Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia/Archive/Archive 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2006 Census figures re 2007 muni/RD changes

Pacific Cordillera & Western Pacific Cordillera

Western Pacific Cordillera was renamed from a US only title, and Pacific Cordillera was prodded because the editor said the US based article was the same topic, instead of merging the articles. I've deprodded it, because the newly renamed article is US centric, so the Canadian centric article shouldn't be deleted until the US article is no longer a US article. I have problems with the title "Western Pacific Cordillera", since this Cordillera is on the edge of the Eastern Pacific, not the Western Pacific, which would be Japan. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Western Pacific Cordillera

I've initiated a move request for Western Pacific Cordillera, because this name does not appear to have ever been used to refer to what is usually called the Western Cordillera or Pacific Cordillera, and the scope of the article is more than just the western part of the Pacific Cordillera. Please leave your opinions at Talk:Western Pacific Cordillera 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


The McLean Group of Companies - Proposed deletion

The article fails Wikipedia Notability guidelines:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

I removed non working reference links and noticed that each had previously directed to a webpage published by the subject company. The two remaining links work but they are also directions to company published material.

It appears that no independent sources stand behind the existing content. --Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's customary to at least link to an article that you've proposed for deletion. I agree that the company's page is a puff piece and not independently cited.....however at least two of their properties are highly notable, i.e. the Landing and Vancouver Film Studios. I'm also wondering if "David McLean (businessman)", as it's linked in that article but is a redirect to a properly-dabbed article, is a scion of the same old Vancouver family that gave us Mayor McLean; in which case the company has other notability than its own circular references. COI is clearly a suspet issue on the page in question. Deleting non-working and "circular" links is all fine and dandy, but corresponding efforts to find references to pre-empt hasty deletion is also kind of part of the process, in the intersts of NPOV. Have you tried this? Because there are certainly less notable companies on {{Vancouver Corporations}} and, if this is the same vintage blood as that of Mayor McLean, the company as a holding is itself notable in that regard, and also as the owner of Vancouver Film Studios, which is no small potatoes in the local film industry (or the continental film industry, in fact....). The Landing's blurb in the article is brochure-over-written. Yes, it was a supply warehouse for bush mines, but the Klondike Gold Rush was well over by 1905, but anyting to gussy up a promo piece (and hence lots of bad history and worse geography on a lot of such articles....). Anyway, just asking that some effort be put into finding worthwhile reasons to keep this article, as it may in fact have historical conenctions and business conenctions that, despite hte lack of refs at present, DO make it notable....Skookum1 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW most companies worth US$1 billion are indeed notable....(especially at the local scale and in terms of Vancouver's bsuiness history). Also this shoudl be x-posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesSkookum1 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If you disagree with the prod, you are free to remove it; please leave explanations on the discussion page. PKT(alk) 02:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ORG for notability guidelines for companies.--KenWalker | Talk 04:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deproded it as I believe it is notable. If you disagree, feel free to open an afd.Smallman12q (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fraser disambiguation page

I just added a number of items, some of them redlinks, to the Fraser disambiguation page, which formerly had only the river and SFU. Other items yet to be added, consult BCGNIS and also all electoral districts with "Fraser" in them should be added...Skookum1 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


Victoria?

For some reason in site and off site links to this page just bring up a blank..maybe my comp is messed up or something but if someone could look at it would be great...I'm sure there is a good chance it's not just me, I did check in the greater victoria page and looked in discussion for it merging with CRD, did it end up merging with the city of... if so, removal of links would be a smart move...Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.20.218 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


FAR of BC Rail

I have nominated BC Rail for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mis-use of regional districts as regions

