the main article (i.e. Texas-Indian Wars, Sand Creek Massacre, Sioux Wars, Great Sioux War of 1876-77, Battle of Little Big Horn, and Wounded Knee Massacre. If the case is made to retain the new article, then the issue would be coming up with a proper name, different from the current one, for the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A barrage of newbie stubs

It's become very clear that you have no idea of the subject matter, and are just mining your way through the Executive Council of BC (aka the cabinet's) website and don't have a clue where most of these places are, or who the people are, or anything else. You obsess over proper formatting of refs, but insist on using a deprecated template for same; and your English is atrocious, your geography worse. I've come to the ocnclusion that you're a troll who enjoys making other people pick up after you. No number of DYK's in a row will excuse you for the bad/sloppy content you've made; if you can't make articles properly, don't make them at all (no matter how format-formal the cites are).Skookum1 (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

D'uhhh obviously I have no idea of the subject matter I'm just doing what you told me to, killing the red links. It's OK if you don't understand how to use references, it took me a long time to get them right too. If the proper reference format is too difficult for you I would stick to the simple naked links that you use, it's much easier for the beginner editor but don't get discouraged! Keep at it! Don't give up! Just because you can't do a basic reference doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying! Maybe look at the help files on references that I listed above. I'll try to do a better job with spelling, I know I'm really bad. -- Esemono (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Response

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Indian_Wars_is_out_of_line_-_POV_fork Fred Talk 14:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List of First Nations governments in British Columbia

You probably noticed but I added some First Nations to the list. So fill in the rest of the information or remove Nations I added that you don't like. -- Esemono (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

You will be happy to know I sent that annoying little troll (Esemono) a little message that told him to stop his immature bitching. Keep up the good work & just don't bother wasting your time on that moron, I made sure I point out you have several banners & he has a lonely 0!:) AndrewEnns (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Sorry Skookum1 I didn't know I hurt your feelings so much, I was just trying to help you out! I was just trying to give you a little advice, no need to get your daddy to come and post threatening posts on my talk page. I also didn't realize you had so many banners wow, you are a such a special person, I wish I had as many banners as you! -- Esemono (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Threatening comments? You must be joking, right? I'm saying just do whatever work you're doing & leave him alone. And don't start on the daddy thing... you only sound like a fool. Those comments were not threatening & saying I'm his daddy is throwing gasoline on the fire. I'm not his daddy I'm his friend. You need to think before saying. AndrewEnns (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm 53....old enough to be you grandfather, Esemono. Skookum1 (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
And you're incapable of hurting my feelings; you're an amateur at verbal wounding - you have no idea, you are simply too young and/or too jejune to be taken seriously. What you are is a nuisance and a waste of time; better to make articles properly or not make them at all. You've been creating things with the wrong geography, wrong information, incorrect cites, and a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter and the sensitivities involved. You have a perfect right to waste your own time. You do not have a right to waste mine, or that of other people. As I said elsewhere, I've come to the conclusion you enjoy creating messes so you can watch other people pick up after you; you must have done that for your mother, no doubt. Placing coastal FN bands in the Peace Country cannot have been a mistake; it was willful sabotage; creating parallel articles, such as Deh Cho/Decho, also seems unlikely to have been a mistake but rather something you knew would take some work for someone else to sort out. Now engaging in taunting, as you have done with patronizing insults from the very start, is going to merit attention from an admin at some point. I suggest you grow up and learn to be a good Wikipedian. Apologize for mistakes, no tongue-in-cheek smart-ass comments, and stop making buggered-up articles about subject matter that's too important for a little troll like you to dare wade into. There's a lot of big fish in Wikipedia, I daresay I'm one of them, especially in certain fields but also in terms of wiki-procedure for dealing with troublesome conduct and "nuisance editors"....smarten up or get lost OK?Skookum1 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ya seriously, saying stuff like "I know it is tough when you are new here" is just spoilin' for a fight, especially when you run into someone like Skookum who takes his work here seriously. Do what he says: Create your articles properly & quit bugging him about newbie mistakes that nothing more than simple typing errors. If you want to engage in a real discussion with him, go ahead but none of the newbie mistake remarks because that is not fair to say to an established editor who has tons of edits under his belt. I would not be acting like he is a newbie because you sound like a dumbass... he is far from it! AndrewEnns (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your tank

Hi there! I posted on the Tank talkpage, but thought I'd give you a courtesy notice here as well. That tank you took a photo of is an M4 Sherman, the mainstay of the Allied armies from about 1943 onwards, and might well be an upgraded Sherman Firefly from the barrel length. It's an excellent picture, by the way - are you a photographer by profession? Skinny87 (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was, long ago, but mostly I have an eye for frame and angle....this was taken "over the fence" with the iPhone held high and I could barely see what was in frame, though; this was the best of four or five shots. Hot sunny day; took it as an afterthought after snapping the pic of the turrets behind it seen on Halifax Armoury.Skookum1 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This, and the photo of the armoury, are remarkably sharp for a camera in a cell phone. Both look great! -KenWalker | Talk 01:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at Talk:List of crossings of the Fraser River.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AndrewEnns (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BC location map

You may test the map if the projection is right but after having made about 150 of these I think it will. :-) This map is part of a project of several mapmakers in different WP projects who use the same style for every map to improve location maps in WP. One thing is showing the next subdivision of every area. If these subdivisions in BC have only a small meaning then this isn't the best solution but first of all it is not wrong. I'm not able to produce different style maps for every region of the world. Starting with streets in one map would be the starting point for endless discussions about every other location map and I am especially the wrong person to discuss WP's general classification system. As long as this one exists I am bound to it and will not start something new.

In a first step administrative maps of all countries are made and sometimes of subdivisions of special countries, right now it is Canada. I don't have the manpower to produce 200 location maps for the countries and x subdivision maps PLUS terrain-based one. Unfortunately most users want/demand different maps but they are unable to make them so in the end it is just me and one or two others who shall do it. I can upload a version without the RD if you want to but I won't do the rest. Otherwise you may return to the previous map. NNW (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have made the terrain-based map a long time ago, or would have "stretched" one of the existing ones (e.g. on Clear Range or Chilcotin Ranges) to the right projection, if I knew how. I much prefer your new map to the old RD-only one, as the RD boundaries are downplayed; but I would prefer not to see them at all, as they are inappropriate for Indian Reserves (which are not subject to RD governance, like so much else) and also for places that pre-exist the creation of regional districts (1966-67) or for which RDs are superfluous "administrative fictions", as with provincial and federal parks. So yes, if you would please upload a version without the RD boundaries overlay, the river-layout is more than sufficient. The highways network someone did make a map of, though it resembles the old RD-based map in style and doesn't "work"; highways in BC are terrain-dependent by necessity so again, if I knew how to stretch one of the existing terrain maps to the right projection I would have done so long ago.Skookum1 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Canada British Columbia (no subdivisions) location map.svg is now available. You have to find a map using an Equirectangular projection. Otherwise it is a bit complicated. NNW (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks great - is there a way I can highlight individual rivers i.e. for use on their respective pages. I guess paint/replace functions in most imaging programs would do it huh? I'll try and find, or generate maybe, a terrain-based equirectangular projection if I can ever figure out how to adapt geodis data....Skookum1 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You can do it with every program which is able to deal svg: Illustrator or Inkscape or... It's even possible to do it with a simple text editor if you know which text element is what element in the map. NNW (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. What's the coord-format for pushpin locators? Same as the "coord" template or??Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's a question. It's a little bit different in every project so I'm not sure how exactly it works here. NNW (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll find a page that uses them and adapt; so far I've found custom-made locator images. ,e.g on Princeton, British Columbia and other town articles; once I find one that uses the pushpin system I'll just adapt them all, gonna be lots of work replacing them all once I figure it out.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Nazko Cone! The rest is work in progress... NNW (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to intrude. The old map was indeed awful and way offline. This map should be much more accurate and consistent, not to mention being of a much higher quality. P.S. you have the same interest in composers as I do, although Chopin is favourite, I am still trying to play raindrop on the piano in D flat major!! I'm a guitarist but I've recently picked up piano agian which I learned as a kid. Anyway changing the existing maps to pushpin shouldn't be too difficult but may take some time. I'll give you a hand, but it could be done easily with a bot... Himalayan 15:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out Nazko Cone now. Looks good? Himalayan 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This edit has me wondering again why you did that.... Most mountains on here these days use the maps which displays subdivisions.. The most important thing is that they show where in British Columbia it is.. I understand your argument that volcanoes not subject to RD zoning regulations but still... Himalayan 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand how to insert the map and came up with template-gobbledygook; review the edits before that one and tell me what I did wrong; what I thought was "File:: somehow involved a template expression; I must be using the filename wrong. "Most mountains on here...use maps which display subdivisions is BECAUSE THE WRONG MAP/CONCEPT HAS BEEN BEING USED, and because only RD-maps with push-pin locators have been made available; call it organizational inertia; someone a long time ago decided to use RDs as if they were meaningful geographic regions of British Columbia. They are not, and I'm trying to correct that problem by asking for maps which don't have RD boundaries on them for use with things that don't have anything to do with RDs......Skookum1 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are maps with RDs which a problem with you Skookum1? Most maps I seen have regional districts and who cares if they are on maps. The map still shows where the mountain/volcano is located. BT (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Because they look wrong AND because classifying things by regional dist5ict which the sources do NOT is WP:Original research. Regional districts are one of about 20 different types of subdivision of British Columbia, many much more meaningful and in governmental terms much more powerful. It doesn't matter spit that Tatlatui Provincial Park of the Kemess Mine is in the Peace River Regional District; what matters is that they're in the Omineca Mountains; and even the construction permits for the Kemess Mine are run through the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, not through the regional district - who I'll bet hasn't sent a bylaw officer west of Lake Williston during the entire time of the RD's existence; likewise the Omineca Resource Road, which was built without RD involvement or funding. Mountains belong on maps of mountain ranges, not on maps of abstract boundaries that nobody except Wikipedians think in terms of. They're on so many maps because long ago somebody wanted to find something like counties are in the US and Ontario etc, but even there the comparison falls down; counties have much broader powers and things like health boards, school boards, police jurisdeictions etc are defined by them; this is not the case with RDs, nowhere near it. RDs are a very weak form of municipal governance, limited to building permits and pretty much not much else other than running (maybe and only maybe) a garbage dump and, when they have them, regional parks. They are irrelevant to public governance EXCEPT for small areas of jurisdiction; and they are irrelevant to the geography-as-geography. It doesn't matter squat that the Unuk River Cones are in the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine; what matters is that they're in the Stikine Country; it doesn't matter diddly that the Rainbow Range and Itch-Ilgachuz, either as park or mountain range, are in the Cariboo Regional District; what matters is that they're in the Chilcotin. Regional districts are no more valid as classifiers of objects than electoral districts of Counties of British Columbia are. This is why I've been stripping RD categories, which have been given far too much importance, of anything that the regional district doesn't have jurisdiction over: schools, IRs, hospitals, mountains, lakes, provincial/national parks. The use of RD-based maps to lcoate things is cokmplete a Wiki-anomaly, not borne out in the real world.Skookum1 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, that is what I was thing as well before. I might be able to take the RDs off the BC location map. BT (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
NordNordWest already did - File:Canada British Columbia (no subdivisions) location map.svg.Skookum1 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I did not recognize NNW's link above. I'll go ahead and add the non-RD map on mountain/volcano articles. BT (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Four Corners (Canada)

Hey there Skookum, I must disagree about that article being a candidate for speedy deletion. I really think it should be taken to AfD. -- Ϫ 02:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please start the AFD then. I see it only as geo-trivia and without any meaning or context outside of the corner-to-corner pointbagger" fansite that created the page; "Four Corners" is not a recognized name in this context in Canada, and is certainly unofficial. The presence of an aluminium [sic] border-marker is irrelevant (there are obelisks all along the 49th Parallel, too, that doesn't make them notable). Another piece of geo-trivia I found tonight is in the lede to Kerguelen Islands; see my comments on Talk:Kerguelen Islands.Skookum1 (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be an article.. I just didn't want you to get shut down for improper csd tagging, some admins over-react sometimes to that. Anyways there's already mention of a Canadian "four corners" at Quadripoint#National. I think the best option would be just to merge whatever else may be pertinent and then redirect. -- Ϫ 02:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
See my new comment on Talk:Quadripoint, which is also original research and also should be shutdown, likewise "tripoint". These terms don't even exist in geometry or topology, they're pure point-bagger geotrivia and have no academic relevance or real meaning; one line in Quadripoint even says "at present there are no national boundaries forming quadripionts" or something like that; utterly inane; almost by definition they could only exist within countries because national boundaries don't get laid out in nice rectangular grids; it's bunk, bunk, bunk and doesn't deserve to have a Wikipedia page; the only reason this Four Corners "place" is mentioned on that page is because the same point-bagger who created the one page added it to the other.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
To me it sounds like an apt term, a simple compound word combining quad (four) and, quite simply.. point. I hear ya though that it could be just a protologism and not used anywhere by any geographers, however, now that it's already tagged, the better course of action would be to give it some time for it to be discussed and perhaps someone may find a reliable source for that term. It must be the inclusionist in me talking but I always look for alternatives first and only call for deletion as a last resort. :) -- œ™ 03:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
As you say, it's a protologism, and is not "in geography" as the lede to that article claims; Thingamajig is a commonly-used word, and even it is only a redirect....Quadripoint should redirect to point-bagging or some such article about geo-trivia fanaticism/bumpf. Treating it as if it were an existing in-use term, common in the language, is "false pretenses" and, I think you'd agree, thats i not encyclopedic; it's trying to make something real/common that isn't. That's not what Wikipedia is for.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

1933 BC election results

Hi,

I just checked British Columbia general election, 1933 and there are two Liberal MLAs missing from the results (there wer three originally but I've added one). I can't find the source material so I'm wondering if you can go back and rectify this. The one I was able to find was from a mulitmember constituency that had 3 MLAs rather than 2. Perhaps the other missing MLAs are also from MMCs? 65.95.118.13 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to re-research it; but *Electoral History of BC 1871-1986, Elections BC is the main reference, which is what all those pages and the riding pages were built from.Skookum1 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

List of mines in Canada

Not sure if you saw but I created it, I have been mainly filling in from the Categories, which are grossly incomplete. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at Rosiestep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rosiestep (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BC redux

Re: Settlers, all it means is "these people were in both Category:Settlers of Canada and Category:People from British Columbia. Whether it's the appropriate word for the Category:Settlers tree in general isn't within my capacity to decide, or my responsibility to answer for, but it's either valid everywhere or invalid everywhere — it isn't perfectly valid everywhere else and invalid only in British Columbia.

Re: Categories, you're still misunderstanding me. There isn't any wikirule stating that a category can never exist without a head article to "validate" it (and even if there were, a "list of X" wouldn't count anyway.) I'll try to explain this again: regarding the region/land district categories you want, the issue is that until there are articles explaining them, most Wikipedia users have no way to know what they are and thus we can't do anything about it.

I cannot, for example, create all the necessary categories for you, because I don't know what all the necessary categories are. A user in Stavanger can't help recategorize the people if he has no way of finding out what person belongs in what region. A user in Chennai can't help recategorize the mountains if she has no way to find out what mountain belongs in what land district. A user in Buenos Aires isn't being helped if the article on Mount Whatchamacallit tells him it's in Oyster Land District, but then he has no way of finding out where Oyster Land District is in relation to Vancouver, the one part of BC he had ever actually heard of before clicking on Mount Whatchamacallit two minutes ago.

Which is why I keep telling you that you're wasting your time complaining about it instead of putting in the effort to create the relevant articles: not because there's any sort of rule preventing categories without head articles, but because (a) other editors can't do the recategorization work for you if we don't have the extensive background knowledge necessary to do it, (b) readers aren't being helped if we don't have any information about what an "Oyster Land District" is, or whether Kamloops is in the Okanagan or not, and on and so forth. Whereas if the articles existed, then Björn in Stavanger and Gita in Chennai and Bearcat in Toronto would be able to consult them, learn what belongs where, and help to create and populate the necessary categories, and Julio in Buenos Aires would get a useful sense of where Mount Whatchamacallit is. None of which, least of all me being able to do anything besides pointing you to WP:SOFIXIT, can happen as things currently stand — because Björn and Gita and Julio and Bearcat don't have the information necessary to do anything about it.

It's not about "rules" — it's about having access to the information necessary to actually do anything about it. There's no point in complaining to me about a situation that I can't fix for you without being given extra information that I don't currently have, is what I've been saying. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Spotted Lake

Hi Skookum. I haven't been on Wikipedia much lately but I, just minutes ago, created the Spotted Lake article I've been looking to create for quite a while now. In it is a lot of history, much of it First Nations. Since you are really good with First Nations history & well... history in general, could you look over it & make sure I didn't make any glaring errors? AndrewEnns (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In the tank

Re your pic here, if you haven't already, do upload to Commons. And if you're visiting the Armory, take your cam! Interior pix can be of interest, too. BTW, thanks a lot for the pic! It's a beaut. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not likely to get inside, though I guess I could ask....I've been watching for staff every time I walk by so I can find out the battle history of the tank; it's probably on-site expressly because it has a notable one. A friend from the gym works in the Citadel, was gonna ask him to take some courtyard/interior shots up there too...15:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

1126 New Articles

I was pleased when I checked and found that I have started several dozen articles. Then I looked at how many you have started. You are to be commended Skookum1. This is an astounding contribution especially when one browses and sees how many of these have turned into articles of significant value. Thank you and congratulations on a job well done! --KenWalker | Talk 07:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinatown

i don't have any hard stats handy. The City used to keep its own stats on neighbourhood demographics, etc., but hasn't for a while now, so I'm not sure the place for that now. Probably the 2006 census. I think it's safe to say the boundaries of Chinatown are Taylor to Gore and E Georgia to Pender, which I think is what the article says. Actual boundary markers are the chinatown gateway on Pender, and under the viaduct on Main south of Union is a red sign letting you know you're leaving historic Chinatown.
Although the majority of Strathcona's residents (i've heard 60%) are Chinese, it falls outside of Chinatown, i think because that shift only happened in the '50s. I have a book here called Chinatowns: Towns within Cities in Canada (David Chuenyan Lai, UBC Press 1988). He says Leonard Marsh's survey in the late '40s had 11% Chinese in Strathcona (this is the report that started calling the East End "Strathcona").
Lai writes: "Throughout the 1950s, an increasing number of Chinese people moved into Strathcona District partly because its house prices and rent were lower than those in other downtown areas and partly because it was adjacent to Chinatown. In 1957, the city's Housing Research Committee conducted a survey of the East End which revealed that nearly half the residents in Strathcona District were of Chinese origin. Thus, the district was perceived to be a residential section of old Chinatown whereas Old Chinatown itself, on the western side of Gore Avenue, was characterized by many two- or three-storied building with a mixture of commercial, residential, and institutional uses, both horizontally and vertically." (p. 126)
(Personally, I'd question whether Chinatown proper extended across Main Street to Gore until after WWII).
It seems to me the heart of Chinatown conflicts on Wikipedia have to do with some people conflating any area with a concentration of Chinese residents with Chinatown. In Vancouver proper, this would put the centre of Chinatown somewhere around 41st and Fraser, which i think illustrates how absurd it is to define it purely in demographic terms. Chinatown was initially a racial ghetto, but by the Jubilee celebrations of 1936, it was being recast as a cultural heritage/tourist area. Lai uses four classifications for Chinatowns: Old Chinatowns, New Chinatowns, Replaced Chinatowns, and Reconstructed Historic Chinatowns. Maybe something like this is needed on Wikipedia.
It appears the City of Vancouver only has Chinatown as a sub-district of the DTES, though it does have its own area on the site regarding revitalization. Another place to try might be docs about provincially designated heritage districts (both Chinatown and Gastown were designated in the early '70s; or was it the feds? bobanny (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at Piano non troppo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Response regarding response to editing "Chinatown, Vancouver" article

Skookum1, I am responding to your spirited message to me noted on Piano_non_troppo's talk page. Just for the record, I felt that the tone was vitriolic and entirely unnecessary, but that's clearly not the issue here.