Regional districts are governments, very limited ones at that; they are not regions, i.e. they are composed of regions, but there are swo many regionalization systems in BC that given them pride of place as a classification system in Wikipedia amounts to synthesis. Typically, they are also mis-used without the definite article, particularly in category names, though the "Settlements in" subcats were approved to change to "the XX Regional District" by a CFD; I just haven't gotten to filing a CFD for the "people from" cat on the same basis. I just spent a good chunk of my morning reverting the over-specialization of reqphoto templates into a new RD-based cat hierarchy craeted last night by User:TheMightyQuill, which was an ill-advised creation and perpetuated the ongiong mis-use of RDs to classify things that are not under regional district jurisdiction, and also to use them without the grammatically-required definite article "the". I am currently depopulating RD categories of things that don't belong in them - lakes, rivers, provincial/national parks, Indian Reserves, schools/school districts. Using RDs to classify such topics is synthesis and amounts to original research, as they are not so classified by the sources, or indeed by any of the bodies named (particularly Indian Reserves); parks are organized by MoE/Parks regions, and otherwise are citable only by Land District.. In cases like the reqphoto categories it was just silly - why would a photo of Boston Bar be necessarily something that a person from Agassiz or Abbostford would come up with (it's in teh FVRD) rather than someone from Lytton (TNRD) or Lillooet (SLRD?) or 100 Mile (CRD)? Why would a picture of the Finlay-Russel Provincial Park, which is in the Cassiar/Omineca Mountains area, be produceable by someone from Fort St. John or Dawson Creek (there's not even a direct road between them). The useful and only regularly in-real-world-use geographic regions are things like "the Cariboo", "the Fraser Valley", "the Okanagan" but even those are too specific for reqphoto; I can see Category:Requested photographs in Vancouver Island or Category:Requested photographs in the British Columbia Interior but there's no point at all in Category:Requested photographs in Nanaimo Regional District - which shoould have been titled "Category:Requested photographs in the Nanaimo Regional District anyway; nobody but Wikipedians classifies things by regional district, this silliness has got to end; it produces stilted langauge and a complete misapprehension by readers of the relevance/importance of regional districts; as per WP:Undue weight their use shoudl be discontinued or limited only to items actually under their jursidiction - their EAs, any regional parks, member communities/municipalities, and any buildings/ services run by them (not just located within their boundaries). Historical items such as the many steamboats that were in the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District category are particularly inapt and irrelevant to what an RD is. In some cases I've created subcats for the Settlements/People items like Category:Settlements in the Similkameen or Category:Cariboo people; in the former case this can include ghost towns and Indian Reserves, which the RD cat as such cannot/should not include. It's pretty simple - the RDs are composed of regions we all know and recognize the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen is the combination of the Similkameen Country and the South Okanagan, Regional District of Kootenay Boundary is the combination of some of the West Kootenay with the Boundary Country; "Central Kootenay" is a neologism only used by the RD-naming system (as it includes Creston, which is normally in the East Kootenay, and excludes most of hte West Kootenay); Columbia-Shuswap Regional District is simply enough comprised of the Columbia Country and the Shuswap Country; Cariboo Regional District of the Cariboo and the Chilcotin (and some of hte Cariboo is in the TNRD....). Perpetuating thet misapprehensions caused by using RDs as a geographic classification system, I repeat, is synthesis and neologistic in effect; it's an artificial, and artificial-sounding, regionalization system and was a bad idea from the start.Skookum1 (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Skookum, thanks for writing. I'll start with the most important issue: We need to subcategorize that category. There are 1,300+ photos in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in British Columbia. You are 100% correct that someone in Prince George might well have a picture of Burns Lake... far MORE likely than someone who lives in Victoria. By subdividing, people can easily find those articles in regions in which they live OR those regions near them. Right now, if I live in Prince George, I need to slog through a list of 1,300+ articles, trying to find ones that I might be able to photograph. There's no reason that I'm bound to only look in my particular regional category - it's likely that I'll look in those nearby - but I shouldn't have to wade through articles about places no where near me. Generally, these categories were set up for wikipedians actively looking for something to take photographs of, so it makes sense to help them as much as possible. Can you please concede this point at least?