First of all, my original message was a reply to "Emarsee" 's warning, and the same message was merely forwarded to "Piano_non_troppo" as editors. Piano_non_troppo had apparently made the initial comment or complaint, and I felt that I needed to answer his concerns. He then replied to me, I don't believe "Emarsee" had, and therefore, I thought he was taking charge of the situation. These were my first experiences with the Talk page, give me a break.

On the other hand, I thought that you were an ordinary Wikipedia user. I did NOT realize that you were an editor, otherwise I would not have made the statement about you being begrudging, and if I had known you were an editor, much less apparently a senior editor, I would have forwarded you a copy as well as a courtesy. So an olive branch from that standpoint.

Let's discuss the meat of the matter now. Face it, New York lends itself to superlatives at almost every turn, simply because its size and scale make that the case. However, I have specifically tried to ignore that fact and stick to numerical objectivity and justification in my edits, more so as time has passed. I rely heavily on the U.S. Census' own American Community Survey data - it's updated through 2007. I don't know how familiar you are with their website, perhaps very. That is about as authoritative a resource as is available regarding U.S. population data. Canadian census estimate figures appear to available through 2006, so still relatively recent. I have tried to justify every single statement recently with a reference to objective Census data, and I have always stated my rationale in the "edit summary" slot. (I still don't know how to logistically quote a reference with a link.)

Regarding the first line in the "Chinatown, Vancouver" article, let me first simply copy-paste this portion of my original message to "Emarsee" here:

"I propose that this line needs to be re-stated as, "Chinatown in Vancouver, British Columbia, is the largest Chinatown in Canada and one of the largest in North America." The allusions to the San Francisco and New York Chinatowns are absolutely inappropriate there and should be removed from that context. Such a statement as I propose contains integrity and would avoid and replace an irrelevant, numerically unsubstantiated, unreferenced, and almost certainly inaccurate phrase, including the relatively extreme superlatives. The appropriate idea to be conveyed is that Vancouver's Chinatown is indeed the largest in Canada and one of the largest in North America, rather than an imprecise comparison with other specific Chinatowns and even more significantly, a comparison BETWEEN two OTHER Chinatowns, certainly an inappropriate statement to be present in the first line of "Chinatown, Vancouver." Clearly, therefore, references to San Francisco's Chinatown as well as New York's "Chinatown" (by the way, which one in NYC? - there are multiple in the city proper alone) should be eliminated entirely from this context.

Furthermore, the phrase in question itself is clearly inaccurate, given that the Manhattan Chinatown of 2009 enumerates about 80,000 to 90,000 Chinese residents and is apparently experiencing a very recent resurgence of immigration from Fujian and Zhejiang Provinces in Mainland China, while San Francisco Chinatown's proper could have AT MOST (and unlikely) 60,000 such residents, if recent Census place/zip code estimates are an accurate indication. Additionally, it is important to note that Chinatown boundaries have further blurred in recent years as they have expanded, and there are no official Census counts for such "Chinatowns."

I have no vested interest in any of these issues, but I strongly feel that facts need to be updated when they change with time. Otherwise, editorial credibility is sacrificed.

Restating the line as I propose endows neutrality and integrity to the content of the article and strengthens it to encyclopedic quality. The line in its present form is absolutely invalid and unacceptable."

The above being said, let me now ask how the original statements regarding San Francisco's Chinatown and the "New York City Chinatown (which one?)" were even permitted in the first place into the FIRST line, with a DOMINANT level of weight, of an article about VANCOUVER's Chinatown? The population comparisons are numerically unsubstantiated, and there's a reason for that - they're simply numerically WRONG. Please find me even one authoritative RECENT numerical reference indicating that the population of SF's Chinatown proper is greater than that of Manhattan's. You won't be able to, because Manhattan's is far more DENSE - there are far more residents, and Chinese residents, per square block than in any other Chinatown in North America. I don't have the density numbers, and therefore, I haven't made any statement about density in any edit. And what is ANY comparison between Chinatowns in San Francisco and New York City doing in the first paragraph of an article (not to mention the opening line) about VANCOUVER's Chinatown?

The burden of proof is on those interested in maintaining a dubious and unqualified statement as status quo. It would be ridiculous to somehow suggest that the burden of proof lies with one who wants to replace a far-reaching statement with a neutral statement that is unequivocally accurate.

Let's be objective here. First of all, suggesting motives is uncalled for and clouds any sliver of objectivity so, with all due respect to you as an apparently senior editor, please drop that irrelevant line of thinking in this situation. The bottom line is that the status quo statement is hypothetical and incorrect, while re-stating it to say that Vancouver's CTown is the largest in Canada and one of the largest in North America is factual and a far more objective statment, and really supports what the article itself is supposed to be about! My statement actually supports and strengthens the article and lends it neutrality and integrity. In your messages on Piano_non_troppo's talk page, which I have since read, you yourself have noted that it is difficult to quantify populations of Chinatown propers and that you would be searching for references to support the line I want to replace. You also noted that some of the references were from Vancouver's own promotional interests and also suspected their current accuracy. So it really sounds like the original statements in the article were made to some extent on a whim, and now references are being sought retroactively in order to support this line of interest. Hmmm...

I request, respectfully so, that at least until authoritative RECENT numerical population references can be found to support the status quo statement, that serious consideration be given to replacing it with a more general but far more meaningful, accurate, PERTINENT, and RESPONSIBLE statement.

I also hope we can work together in good faith to make a better site here, with a certain amount of cordiality and respect due each contibutor as a human being.

Thank you.

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Rosenau article

Proposed deletion of Paul Rosenau

The article Paul Rosenau has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE test of notability, flagged for notability issue since May

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. KenWalker | Talk 02:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinook Jargon term Mi-me

Here's one for you. The Miami River (Oregon) in Oregon apparently gets its name from the Chinook Jargon phrase "mi-me chuck" (corrupted into the familiar "Miami" form). "Mi-me chuck" is said to mean "tributary stream" or "stream entering downriver", with "mi-me" basically meaning "downstream", according to Oregon Geographic Names. I hadn't heard this one before and don't see any mention of it at Chinook Jargon or List of Chinook Jargon placenames. I wondered what you would make of this. If it is true, any other "mi-me" derived place names around I wonder? Pfly (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that word normally occurs in the lexicons as mimie, can't recall exactly; there are some other in-canoe words like mahtlinnie, which is either offshore or inshore I can't remember which....it may only be a Columbia River-jargon term and not spread elsewhere; though there is a Miami River (only a tiny golf-course-type creek) at Harrison Hot Springs, I'd always thought it was a resort-evocation....noticed Meyers Chuck in Alaska the other day "Meyers' water", literally....gonna be quite a few of such names out there, and I'm always finding placenames like Tsee Creek, near Shalalth, which maybe aren't in the list yet (tsee is from "sweet" and is a reference to sugar, although in the case of a creek would mean fresh/potable....).Skookum1 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Logical sectioning of the Columbia River in BC

In working on the various rapids of the Columbia River I keep trying to organize them into logical sections. For the US portion I think I have it worked out. There's the Columbia Gorge section between Cascade Rapids and The Dalles/Celilo, then the section between Celilo and Priest Rapids (I think in the steamboat era these were called the "middle and "upper" Columbia; with the "lower" part being below Cascade Rapids). Then there's the Wenatchee Reach between Priest Rapids and Bridgeport. Then the section from Bridgeport to Northport (not sure if there's a good name for it though). From Northport up we get into BC and my certainty goes down. I'm thinking of some mixture of steamboat era divisions based on major rapids and regional names like Big Bend Country. I browsed through Template:Historical geographic regions of British Columbia and Template:Subdivisions of British Columbia (er, you know, with "regions", {{Subdivisions of British Columbia|regions=yes}}), but am still unsure (also, I note that Big Bend Country is not listed in either template). There seems to be overlapping or at least "hierarchical" aspects of Columbia Country, Columbia Valley, Kootenays, and... West Kootenay (no page for that I guess). So, I wondered what you thought of this idea of organizing the rapids into river sections like this, working upriver from Northport (or Marcus), Washington:

  • Northport (Marcus, Little Dalles) to Castlegar (Robson, Hugh Keenleyside Dam): Some of the sources I've been using call this area the "boundary country", but the Boundary Country page seems to be about areas more to the west. It seems to be the "West Kootenay" region, yes? Plus, of course, the US portion, which is usually called "Boundary", I think. So... Boundary/West Kootenay area? (although a specific region name is not required).
  • Castlegar to Revelstoke (Arrowhead?): This being the Arrow Lakes, would one say the "Arrow Lakes region", or perhaps the Arrow Lakes reach? It is still part of the West Kootenay region though, right? If so, would one use a term other than West Kootenay to refer only to the area below Arrow Lakes?
  • Revelstoke to Golden and beyond: Here I am stuck. It's a long way from Revelstoke to Golden and there are (were) a lot of rapids, so it seems like there ought to be a couple divisions at least. My first attempt was Revelstoke-Mica Dam, and Mica Dam-Golden. This makes sense today certainly, since Mica Dam and Kinbasket Lake are such major features. But perhaps a more historical approach would be better for rapids? In that case maybe Revelstoke-Boat Encampment/Canoe River makes sense. But then "Big Bend Country" seems an ideal term for the many rapids above and below Boat Encampment. Is it sensible to use the term Big Bend Country for the river all the way to Revelstoke? To Golden? The Columbia Valley page says that region is between Golden and Canal Flats, but some other page (I forget which) this was called the "upper" Columbia Valley. Could one organize rapids into three sections above Revelstoke: Revelstoke to Canoe River or Wood River or someplace around there (calling this "Big Bend"); then Canoe River or thereabouts to Golden (calling this the "Lower Columbia Valley Region"); then Golden to Columbia Lake ("Upper Columbia Valley")? OR! How about, Revelstoke to Dalles des Morts ("Lower Revelstoke Lake"? "Revelstoke Canyon"?), Dalles des Morts to Canoe or Wood River ("Big Bend"?), Canoe/Wood River to Golden ("Lower Columbia Valley"? "Kinbasket Lake"? "Columbia Reach of Kinbasket Lake"?), Golden to Columbia Lake ("Upper Columbia Valley"? Or just plain "Columbia Valley"?).