Second, I know you don't like the district categories, and I can understand your desire to include "common usage" geographic terms for articles. Yet, Regional Districts have one main advantage for categorization, however: their borders are clear and not overlapping. Whether something (say, a Provincial Park) is in Thompson Country or Nicola country might be ambiguous, but the Regional District boundaries are clear. You're right that Regional District governments don't have authority over provincial parks, but they are nonetheless included within regional district boundaries - inside the county line, as it were. Legally,
"'regional district' means, as applicable,
(a) a regional district incorporated under this Act, or
(b) the geographic area of a regional district corporation referred to in paragraph (a);" [1]
Where's your citation for it being purely a government and not a geographic term? Where's your evidence that people don't use these terms? By the way, I don't think it's fair to suggest a citable and legally defined term is a "neologism" in the way neologism is used on wikipedia. I didn't make up the term "Central Kootenay".
Where is you evidence that people DO use them? The only BC Govt agency that I know of, other than the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which uses them for locational purposes is the BC Archives - which isn't really helpful at all, given that historical images from the 1880s etc were not taken when regional districts existed (not until 1967). Looking around google on a variety of subjects, almost without fail any site other than Wikipedia or a regional district's own website that uses them is very predictably a site that's a Wiki-mirror or that clearly draws on Wikipedia as a source. And can guarantee you that you won't find on any First Nation website any kind of statment that "Secwepemc lands are part of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District" or "the Ashcroft Indian Band is a First Nation in the Thompson-Nicola regional district". And as for the legal definition you cite, that's not legislation saying that this is the term to be used for geographic descriptions, only that the phrase "regional district" may refer to the area described by the RD's boundaries; it does not mean that it "IS" the term; the same legal language you'll find in legislation on municipalities, forests districts, etc - i.e. the Kamloops Forest District is an organization, but it is also the area managed by that organization. And when most of the areas within regional district boundaries are not, in fact, under the jurisdiction/goernance of the reginoal district government, it makes them all the more pointless; in most of the Interior and the Coast, about 80% of the land is governed by Forests Regions/Forests Districts, prov parks are governed by Parks regions (which are similar to but not identical to MoE regions and are different again from MoTourism regions). Hospitals are organized by Health Regions, schoosl by School Districts. classifying them by an unrelated classification/geographic division system is just, well, pointless as well as places too much emphasis on one geographic division over the others (which is even sillier when most of the others have more powers....).Skookum1 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
They've been legally defined geographic categories since the late 1960s. I don't see what other evidence you need. In my experience, people DO talk about things being withing the GVRD (or now, Metro Vancouver) and withing the Capital Regional District, just as much as Americans talk about things being "in the county" or "within county lines." (Do a google search for "within the GVRD" or "within the CRD") But "my experience" = Original Research, just the same as yours. RDs are legal geographic divisions, whereas informal regions are not. The Indigenous issue is totally separate... Personally, I'm not even big on including indigenous territories within British Columbia (or even Canada) because of the politics behind it, so I'm not going to suggest including them within RDs. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The word 'district' does mean geography as well as government, as those boundaries have been drawn and are legal, unlike "cariboo" or "okanagan" which are much less precise. We'd have to add two or even three of those categories on some articles, which contradicts the whole purpose of subcategorizing to decrease articles in a category. We could use census divisions instead, but I think people are much more likely to know which regional district they live in than which census division, especially because census divisions seem to change every few years in BC. So basically, using RDs instead of vague geographic regions is much simpler, and since these are NOT categories for public view, but for wikipedians, what "people use" is far less relevant. I understand your concerns with the actual articles being placed in these categories, but for the talk pages & reqphoto, it makes the most sense.