Anyway, ....thoughts? I've been enjoying researching this topic. Sooo many rapids. I just discovered a few between Golden and uppermost Kinbasket Lake (perhaps the ones you had mentioned earlier), including Brinkmans Terror Rapids--what a name! Pfly (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, doesn't surprise me that Trail-Waneta-Castlegar was also called Boundary Country, or "the boundary", but that may date from the days when the Boundary Country as it is meant now was more populous and more important and when Trail/Rossland was largely an adjunct/extension of the industrial complex that was Grand Forks/Greenwood et al. Today "West Kootenay-Boundary" would definitely include Grand Forks etc and there's no need in this context, and "West Kootenay" is just fine as a region description for Castlegar-Trail, though that term includes Nelson-Salmo as well as the rest of Kootenay Lake, the Slocan and Arrow Lakes. But it doesn't really include Revelstoke (which has been called "the North Kootenay" though very rarely). I'd go with simple point-to-point names, US Border to Upper Arrow Lake (or Arrowhead), Arrowhead to Mica Dam, Mica Dam to Golden, and Golden is the beginning of the region we call "the Columbia Valley", which is also part of the East Kootenay....but to describe it I'd just say "Golden to Columbia Lake". The northern division point can be either Mica Creek/Dam or Boat Encmampment....the term "Big Bend Country" includes everything betweeen Revelstoke and Golden but the "heart" of it historically is the Downie Creek/Goldstream River area, which was the locus of the main part of the Big Bend Gold Rush...didn't know it's not on those templates; I'll add it to them later today. A ref for Big Bend Country btw turns out to be the map cited on the BCGNIS for Gordon Rapids et al, i.e. as a usage of teh term; I get disputed by Eastern CAnadian editors who maintain these terms are "loose" but they are used historically and cartographically.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fraser vs Congo

my first question to you is, are you a hydrologist. I doubt it very much, seeing how very unscientific you are, I have read all your conclusions on things and let me say don't give up your day job. I tried to be civil about trying to put realistic info on a page and all you do is say it has no validity well its your half baked crap that is invalid so why don't you go back to school and learn to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonfictionary (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Being frustrated is no excuse for incivility and personal attacks. Nor is "I tried to be civil". Please continue to "try". Pfly (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Pfly....Nonfictionary is complaining in reference to his attempts to unilaterally change data on Fraser River re discharge rates, contradicting a BC Govt Min Environment site; DFO (Dept of Fisheries and Oceans, a federal body) and another site he's found fraserbasin.bc.ca (which is not, as he thinks, a government site) have different figures than MoE (Min of Environment) did; I had a look at the MoE figure last night, which is 139,000 cubic metres per second "In June" (i.e. spring freshet) and the other sources do give 19,000 cubic metres per second, as peak discharge and is in ref to the 1894 flood; so I'm guessing that MoE has a typo and was going to write them Monday to ask; there's actually formal discharge data on that corporate water resources BC Gov page I sent you, haven't looked for it; surprises me greatly that there's only about 1,000 cubic metres per second difference between the Mission Bridge and New Weminster, given the size of teh Pitt River.....the fraserbasin.bc.ca site is sadly lacking in many ways; its opening-page picture says "the Fraser River near Chilliwack" when it's clearly upstream from Hope about 5-10 miles (Hope Mtn and Isolillock Peak/Holy Cross are in the background). As for Nonfictionary, like a lot of newbies, he's got lots to learn about how to cite, adn how to consult, and how to fact-chceck; he may be right (on the 19,000 - for the longest time he was trying to add 15,000-odd) and MoE may be a typo; but unilateral changes after being confronted by half-a-dozen editors, then coming after me personally out of that half-dozen, is only to be expected; as you know I can be pretty lippy myself, and was especially so when I, too, was a newbie. To Nonfictionary - calm the f* down and discuss the matter on the talkpage; you'll get results there, instead of making enemies....Skookum1 (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok thats cool

and i apologize for any transgressions,but I actually have taken a number of courses in hydrology and geomorphology, they help with what i do for a living (prospecting) and I needed acurate info for a proposal to the ministry for possible exploration of the river delta, anyways they said some of my data was inconclusive and neede to be looked over, I got the measurements from wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonfictionary (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Columbia rapids; The Narrows, etc

Hey, thanks for doing some copyedits and corrections to that page. I know The Narrows ought to be included; I just wasn't sure how to describe it and so moved it to the talk page's "to do" list. My main question with The Narrows is, it wasn't exactly a rapids, right? A swift river-like reach between the two lakes, but not whitewater plunging over boulders and such? In some of the things I've been reading The Narrows are mentioned as an obstacle to boats during the winter because they tended to freeze even if the lakes didn't. But perhaps it was swifter and more rapid-like than I'm guessing. I just haven't had time to look into it. Got any links handy? ...it was inundated to some degree by the dam at Castlegar, right? Anyway, the first task I wanted to get to was just where the pre-dam Kinbasket Lake was in relation to the various rapids of the Big Bend area. Turns out a good map of it is from a site you wrote about a while back, http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/Hydro/en/map/region_two.php ...and looks like that site might have useful info on Big Bend Country in general, Boat Encampment, and other such like. Pfly (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I ran into a little bit about them doing the Arrow Lakes map, I'm not sure how rapids like they were, Skookum might find something better, but they were mentioned as a navigational hazard - and they were indeed inundated by Keenleyside Dam. Kmusser (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fort Walsh

Note that Fort Walsh is a pretty major copyvio of Parks Canada's website, added with this IP edit on Aug 30, 2009. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I reverted the copyvio and will get started on a pretty basic merge. See my comment on Talk:Fort Walsh. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...I'm not used to such fast action off the CANTALK bulletin board :-)...."no sooner said than done".Skookum1 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking further through that list, I made a comment towards "City Centre Stadium → West Shore Stadium" and made some changes with regards to Pavilion, British Columbia / Pavilion 1, British Columbia. What do you think about the Stadium redirect / my actions with Pavilion 1? -M.Nelson (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess with the stadium there's not that much edit history to lose; edit histories are the point of not making redirects, but using move/merge....as for Pavilion 1 I know I nominated that but it's a tricky issue; it's not just the Indian Reserve....but the IR can be a section (and the redirect for Pavilion 1 can eventually target that section)....in many cases it may be suitable to redirect an IR to a band government page (but then the redirect should have the "reserves" category so it displays as such) or to a community, most often where there's little distinguishment between the locality/town and the IR (e.g. Shuswap Indian Reserve though I haven't made Shuswap, British Columbia yet (no, it's not in the Shuswap Country, see the IR article), or with Moricetown and other places where the IR(s) is about all there is; with places like Alexis Creek it's not that easy; some AC reserves are far frmo the town, and the town includes SFAIK non-native lands and peoples...we need local input in many cases, hard to come byl........Pavilion will do fine like that; Pavilion 1A, though, wno't; it's in "West Pavilion", otherwise known as Blueridge, which is on the other side of the Fraser and is a hunting reserve. I've been meaning to get at this issue for a while now, but I'm backed up with issues I haven't gotten to yet....btw 2010 Olympic Village I think you found some copyvio on; please see new section from ConcernedVancouverite on Talk:2010 Olympic Village.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

List of airports in Vancouver

Hi, I've written a reply here: Talk:List of airports in Metro Vancouver. Schmloof (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2010 Olympic Village

Thank you for spotting a potential copyright violation on the 2010 Olympic Village page. I have started a conversation on the talk page regarding the matter and it would be helpful to have some additional information from you to help improve the article. The discussion can be found here. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}} neither reflist nor references/ is working on List of physiogeographic regions of British Columbia}}Skookum1 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the ref tags was not closed properly - see here. AJCham 22:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, thought I'd check that...but I have bad eyes, even with glasses on....Skookum1 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at Brianga's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

M-KMA

Calm down, I realize it's not a park, I wrote the bulk of the article after all. I added it to the Cat:BC prov. parks (and sperated it from the main list with an "*", you'll notice) because it is about a topic that is interelated with parks. If you can think of a better category it can go in that will assist users to recognize this, I'm all ears. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't upset about anything, just trying to fix things and explain in detail....the category would be Category:Land and resource management planning areas in British Columbia (with SRMPs, Strategic Management Planning areas, included; there's about 25-30). Note that only a few of these are created, the rest are still in the planning/arguing stage, their boundaries are fairly fixed. There's other maps/regions defined by the government on different agendas; found this the other day which looks pretty useful....Skookum1 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Salish Sea