Thirdly, and similarly, non-usage of the word "the" is also simpler, and again, these are NOT categories for public viewing, so it doesn't matter if it's "ugly". Who cares? Who would have thought you were such a stickler? =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Only time just now to reply to this last - I'm a BIG stickler on proper usage, and the further problem is that "people", because of the catnames, begin to use the RD names as proper names without the "the", and also abbreviate them to "region" or "district", which they are not, at least not hte primary uses of same. "Cariboo district" clearly means somethign entirely different from "Cariboo Regional District", for example. Time and again thoughout article texts (for public viewing) I come across such mis-usages, and I also see inclusion materials which do NOT belong in regional district categories, i.e. from other government hierarchies (school districts, provincial parks e,g.), or which have other classification systems (mountains, e.g.). They are unworkable as region-placement categories. If there's a need to break down the reqqphoto|in=British Columbia cat then "North Coast", "Central Interior", "Lower Mainland", "Vancouver Island" are just fine, there's no need to use a system that nobody else uses. Throughout academic papers Iv'e seen in all kinds of fields" I've seen either the suages like Chilcotin District or Bridge River Country or Stikine Country used, or "in the Kamloops Forest District", "in the Terrace Forest District" and the like - or by mountain range/plateau or other landform. Regional districts as geographic region classifications are only used by WIKIPEDIA" - and by sources which make the mistake of citing Wikipedia. BCGNIS and CGNDB use Land Districts, the British Columbia Museum Living Landscapes uses something like the tourism regions (e.g Thompson-Okanagan). Central Kootenay may not be a neologism, exactly, but it IS a rebranding and the PROPER term for that area is still the West Kootenay. And these places have more precise boundaries than you may be aware of; sometimes things are in two regions, due to overlaps or "border towns" like Chase (Thompson/Shuswap). That's all for now, but I'll go back to my original point in this post that the use of them as geogrphic-region categories leads to lede location statements such as "the Ahousaht First Nation is a band government in the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District" which is entirely and wholly inappropriate; or to abbreviated usages such as "Tatlatui Provincial Park is a provincial park in the Peace River District" which is anything but true. They're a bad idea, and were from day one.Skookum1 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
My whole point is that "proper" is POV and often vague, whereas "legal" is not. Maybe these "land districts" used by GCGNIS would be better for you? Do we have a clear list of them somewhere? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
They have their problems too; but see List of Land Districts of British Columbia for a full listing; the main problem is that while some are very large and date back in fact to the founding of the colonial land system - the Lillooet, Cariboo, Kootenay, Yale, Cassiar and New Westminster Land Districts, on Vancouver Island there seem to be nearly two dozen, some very small; why that is I have no good answer for and have asked one or two lawyers of my acquaintance why it's so, but it is. The point with them is that BCGNIS and CGNDB (and also older electoral district descriptions) use them - see e.g. "Boundary Ridge". BC Geographical Names., "Welcome Beach". BC Geographical Names., and that's the "official gazette" of provincial toponymy/geography. The mainland ones, and the Coast Land District, Range 1; Coast Land District, Range 2; Coast Land District, Range 3, seem fairly useful (I have to go out but will come back in an 1896 or so map showing them as they were at that time; with the mainland ones not having changed since).Skookum1 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added the necessary name-switches to those BCGNIS refs, which turn out to be for articles not written yet, but you get the idea; check any article which has a BCGNIS reference - including any regional district ones - and you'll see that even regional districts are located by the land district their centrepoint is located in. They are the primary underlay of the BC legal geo-language, including Indian Reserves. But again, why there are ~20 on Vancouver Island, more than on the mainland in fact, I don't know....Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
also noting that in many cases/regions, thte best locator-category is simply teh landform category - where human habitation/identity means that mountains e.g. far from settled/governed territories are most aptly placed in e.g. Category:Cassiar Mountains or Category:Stikine Plateau or their subcats; ditto with Mount Waddington, which it doesn't matter which regional district it's in, or even which land district (it happens to be in Coast Land District, Range 2 (or 3?) I think.Skookum1 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