I suppose you've heard that the Washington Board of Geographic Names voted to accept "Salish Sea", see announcement here. As usual there is some misinformation or over-generalization about the word Salish. The announcement says: "Salish is a term used by linguists to describe the peoples and languages of tribes in the Pacific Northwest." I'm a little confused by this part of the annoucement: "The new designation does not change or eliminate the names of any of the several bodies of water within the Salish Sea on either side of the international border. It also mandates that cartographers must use Salish Sea on all maps or in all atlases. The term, which has been adopted by the British Columbia Geographical Names Office, is already used by scientists to describe the unified ecosystem and habitats of the inland waters." First, I highly doubt the WA Board of Geographic Names has the power to "mandate that cartographers" do anything at all. Perhaps they mean "cartographers doing work for the State of Washington", in which case it might be true, although the bit about "in all maps and atlases" seems unlikely and extreme. Second, was the term adopted by the "British Columbia Geographical Names Office" (assuming by this they mean the BC Geographic Names agency, apparently fully named "Crown Registries & Geographic Base Branch, Integrated Land Management Bureau"--not "Office"). The BC Geo. Names page lets you search on past decisions this year or last year, and Salish Sea doesn't turn up as a decision. And our page on Salish Sea says that BC merely agreed to "recommend" approving the term if the US federal-level Board of Geographic Names adopts it. Why the WA Geo Names Board is approving the term and apparently promoting it with misinformation is beyond me. Are they just publishing innocent mistakes or are they actively trying to promote the name? They have not yet published the minutes of the meeting where the decision was made. I'm curious to see them now. Anyway, I am skeptical than the US BGN will approve. They have rather higher, stricter standards than the WA BGN. Anyway, thought I'd let you know in case you hadn't heard. Pfly (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard, I made an attempt to adjust that claim vs what other sources said....it's interesting how those advancing a cause are so willing to distort language in order to simply validate one word/name huh? OldManRivers is in my FB and just posted about it, he opposes it, I'll email you the text (unless you're on FB??). There's another less high profile campaign from the head of ecotrust.ca about renaming the Queen Charlotte Strait the Kwakwaka'wakw Sea; OMR's main objection is that "Salish" is not a proper self-referential term like Kwakwaka'wakw and Nuu-chah-nulth are, I haven't heard back from him on the Kw-Sea thing yet (I think it has, um, joke-pronunciation issues in English that would best be avoided....); that it's not really one body of water is also, to me, an issue, in the same way I oppose using "Saltspring Island is in the Strait of Georgia" because, well, it's not, unless "Strait of Georgia region" is meant...and George Vancouver's "Gulf of Georgia" is unofficial (but more accurate)....I've been meaning to ask you - is there a name for that gulf/widening at the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Vuca - between Port Townsend and Oak Bay, as it were; is it just part of the Strait of Juan de Fuca; it's just so distinct in shape, a saltwater "lake" where the Strait opens up, before colliding with all those islands; sure distinct on the map; I'll email you OMR's thing before I forget.....mis-wording and asumptive claims not actually in the refs, not real refs that is (the ones that have t he facts right...) is too common in environmental-agenda and native-agenda articles...(also corporate articles...).you should hve seen Great Bear Raiforest when I found it....The Salish Sea thing had redirects from Georgia Lowland etc going to it - Georgia Depression, also, coopting official landform names; likewise as I recall Puget Lowland, which is part of the Georgia Depression (which in the US might be the Puget-Georgia Depression, i.e. the topographical unit;landform; they wanted to wip all colonialist names off the map, is how this started....they've gotten a compromise; but I do note that the Canadian name boards are passing responsibility over to Washington, (DC, anas you note it's not a done deal.....Myself I wanted to propose Saltchuck Sea or just "the Saltchuck" but didn't know where to apply; and don't have INAC money to spend on a p.r. campaign to push it....Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
" used by certain scientists....Skookum1 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, quick reply before a late dinner. Not surprised you'd heard--and already edited the page here apparently! Re: the east end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, between Port Townsend and Oak Bay (Oak Bay, BC I assume--I think there's one in WA too): it's just the east part of Strait of Juan de Fuca. The vast body of water one looks west into from northern Whidbey Island, Deception Pass State Park, etc, is always, as far as I have seen, called the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Thanks for emailing the FB thing. I found you there are sent a friend req thingie. And, er, dinner! Later. Pfly (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In fact, U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Strait of Juan de Fuca is rather precise: Extends E from the Pacific Ocean between Vancuver Island, Canada, and the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, To Haro Strait, San Juan Channel, Rosario Strait, and Puget Sound (and goes on to define the west, north, and south bounds in detail). And yes, they spelled "Vancouver Island" wrong, sheesh. Pfly (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

←I couldn't help but look into the WA Board on Geographic Names a little. What a sad little body it is. It has all of seven members who meet twice a year for about 2-4 hours. There is no salary or funding for the Board at all, and it was terminated in 1982 until someone realized state law required the Board to exist! So in 1983 it was reestablished. Its official web page contains errors of wording similar to the Salish Sea announcement they released. For example, their WA BGN's Legal Authority page claims that Its decisions are binding on all non-Federal advertisements, maps, and documents published in the State of Washington. This seems to be saying it would be illegal for someone like, say, me, to publish a map showing some feature the Board had made a decision on and not use the Board's name. But the actual law says the Board's names shall be used in all maps, records, documents, and other publications issued by the state [and its political subdivisions, eg, counties]. So, OK, sure, it may be a small thing to use the word "in" instead of "by". But for the Board's own page about its legal authority to say "in the state" instead of "by the state" struck me as a curiously empowering "typo". Then again, 7 unpaid members who meet twice a year for a couple hours? I'll accept the idea that they aren't as thorough as could be on web page quality control. I was going to add here the minutes from their May 2009 meeting in which they took Salish Sea under "initial consideration". It's not that long, but long enough that I think I'll just email it instead. You know, for your entertainment and/or annoyance. :-) Personally I would like there to be a simple name for all the waters in question. OMR made some good points about why Salish Sea is not a good choice (perhaps undermining his case by calling it "racist" though). Should be interesting to see where this goes from here. It sounds like one of the main arguments made for the name to the WA BGN was that the term has "widespread" and "strong local usage". I'm not sure that argument will hold up when considered by the federal US BGN, but who knows. I wonder when they will take it under consideration. Pfly (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Proponents of the term have been actively seeding the web with usages of it, so that it will turn up in search engines in large numbers, even though ultimately all the links really only refer to each other; as with other nae-campaigns partly wikipedia is being used to do this, because of all the wiki-clones; and various universities and fashionably-correct student/professional papers/journals have started using the term, much moreso on the US side. Most Canadian-side Coast Salish band governments don't give a good-god- you-know-what, it's only Chemainus that Prof. Webber pulled into his little campaign; I'd say stern letters to the US BGN about this term NOT being widespread except by its proponents would be a good idea....I'd say the same with CGNDB except that opposing politically-correct agendas in Canada is, well, politically difficult as this country has a thing about overdone righteousness, i.e. "being too correct"; the same bullshit, in fact also started by a geographer, went on with "Cascadia", as you may remember from those trying to rename the Pacific Northwest article.....trendy eco-shit-cum-revisionist-geography.....I've suggested to OMR he write a column about this for hte Georgia Straight and I guess he should also get it in a Seattle page (The Rocket??); the only way to combat false information/analysis is with its antidote; silence is not adequate as a defence against a pack of screaming monkeys.....btw OMR's context of "racist" has to do with non-indigenous politicians/academics terating them all as one group simply because they speak a related language, the imposition of an outside generalization...which incidentally is an agenda of the BC government, to create about 23 "nations" along linguistic boundaries, an idea which is sternly opposed from within the FN community at large and viewed with suspicion as an expediency by non-native observers, i.e. as a way to cfreat governments that can sign away resources to the government's corporate friends....note also that other official-name changes in this province lately have been by treaty...and almost always involve authentic native names, not concoted appliques...........Skookum1 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of The Rocket--it appears to no longer exist. I know very little about Seattle area newspaper type things. Maybe The Stranger? Also, I understood what he was getting at with "racist"--just saying, it's such a loaded word, could backfire when used. I could be wrong though, perhaps it is quite appropriate in this case. I know a bit about this region's indigenous history, but have next to no personal experience with its people today. There is one person I know who works for the Tulalip tribe (I think the Tulalip anway), doing GIS, mapping, etc. If I get the chance I'll ask him what they make of this topic, if they make anything of it at all. Pfly (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess I was thinking of The Stranger - The Rocket I guess is out of print and I think it was more music-only oriented.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Encyclopedia

Hey Skookum, I read your comment re: External Linking to the Canadian Encyclopedia at the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, and am interested in that you don't find it to be a reliable source. I'm not all that familiar with the encyclopedia, but I have seen it used as a source in many articles (see this Google search to get an idea). Would you consider making a post at the Reliable sources noticeboard to determine consensus on whether it is or isn't reliable? Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and get to that at some point; there are other "unreliable sources" out there, or POV sources anyway, that should be watched out for, e.g. BC Govt pages on FN history/political organization/terminology. The Canadian Encyclopedia is full of errors and is also a money-generating site for them, which is one reason I support not using it too much; other sites such as http://www.nosracines.ca and http://www.historica.ca are not....also that complainant's post made t he unfair comparison to Atlas of Canada, which is a federal site linked to Canada GeoNames and also without ad content. Tehre are exceptions to privately-owned information sites that carry ads; e.g. http://www.britishcolumbia.com but the reason for taht exception is that site often contains historical/local information that no other site does; the same cannot be said for the Canadian Encyclopedia, even if it were not for its many errors and a certain implicit bias in many cases; mostly I've noticed this to do with BC history articles and bios, also with those involving the Klondike...someimtes "comic book history" or "cereal box versions" are what I've found, at other times it was wholly egregious errors like saying the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush of 1858 impacted the Tshilqot'in while not mentioning other peoples whom it DID (part of the reason for that error, since corrected, is because of hte usual confusion of the Fraser anc Cariboo gold rushes - another error ALSO found in other CE articles....). For a post to the bulletin board you're talking about I'll have to research some examples I guess.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

T'sou-ke / T'souk-e

T'sou-ke_Nation & T'souk-e are both in the Coast Salish infobox. T'souk-e is a people, which redirects to the Nation article. Should they both be in the infobox? Is there a discrepancy in the naming of them?

I only mention it here because this seems to be up your alley, and you have edited at least one of the pages. DigitalC (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The plain-jane T'sou-ke, with Sooke people and the like as redirects, should be for ethnography/history/culture; T'sou-ke Nation for the band government (not the traditional government, if there is one); Wiki-convention is capital-N Nation implies the government, likewise "first Nation" or capital-T Tribe (when used, as in Tlowitsis Tribe). Separate ethno articles from government articles is the same idea as having a separate language article...partly for categorization reasons...even though govenrment articles can/should have a precis on culture/history, the piont of separate articles is for more extensive coverage, just as the government article would be for funding, intergovernmental relations points, institutions/services/demographics etc....Skookum1 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I was more wondering about under "Peoples" in the Coast Salish infobox, there is a link to both T'sou-ke and T'souk-e. I'm assuming that this isn't right? DigitalC (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
some editors have gone and "piped" such redlinks (or what were redlinks) to the government pages; this is mistaken and while I've corrected some of them I can't keep up with them, or the creation of the needed new articles (even if they're only stubs that would be better than such redirects). Separate ethnograpy articles for some may wind up having to be redirects to their "main" ethno articles, e..g many of the Chilliwack-Hope area bands might just redirect to Sto:lo but in some cases (such as Scaulits and Sts'Ailes they do have distinct ethnogrphies and histories; ditto with Dakelh/Wet-su-wet-en peoples. But for the distinct coastal bands, they all do have distinct ethnographic/history/ content so separating such articles works just fine; some such articles still carry language stubs and categories, they shouldn't, those should also be separate articles....Skookum1 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Aurora Research Institute

Should be fairly good. It's part of the college and have a good reputation. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

/small tags

Thanks for the note, and apologies for the conflict; when I saw how much editing the article was getting, I was afraid something like that would happen. It's not that the missing tags were causing any problems for me; I just like to see tags balanced, just in case it makes a difference somewhere down the line. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There was only a conflict because of connectivity problems from my end; it seems my final edit did take, i.e. before you got started; but one of the response-sites, e.g. upload.wikimedia.org must have been what I got the "server not found" notice from. As you can see I've used the region/type switch on all new entries, less than a degree of latitude to go, not sure how many more peaks. What the page could use in the way of help is adding bivouac.com and peakbagger.com links (in the "other sites" column) and getting the elevations, first ascent etc; all of them should be in there...those taht aren't I can source out of Basemap..... CGNDB is mostly superfluous as its contents are near-identical to BCGNIS but I included a colunn for it anyway.....not sure which WP you're part of but if you're into it many of these are major/famous peaks and could use starter stubs.......and vessel and village names found in the list, and some personal names, might need disambiguation......Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been around Wikipedia long enough to pick up a variety of skills, but right now my main interest is in geocoordinates. I think this list is very cool, but unless there are further issues with the {{Coord}}s, I'll probably never return to it. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
I noticed that your edits dealing with Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast‎ articles were Very impressive
and so I've decided to award you this WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Editor's Barnstar!!!!
Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

PS ..I have added many Northwest Coast links to the new Index of Aboriginal Canadian-related articles..but i would guess you would know more about the west coast topics. Pls fell free to add them.

Spanish place names in the Pacific Northwest

Heya. I'm slowly compiling a list of Spanish place names in the Pacific Northwest (OR, WA, BC, and AK). Trying to organize them a little, focusing on larger features and/or names actually given by the Spanish. There must be hundreds, maybe thousands. If you feel inclined, pop over to User:Pfly/Sandbox2c and add some. No need to follow the coord and cite style I've started (and borrowed by List of rapids of the Columbia River) if it takes too long. It would be cool to see a map of the points though, like with the rapids page. So I added the geotemplate thingies. Anyway, just a poke. Have a good day. Pfly (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Boggling. I've seen all kinds of spellings of that, and yes, it's in the thousands and it's not always obvious either due to the obscurity of the Spanish term, or are Spanish takes on native terms (e.g I suspect, Yuculta v. Euclataws - which in Kwak'wala is Legwildok/Lekwiltok/Laich-kwil0-tach; that's a side issue, the native-ized Spanish names or the latinized native ones (masset on the one hand, Yuculta on the other - though I don't have a cite for Yuculta being the spanish take on it; but it sure looks like Spanish. There are various mountains in the Saint Elias which have Spanish names, and when you stop to think about it whe'd better check if the Saint Elias naming was russian or Spanish....GNIS would seem to me to have lots, and at least there just bey searching the term "Spanish" you'll find all, or most of the entries containing teh alternate major placenames and others of that vintage; but as with BCGNIS you probably get no way to search them for keywords; I always tru "BCGNIS+[term]" where "term" can in be quotes; other than using the whole provincial gazette directly and searching within your DB or SS....but not all entries state if it's Spanish origin; I'll keep my eyes open; many are too insignificant for their own article, but certainly worth having their coords on such a list; much like someone's (yours?) thing comparing gulches and coulees and gullies and such, pointilistically on the big scale, but giving an idea of the density/distribution; one colour key for remaining placenames, one for alternative/older placenames, also consider there are translated names, i.e. where the English naming reflects an earlier Spanish name in meaning. Huge projec,t I'll keep my yees open, i browse BCGNIS regularly.....what do you do about Cataline and certain others of gold rush-vintage, though; they're not explorer-era is my point.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
YOu did get a copy of the provincial gazette didn't you? It's on their Basemap Online Store page; it's an autorespond email, but free, and in SS format (CSV), and fully searchable by field or string (from within your SS or DB program). Same content as with BCGNIS, including the historical information et al.Skookum1 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did get a digital copy of the BCGNIS database, some time ago. It's still sitting on the GIS computer waiting for a day when I have the brain, focus, and time to do something with it (it took me several days to force the US GNIS raw datafile into something usable in ArcGIS. I've recently been thinking of taking a look at the BCGNIS datafile again. Something for all of Canada would be nice too, especially for maps of the whole US--to be able to include Canada too would be great. Still, no breath holding. Life is still general chaos here, and GIS work tends to take hours of quiet concentration. Also, yes, the idea of compiling a list of Spanish place names in the PNW is a far large task than I can conceive of doing fully. I'm more curious to do a "rough pass"--trying to gather up the ones that are significant and obvious and actually named by Spanish explorers, like Aristazabal Island. Major features named *for* Spanish explorers, like Hecate Strait as well. Less important but still of note are those many well-known but not *major* places that were named in honor of Spanish explorers, like Heceta Head in Oregon. Perhaps places like Quadra Island belong in this slightly lesser class. The huge number of minor inlets, points, bays, and so on, are not worth gathering up in full, although some are interesting in their own right. Those actually named by Spanish explorers would be notable. The vast majority of Spanish names, mostly of small features, are of unclear naming origin, which makes them even less interesting. Same with the dense clusters of similar names in areas like Nootka Sound. Obviously there are some important names there, but a huge number seem to have been applied at a late date in order to fit the general patterns. Also not worth collecting variant names and Spanish attempts to spell indigenous terms--just actually Spanish words (and personal names), with an allowance for Anglicized corruption. English translations are also of questionable interest, except perhaps for major features. I guess if it came down to it I would restrict it to just those actually given by Spanish explorers, with perhaps some room for respelling and shifting locations in later years (eg, Camano Island), plus perhaps those truly major features named in honor, like Hecate Strait. And yes, I know this is a rather crufty thing to do, which is why I'm not considering it a WP thing really. I've just always been into toponymy and have even been daydreaming about starting a blog about it, now that my old blog is officially dead. If I do I promise to write something good--critical but not wholly so--on the Salish Sea. ...Your links to Talk:Proposals for new Canadian provinces and territories#Interesting item re Yukon "annexation" in 1937 is curious but far beyond my scope of knowledge. I know almost nothing about the geopolitical history of Yukon, although I can see how it would related to the Alaska boundary dispute stuff. I am, btw, still slowly poking away at a map of the Portland Inlet/Canal area. One of these days it'll get done. You've made me more interested in this remote (to me) region, to the point where I am seriously considering purchasing the DeLorme topo atlas map book of Alaska. Pfly (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Drive-by comment here. I just read a newspaper review [1] which mentioned British Columbia Coast Names 1592-1906. Curiously this is not available in Google Books, but a search on the title turned up this and especially this, Dictionary of Spanish Place Names of the Northwest Coast of America: Oregon, Washington State, British Columbia, and Alaska. Pfly, would that be the sort of thing you're looking for? The title doesn't seem to exist at VPL though, so I can't borrow it... Franamax (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Huh, very interesting, Franamax. I only just learned about the Lynn Middleton book. Its available in a few libraries near me (reference only, sadly). The other one, "Dictionary of Spanish Place Names of the Northwest Coast of America", I hadn't heard of. Looks like the central Seattle library has that one too, also reference only. Hmmmmmm... Pfly (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Wolff

The issue was that it was a wholly unsourced BLP that made claims that would widely be considered negative. There was no mention in the article of Mark Wolff being a pseudonym, and even if there was that would need to be cited. I have no objection to re-creation if all information, especially negative/controversial information, is sourced to reliable third party sources. The short version is that you can't claim that somebody masturbates on tape for money without sourcing it. Steve Smith (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL he built an empire on it...if you have access to the deleted material, email it to me and I'll see if I can find cites and...well, that could have been worded better; what's it say on Mark Dalton (porn star)? (Same gig, different body).Skookum1 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
E-mailed to you. Steve Smith (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Random historiogeopolitical trivia of the day