You seriously think people are aware of which plateau they live on? Heh... - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I was speaking only of areas which don't have "human identities", the sense of "Country" built into Chilcotin, Cariboo, Omineca - vs areas far from human habitation/occupancy, even far from FN ocupancy. Nobody lives in the Stikine Ranges, nobody lives on the [[Taku Plateau; some such landforms are part of "known countries", like the Stikine Country or Cassiar Country or Atlin District - these landforms include teh Tagish Highland, Tahltan Highland, Spatsizi Plateau but some areas just don't have such a "somewhere" to fit into, and hte only in-use place name/designator are the mountains themselves. Or, in the case of peaks on the BC-Alberta/Yoho-Banff Parks boundary, there's already the Canadian Rockies cat and the respective Nat'l Parks cats and there is NO REASON to give the regional district, which is entirely irrelevant either to the landform, or to federal jurisdiction; saying Mount Columbia is in the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District (or Regional Distrit of East Kootenay, whichever it is) is no more worthwhile than saying it's in the Diocese of New Westminster; neither the diocese nor the regional district have anything to do with mountains or federal parks. Anyway the reason I raised the landform thing is because some areas are difficult to "box"....along the Coast it breaks down by sound, or by inlet; I just hadn't gotten around to making Category:Queen Charlotte Strait region or Category:Clayoquot Sound region yet, and I've been reminded that each such cat needs an article to go with it (although in those two cases Queen Charlotte Strait and Clayoqout Sound could be used cf Category:Puget Sound as a region category as well as a waterbody category). Marktosis and Opitsaht, as Nuu-chah-nulth settlements, properly belong in "Clayoquot Sound region" - but they are entirely irrelevant to the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District's purview. In the way far, far north there's "blank spots" I puzzle over - northeast of Fort Nelson, or around the Taku River, don't fall into either "Fort Nelson Country" (which devolves off the Fort Nelson River and is roughly the NRRD east of the Rockies only) but doesnt' really including the Ehtsho Plateau, I think it's called, which is up in the far, far northeast corner of the province, and the Taku Country, so-called, is in between the "named" areas like the Atlin District, Cassiar Country/District or Stikin eCountry; some uninhabited areas nonetheless do go by "country" appellations when they're mentioned, e.g. Teslin Country for the area of Teslin Lake and the basin of the Teslin (but not Jennings or Hayes) Rivers; but that area is also in either Category:Stikine Plateau (in the subarea Kawdy Plateau) or in the Caasiar Mountains, depending on exactly which area is referenced. ALL of the areas I've just mentioned are in the non-regional district known as the Stikine Region, which interstingly enough since Dease Lake was added to the RD Kitimat-Stikine barely touches the Stikine River at all now, and is mostly the Cassiar, Taku and Atlin areas; the Tatshenshini-Alsek (the "BC Panhandle") is also in it, but is also a park; labelling it "Stikine Region" is just silly; it's not even part of the neighouring Atlin District (which is from Bennett Lake over to Atlin and surrouding country). For landforms up there - mountains, lakes - and even for the few ghost towns and tiny settlementsi n that region, it makes more sense to put them in landform categories than for "largely theoretical" administrative boundaries" for something that's not even ar egional district; most of the area is primarly "governed" by the Mines Branch and or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, depending on what's being talked about. Similarly in the heart of the Kitimat Ranges or on various areas along teh Boundary Ranges there's no real designation other than being in those ranges; much the same is true of a lot of the deeper Pacific Ranges, and the Northern Rockies....Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you now switched to talking about categories for article mainspace? Because I really couldn't care less about that. There is no reason why categories for talk page reqphotos need to be consistent with article mainspace categories. They serve totally different purposes. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, got off on a tangent discussing RDs vs regions vs landforms cats.....as far as reqphoto cats go I think we'd be safe - since it's not in articlespace - using conventional terms for given areas - some of them pairings and they don't have to be precise boundaries as this is only reqphoto although in some cases it'd be dicey to say which to use, e.g. Thompson-Okanagan on the one hand vs Kamloops-Shuswap and Okanagan on the other; Nicola-Similkameen or Boundary-Similkameen; Lower Mainland-Greater Vancouver vs. Mainland Southwest (which includes Whistler and, at least in govt terminology, Lytton and Lillooet), Cariboo-Chilcotin. It could be way simpler - Southern Interior, Central Interior, Northern Interior but those have even fuzzier boundaries, better to just saw "users in the West Kootenay-Arrow Lakes" (which includes the Slocan) or "users in th East Kootenay-Columbia Valley"; that Burns Lake one could be "in the Prince George-Omineca and Skeena-Bukley regions", suggesting two cats Prince George-Omineca and Skeena-Bulkley, i.e. two swithces within reqphoto, if that's possible. North Coast-queen Charlottes, North Island-Central Coast. I'm having lunch, I'll try to come up with a list later of "useful" ones, including some of those jut named; not all regions have to be covered, i.e. "British Columbia" will suffice in some cases, whether because they'r remote or they're high-frequency locations where people from more than one area might be able to help; consider locations along hte Alaska or Stewart-Cassiar Highways, for example, where it might be a Yukoner or Alaskan who might have a host of a remote part of BC, or Hope which nearly everybody touches on at some point. Essentials that come to mind are the Peace River Country, the Cariboo (perhaps "Thompson-Cariboo"...but then Chilcotin is implied as a separate item, an Thompson-Okanagan might better be Okanagan-Shuswap; Sea to Sky Country seems necessary, as does Sunshine Coast, also Gulf Islands......"Mid-Island" and "South Island" etc....Skookum1 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I leave it to your experience to create these categories then? I found the easiest way is to replace {{reqphoto|in=British Columbia}} with {{reqphoto|in=XXX}}, which will create a redlinked category at the bottom of the talk page. Click on the redlink to create it and add Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in British Columbia to make it a subcategory. It shouldn't take you too long, depending on how many you create. Although it says "wikipedians from xxx may help", if people are actively looking to help take photos, they will go to the categories near them, whether or not they live in those regions. Thus it would make sense to categorize photos like along the Alaska highway, regardless of who might be taking the picture. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I finally took the time to look at the template documentation, as I've been meaning to since leaving this discussion in hiatus; which I partly did so in trying to figure out the most useful subdivisions of the province; I was puzzling over things like Thompson-Shuswap, Kamloops-Shuswap, Cariboo-Thompson, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Shuswap-Okanagan, Thompson-Okanagan, Okanagan-Similkameen, Boundary-Similkameen, Nicola-Similkameen, Okanagan-Boundary, West Kootenay-Boundary, Slocan-Arrow Lakes, West Kootenay-Slocan ad nauseam and finally came to the conclusion that the easiest thing to do is to make all the major components of those typical dualisms as separate categories, and use the in=, in2=, in3=, in4= series of options as in some article locations the duality is necessary, and in some cases three or four options would be good. And because this doesn't appear in article-space the restrictions applied to visible categories don't apply. Here's the working list:
  • {{reqphoto|in=the West Kootenay}} - thought about specifics for the Slocan, the Arrow Lakes region, Lardeau Country but all those areas are inclusive of West Kootenay usually; still leaves Revelstoke "odd man out" ("North Kootenay") but the further option is simply {{reqphoto|in=the Kootenays}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the East Kootenay-Columbia Valley}} - thought about Elk Valley too but...also the Creston Valley is technically East Kootenay, SFAIK so maybe {{reqphoto|in=East Kootenay}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Cariboo}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Chilcotin}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Bridge River-Lillooet Country}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Sea to Sky Corridor}} (Pemberton Valley is in both this and the previous)
  • {{reqphoto|in=Greater Prince George}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Omineca}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Bulkley Valley}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Nechako Country}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Peace River Country}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Skeena Valley}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=Nisga'a Territory}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the North Coast}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Central Coast}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=Bella Coola Valley}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the North Island}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Clayoquot Sound-Pacific Rim region}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Juan de Fuca region}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Southern Gulf Islands}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=Greater Victoria}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Cowichan Valley}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=Nanaimo-Ladysmith-Parksville}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Comox Valley}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Sunshine Coast-Powell River region}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Northern Gulf Islands}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Similkameen}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Nicola Valley}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the North Okanagan}} or North Okanagan-Monashees
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Central Okanagan}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the South Okanagan}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Boundary Country}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Shuswap}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=Greater Kamloops}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Fraser Canyon}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Peace River Country}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Fort Nelson-Liard region}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Cassiar-Stikine}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Atlin District}}
  • {{reqphoto|in=the Robson Valley}}