When looking at the Hayes atlas today I noticed some curious things about a British map of Vancouver Island published in 1856. I took a couple pictures, put on flickr with some notes. The SE part of Vancouver Island, see here, shows some interesting names and pro-British features. Haro Strait ("Arro Canal") is shown not only where it is today, but extending north all the way to Nanaimo, west of the Gulf Islands. The Gulf Islands and the San Juans are colored "British red" and the term "Arro Archipelago" is written boldly over the whole. Today's Rosario Strait is called "Vancouver Strait". The name "Rosario", originally used by the Spanish for the "Gulf of Georgia" (as this map calls it), is here transferred to today's Malaspina Strait (that bit isn't in my picture, but the map says "Malaspina or Rosario Str"). I thought all this was interesting as I had never seen "Vancouver Strait" used for Rosario, nor Rosario for Malaspina, nor Haro/Arro for Trincomali Channel. Given the dispute over the San Juans, the map is interesting in using the term Arro Archipelago. It also seems to suggest that Haro/Arro Strait is not the main passage, while Rosario/Vancouver is--just in the way the map is drawn; Haro/Arro looks wide in the south but is dense with islets and islands in the north (which is true, but this map makes that stand out, even pop out). Point Roberts, that thorn in the side of "down the center of the channel", is drawn quite small, while Saturna Island is drawn larger, and reaching farther east than it really does. Saltspring Island is called Chuan Island. Galiano and Valdes Islands are not named, but at the northern end of Vancouver Island, see here, those two islands at the very top, today's Hope and Nigei Islands, are labeled "Valdes & Galiano Islands". Anyway, I have no point, just thought you'd find this interesting. Another map on the same page in Hayes, this one by an American, also shows Rosario Strait as "Vancouver Strait". I wonder how common that name was, and how long it lasted. The American map doesn't extend Haro Strait so far north. Instead it has "Cadboro Passage" for today's "Boundary Pass", and "Swanson Channel" for Trincomali. It also quite clearly names the San Juan Archip." over just today's San Juans, while leaving the Gulf Islands without an overall name. Pfly (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Geographical size comparisons

Hi Skookum, you strike me as geographically-inclined and I know you always have an opinion :) so before searching elsewhere... Talk:Greater_Toronto_Area#General_information_section_-_land_area pretty well lays out my point. It always bothers me to see wording like "XX, which occupies an area the size of YY..." - as if I would have some clue just how big YY was in the first place. Most often, YY is either a US state or a European country, Rhode Island seems to pop up a lot and all we can discover is that it's not even an island!! :) It's reminiscent to me of the Second City sketch where Dave Thomas fits US states onto a map of the USSR while chortling "ze whole state of Texas is svallowed oopp by Mo-other Russia!".

So beyond your immediate comments on my concern, can you suggest anywhere to start a style discussion on this? WP:GEOGRAPHY seems rather sparsely attended lately, so I wondered if you have an idea of where geography-clued editors could best be reached. Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

More on this later, but I just removed a similar comparison from the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area article, and have seen others; one I think describes the Nisga'a landclaim or something else - the Chilcotin maybe - as "about the size of Belgium" (Belgium is neither wild nor has any mountains, which is a bad comprison geographically) and during the Gitxsan/West-su-wet'en claims case (Delgamuukw) you'd always hear "the size of Nova Scotia".....you never hear it about [Timber Supply Area]]s, Timber Berths and other similar corporate-land-assignments; it always seems to be made as a way of conflating protectionist claims to make them seem extreme.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It's too early in the morning for me to think about this, but WikiProject Maps is pretty active and involves people into geography. A post a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps might be a way to go, despite this topic not being about maps per se. Pfly (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada – United States relations

In response to discussion at Talk:Canada – United States relations, it has been proposed that the lead image at Canada – United States relations be changed from one featuring Canada's Governor General to one featuring Canada's Prime Minister. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Talk:Canada – United States relations#Proposed image change. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me I left a comment about that already somewhere....guess it's not on that page, have to think where it is....Skookum1 (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep you did; I just formatted the discussion into more of a poll/proposal kind of thing, as the other discussion was getting a bit out of hand. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

WikiProject Vancouver
You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.
Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at Mkdw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdwtalk 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ukase of 1821

One year ago you inquired about the ukase of 1821 [2] - any luck? I've seen the redlink and thought it might be worth filling myself, but perhaps the article is already here although in a different place? Quite a lot of scholarly texts on the subject, but most are behind the pay wall. NVO (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been being lazy/preoccupied/distracted about it...constantly shelving it for later, as well as the Ukase of 1799 and the Russo-British Convention concerning the lease of the Panhandle arising from the blockade at Fort Stikine (q.v.). The main cites for now I'd use are Begg's works on the background to the boundary dispute, which you'll find on Alaska boundary dispute. Glad to pitch in, but would be good to work on someone else's startup...Skookum1 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I just dug up some links and wrote a short summary to post over at Talk:Ukase (see there). I have other priorities and little time, but perhaps someday could create a page or two. Note there were two Ukases of 1821. Pfly (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your right!!!

Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast.... I am looking and i see that there are many more....I was actually thinking off taking some off...pls fell free do do what you think is best..I am just trying to get all the west coast stuff to link to the Canadian stuff!! .....I was also thinking of getting some people that helped with articles like, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Paleo-Indians and Haplogroup Q1a3a (Y-DNA) to tackle the "Indigenous peoples of the PNC" and make all the sub sections of peoples to something that looks like this Notable Aboriginal people of Canada.... What do you think????? Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Parker Williams

Hi, this was the other fellow;

I've no idea which person the deleted bits are about, but names like this are common and there re BLP concerns. I'd suggest you use a parenthetical in any links you restore. Sorry for the hassle; your fellow seem encyclopeadic to me, but others want other things included. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Haida Gwaii

Wow, and I thought the Salish Sea was a big change. Curious that the two have come in quick succession. I have nothing to say really, just, huh! Pfly (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I"m chagrined but not surprised; the government wants to look like Mr Nice guy for the Olympics, and the name change is part of a political/money deal over access to resources. See my comments on Talk:Haida Gwaii.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the name change won't be official until legislation is introduced and passed in mid-2010. Until then, any mass renaming would be premature per Wikipedia's conventions. --Ckatzchatspy 11:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, the User:Scales was premature - trigger-happy - in moving Queen Charlotte Islands to Haida Gwaii; a similar trigger-happiness happened with Salish Sea prior to the US BGN's approval of the WA BGN's recommendation - SFAIK whiel it's a given it will be approved by the Cdn BGN because of the US BGN's approval, the ink wasn't even dry before Salish Sea enthusiasts displayed triumphalism in making the change. I was wondering about when the Haida Gwaii name-change would become official (which it isn't yet) and the CBC.ca cite presented it as a done deal as if the BC-Haida Nation agreement were itself legislation; in Haida eyes it is (whatever legislative machinery within Canada is needed is regarded as an "internal" matter for one party to the agreement; to the Haida Nation, under their law, it's already in place; so now we have an article retitled and none of t he articles that direct to it have the same term.....no doubt we'll see "fix redirect" changes like happened on Queen Charlotte, British Columbia and accompanying reversals.....gonna be messy for several months IMO.....what's galled me in the past is how Guujaaw and others tried to edit the QCI article to do away with any mention of Canada or British Columbia, and also rather than referencing the Pacific Northwest talked about the "Northeast Pacific", as if Haida Gwaii were may out in the middle of the Gulf of Alaska or further.......there's also a tinge - more than a tinge - of Las Malvinas vs. the Falklands, or Constantinople v. Istanbul, Burma v. Myanmar etc. - the political import of the name-change is clear....outright independence is the goal and has been for a long time; the BC govt may have thought they were buying Haida cooperation with the continued existence of British Columbia, but this isn't the Haida agenda.....all my POV of course, or more like informed analysis.....watch for more similar name-changes in the next whiel as the BC government secures deals with other FNS so as to secure resource tenures for their int'l patrons.....and give it ten years, and the Haida will have the dough (from the Naikun Wind Farm) to finance "secession", at least as a separate entity from the province of BC, i.e. within Canada. It's problematic to me that the new name is not "in English", i.e. "Gwaii" = "islands", "archipelago"; Haida Gwaii is a nation-name at teh same time as being a geographic term......with accompanying grammatical/contextual problems in usage......BC has a lot of articles that are titled even with non-English characters because of the adoption of native names, and in some cases it's necessary for the same place to have two articles because of the different contexts of the names,e .e.g D'Arcy vs N'Quatqua, Lytton v. Camchin (Lillooet v. T'it'kt and Mt Currie v. Lil'wat haven't come up yet).....we don't title the Estonia article "Eesti" and we don't title Hungary "Magyarorszag" etc...in BC it's insisted, on the other hand, that English names are "wrong" and that English has to accommodate new words, and new characters, in order to satisfy the assertions of native cultural/political agendas....and between trendiness on the one side, and government wheeling-dealing on the other, this trend is only going to continue, and for Wikipedians it's going to get complicated as the distinctions between political toponymy and geogrphiac toponymy are deliberately blurred.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging Golden Ears (mountain) with Golden Ears Group

Good day, oh fellow British Columbian.