OK, my brain is tired for now LOL and this still needs simplification; next draft of this list will be attempts at combination forms, which should reduce the list by about 1/3 of its size. I have some thought to {{reqphoto|in=Lower Mainland}} but I think some specificity there might be worthwhile:

  • {{reqphoto|in=the North Shore}}

{{reqphoto|in=Vancouver}}

  • {{reqphoto|in=the Lower Fraser Valley}}

{{reqphoto|in=Upper Fraser Valley}} And what I'm going to ponder is the geographic divisions used by such as hellobc.com (TourismBC) because they're access/transporation-corridor based....saving this for now, more later tonightSkookum1 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Any progress with this? We can probably get a bot to do some of the work, once you decide which categories we're going to use. I would think Okanagan would be good enough for a category by itself without subdividing. Same with Gulf Islands. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noting for anyone who happens to come across a dead link for any pages using this site as an external link or other cite, that I'm the domain owner, and it's currently "down" as I overlooked me renewal date, but it should be back up in a few days...I have until the 4th to renew it, but am currently looking for a sponsor to help out as I don't have the dough. Not asking anyone here to do that, I just wanted to note the problem so that links to the site, if removed, don't have to be reinserted/reinstated.Skookum1 (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The site is now back up.Skookum1 (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian/BC government resource publications

I used to have the 1954 one, which if course is the most up-to-date and also the most thorough, covering lots of streams (and waterfalls on them) for which other online sources will be difficult to find.23:50, 15 June 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) 10:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned articles with "british columbia" in their titles

After the list for July 2009 had been completed, I searched for the character string "british columbia" in the lists for the first seven months of 2009 at Category:Orphaned articles, and I found the following orphaned articles.

February 2009

March 2009

June 2009

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have this talk page on my watchlist, so please place any responses here. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

New article bot

I recently discovered a useful bot that generates new article information page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan/New articles. It looks handy and even though the BC project is now more of a sub project for the Canada project (which also has a bot generated new articles page), I think it would be useful to identify articles related to BC that may not have been labelled as part of this project. Once I get the rules set working and the bot has populated our search result list, I will add a link to the tools section of the navigation box so it can be found. The bot lives at User:AlexNewArtBot where instructions for the rule set are found. The bot will keep a log of its work. The page where the new articles will appear is Wikipedia:BC/New articles, at least I think it will . . . . This is my first attempt at putting a bot to work so all help is welcome. --KenWalker | Talk 02:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is checking this out, the bot is down at the moment, so check back later. --KenWalker | Talk 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The bot is running now. The current search results can be found at Wikipedia:BC/New articles--KenWalker | Talk 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about new piplines or roads to PR?

I remember hearing talk in the news that several companies had plans to build oil and liquidfied natural gas (LNG) export terminals in Prince Rupert or Kitimat so that Canada could potentially start to export petroleum to Asians markets instead of just the US. The article on Kitimat touches on this but nothing that is well-sourced or concrete. I think there is scope there for more detail. Also does anyone know if there are any plans afoot to create more roads in the northern interior to help connect the oil and gas fields of the peace region and the ALberta oilsands to ocean so as to more easily import machinery from Asia? What are the potenial mountain passes such piplines and roads might need to use? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 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.

- Mkdwtalk 20:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice "free" BC photos available

Victoria photographer Brandon Godfrey has a nice set of (mostly) BC photos available at Flickr, most or all licensed CC-A-SA ("free"). I've posted some nice ones -- see forex File:East Sooke Park BC.jpg. Plenty more available -- have a look. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Killer Whale - featured article review

I have nominated Killer Whale for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Columbia/Archive/Archive_2009&oldid=1137391660"