On July 2008, you suggested to merge Golden Ears (mountain) with Golden Ears Group. To be honest I really don't think that is such a good idea. For instance, we have separate articles for Mount Everest and Himalayas, Mount Rainier and Cascade Range, etc. I know you have much more experience than I do, but I still don't think it is a good idea. If it's not to much trouble, please write to me on my talk page. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 06:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My rationale is simple....well, sort of. Basically "Golden Ears Group" is an invented term, courtesy bivouac.com and is not a mountain range name....and "Golden Ears" is not singular, it is a "group". Your comparison or Everest/Himalayas is not valid; the Golden Ears are part of the Garibaldi Ranges, and I wasn't proposing those be merged. See "Golden Ears (peaks)". BC Geographical Names. and note that label "peaks", i.e. not singular "mountain"..."Golden Ears" by itself is already a small range, the addition of "Group" is entirely superfluous and has no basis in actual usage; the term "Golden Ears" is used (by those who see them every day) to refer to the whole group of peaks between Alouette and Pitt Lakes, though as you can see its official use is only for the two peaks N of Mt Blanshard....essentially "Golden Ears (mountain)" and "Golden Ears Group" refer to the same thing, and the "(mountain)" disambiguation is incorrect to start with...(it's not one mountain).Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see we have a bigger and not unassociated problem; somebody has redirected the official "Mount Blanshard", which as you can see in BCGNIS refers to the whole massif, to Golden Ears Group....in instance of an official name being redirected to a coined one based on one error-ridden site's say-so. Blanshard Peak is the summit of Mount Blanshard, with the latter term including the two Golden Ears....as with Mount Fraser and others in the Rockies, which have multiple summits, these are massifs, NOT ranges or "groups". Maybe what's necessary is to move "Golden Ears Group" to "Mount Blanshard" and to make use of the "Group" title redirect that to Golden Ears (peaks), which is the proper designation for "the Ears". Please note I also took out the bullshit claim that Golden Ears Provincial Park is "one of the largest in British Columbia" which was found on various pages.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
From "Blanshard, Mount". BC Geographical Names.:
Blanshard Peak (1550m), Golden Ears (2 peaks, 1701m and 1716m) and Edge Peak (1680m) are part of Mount Blanshard.
Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me....though there are other peaks in the same "range" such as Martyn and Nutt and Blanshard Needle (which maybe is Edge Peak, can't remember?)....the upshot is that the "Golden Ears Group" designation is like creating "Robie Reid Group" to take in Mount Crickmer and Blue and Iron Mtns, or relabelling Mount Seymour and/or Fannin Range as Mount Seymour Group.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure I follow you. My point is, if we merge the articles, a lot of information will be lost. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, logical leap combined with incomplete sentence/thoiught....what's obvious is that the problem is that Golden Ears Group is improperly named and should be Mount Blanshard; what the bigger problem is is that that takes an admin, which a merge won't; I'll take the merge off, discussion closed, but "Golden Ears Group" is not a correct name, and is a "climber-ism" if it's anything (much like the use of "the Chehalis" to refer to the Douglas Rnages or Fairey's coinage of "Nahatlatch-Stein" and other fictional divisions of BC's mountains, which are based on highway/route access, not geography. Mount Blanshard is a multi-summit massif, containing Golden Ears (peaks),which as you'll note I changed to match its BCGNIS designation.Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
So are you suggesting to merge Mount Blanshard with Golden Ears Group? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 02:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No, Mount Blanshard is currently a redirect to Golden Ears Group. It should be the other way around; because the redirect is in the way an admin is needed.Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, admins are not needed to change redirects. Just type in "Mount Blanshard", go to the redirect page, and un-redirect it. Then Golden Ears Group can be redirected to Mt. Blanshard. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 19:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver discussion

Is here... Cheers.. --kelapstick (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but we're not supposed to amend that discussion/survey as it's on an archive page, and also has a discussion closed template; will there be a new section on the WPTALK:Disambiguation page then?Skookum1 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The comment you replied to was from February, and was referring to that discussion (which is the one that is closed). So unless you (or someone else) are bringing up the requirement for Vancouver to be a DAB page, there will not be a new discussion.
Oh, I thought it was a new discussion as it was at the bottom of that page; didn't look at its date; I thought Mkdw wanted to re-open the can of worms...but as noted it's going to be a moot issue if the voters of Vancouver WA go for the re-proposed name change/reversion.Skookum1 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think that talk page sees much action. We'll see what the constituents think of the new name and go from there, I drove through Vancouver, WA around Canadian Thanksgiving, it's a nice area. --kelapstick (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bleat from Roland vandal

Why did you put "his" in quotation marks? Is it because I am not human? Hibe3000 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's because you MIGHT be female...Won't matter, your conduct thus far will see you blocked, perhaps permanently.....take your childishness elsewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Hibe3000 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
'Bye, you'll be gone by sunset....Skookum1 (talk) 18
02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BC Hydro

Just a word to say hi. As you've probably noticed in the page history, I've just completed the translation of BC Hydro in French (see BC Hydro). I've noticed you read some French according to your Babel box... so any comments on the translation are always appreciated. Bouchecl (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a frank exchange of views! Please, I have absolutely no COI on this issue. I've never even set foot in British Columbia in my life, and my meagre retirement funds are invested in some growth fund managed by my local caisse populaire :) And, as late as yesterday I knew BC Hydro in name only, except for a media report here and there. I'm a blank slate. A typical, but attentive (translation focuses your mind on the underlying meaning), reader of the article at issue. No COI here, but I am an energy buff.
The fact of the matter is, the bit I neglected to translate made little sense to me. Maybe it could be better explained in the English version of the article.
The whole paragraph talks about these private developers announcing a very costly development. And then, comes the last sentence quoting a BCUC decision on transmission. But since I don't know anything about the backstory (such as another BCUC decision canning the supply plan less than a year ago, the recent departure of the CEO, the role Powerex played in the California brownouts, etc.), I dismissed the incongruity. I can't translate what I can't understand.
Basically, the sentence I skipped "assumed facts not in evidence" in legal terms. I think that sections on Exports (with a few paragraphs on Powerex), the supply situation (is there a supply crisis? if so, when?) and one on the 2007 Energy Plan and events since then (the IPPs, the price differential between public and private power, Burrard, etc.) would be useful for the layman. I plan to do some research I'll publish it. We'll you can't expect perfection the first time around, I guess. Cheers. Bouchecl (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm known for my sharp tongue, and in political matters optics is everything; that may not do for an apology but it's an explanation of the crispness of my tone....too many wiki articles have been written/coopted as p.r. pieces, whether for governments, politicians, companies, organizations or individuals; that's not what it's for but it's hard to see them all properly addressed....a vast sea of effectively unpatrolled POV/COI/AUTO/OR...especially in matters needing some political perspective and objectivity, as here, i.e. without sacrificing neutrality controversial matters have to be addressed. The BC Hydro case, like BC Legislature Raids and BC Rail, is very, very complex and needs expansiin/context; there's lots of govt/corp p.r. that has another side to it, so just citing their materials embraces a series of half-truth and missing contexts; e.g. in Plutonic's case, GE will own 49% of the shares but take 60% of the profits; in NaiKun's case there's no proven viability for hte engineering, adn the financial risk factors are being looked to/shifted to the Haida Nation, which is the context of a recent agreement which, among other things, gave the Haida their long-sought-for renaming of the Queen Charlotte Islands (not in effect until next year); but their credit viability, as with the Klahoose and/or Homalco (or is it Sliammon?) First Nation(s) re Toba-Montrose, who have been made partners expressly to get them to drop any environmental opposition and to have them take up some of the credit risk.....all of this, and more, y'see, to support export markets, not domestic energy needs, and it's no accident that (1) most of these companies are American-owned/backed and (2) their boards are stacked with ex-government officials/politicians who have left BC Hydro and other bodies, having used their positions there to create the companies whose appointments they now enjoy....all this is citable, but it's not really about BC Hydro; but I think you see the point that plugs for the3se power projects, without reference to their controversial aspects, and the evident corruption/nepotism built into who's running them and who'hs financing them, who's being used etc etc....as for the bit about the BCUC being neutered for having dared to interdict/condemn the Campbell government's energy agenda,that seemed pretty clear; but don't worry that you don't udnerstand it, most British Columbians don't understand it - of those who have been allowed to know about it, as t he mainstream media are covering gang wars, the Olympics, what at mess the NDP are and various pointless criminal and social-law cases in the US and elsewhere - "news that matters to British Columbians".....I tried to word what I put in there very carefully, to try for NPOV tone; maybe that's why it's not clear - it should be stated more directly. If you want to find out more about the unrealistic imposed power rates the IPPs will get to sell power to Hydro to (with Hydro, not them, bound to market rates), I invite you to explore http://www.rafemaironline.com eg. here and here, and http://billtieleman.blogspot.com (both major journalists, the former an ex-cabinet minister and long-time talk radio host also...). Perhaps Energy policy in British Columbia would be a worthy undertaking, but I'm not NPOV enough to write it; historically also energy policy is very much more complicated than a BC Hydro article can or should contain....oh, it's mentioned that Rio Tinto Alcan (as titled/linked in the French version, usually just referred to as Alcan in English) gets to sell power to BC Hydro; yeah, that's another controversy, as Kemano power was licennsed by its creators as only being for aluminum smelting at Kitimat and was never supposed to be tied into the provincial grid....much less, indeed, for export to California to keep swimming pools heated and shopping malls cooled....and have a look at THIS re Teck Cominco and the Waneta Dam. Also of note for the article is that the state of California has a boycott of Accenture underway; yet this doesn't or hasn['t yet stopped them from buying BC power because BC Hydro's administrative arm is now run by Accenture; and Powerex is conveniently set up as a quasi-separate corporation, partly to keep BC Hydro and the BC government a bit less liable to trade wars over energy.......I know all this is very complex, and very voluminous and sounds like a political rant, it's actually just an assemblage of facts (all citable) that are missing.....if material like this isn't included in articles like this one, it casts into doubt the veracity of Wikipedia as a credible encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory, of, among other things, corporate resumes/p.r. pieces; as I know you're not COI I havent placed the COI fr-equiv tag on the French article, partly because I don't have enough French to argue my points on its talkpage, nor fr-POV, and in this case t he COI tag was there long before you came along.....please research and add what you can about at least some of my points, both here and in the French version....I'll have a escond look at the French article, and will get back to you....is there a British Columbia Electric Railway article in French wikipedia? It's the main predecessor company, and was also the basis of the current Lower Mainland transit system....Skookum1 (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you removed links to JSTOR from List of traditional territories of the indigenous peoples of North America noting that it was because it is pay-for. Please, don't remove them based only on this rationale. Such links are perfectly fine, see WP:PAYWALL. Thanks. Svick (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skookum1/Archive_10&oldid=1190137962"