Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia/Archive/Archive Feb 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Parent project

I'm uncertain as to whether the WikiProject Vancouver is listed as a parent project. While the Vancouver project has been well established for a long time, it makes no sense that the tail should wag the dog. Vancouver might be the dominant community, but it is still a part of British Columbia, and not the other way around. This should really be the parent of WikiProject Vancouver. Agent 86 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver is not a "parent project". Wikipedia did not include the space put further orginally. It has been changed accordingly. Mkdwtalk 08:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a "parent" here then? I'm wondering if these work like category trees, i.e., if something is tagged "Vancouver project" does it also need the BC project tag. In other words, is Vancouver Project a sub-project of the BC project (which I assume is a sub-project of the Canada project)? Bobanny 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck

From your friends at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alberta. PS, can you add us to your related projects? Kevlar67 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The banner

Can I add that banner to some articles about Canada that I know don't have it, notably the communities on Vancouver Island, as they are part of Canada, and most of them are rather small and/or stubs. Kaiser matias 07:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Mkdwtalk 08:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Project Template talk added

Added Template talk:WikiProject British Columbia. First try at this sort of thing. Could someone more knowledgeable check it out? KenWalker | Talk 11:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, nothing has gone up in smoke so, with no complaints heard, I am going to continue fiddling with some of this structure. Some of the links under Tools, etc apparently go to places that relate to the project this was copied from. I will go ahead and change them to suit this project, by editing Template:WPBC Navigation creating pages and categories as it goes along. May also move the template instructions as mentioned at Template talk:WikiProject British Columbia Hope I don't mess things up, but it seems to need doing. KenWalker | Talk 06:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Be careful not to remove content from talk pages. Thanks. -- Selmo (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal Link in municipality infobox

... looks very out of place in article mainspaces and it seems to me that portal information should go on the talk page, or at least be reformatted so that it looks like it's supposed to be in the infobox. Could someone who knows about this sort of thing check it out? Thanks, Bobanny 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Second that. {{British Columbia municipality infobox}} has been edited to include the portal link by Selmo (talk · contribs). I'd rather have the portal link in the See also section. --Qyd 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Gray Sails the Columbia River

I was hoping some folks could weigh in on the debate about a propossed merger of the above page, if anyone has time.Thanks. Aboutmovies 18:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Provincial templates update

Should the provincial templates be updated with the standard {{Navbox generic}} layout? Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada#Province templates. --Qyd 23:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Politician/MLA/MP cats

Noticed when adding the British Columbia politician cat to Robert Bonner (politician) he should be in the MLA category - unless the MLA category is only for current MLAs? If not I suggest there should be "current MLAs" and "current MPs" categories vs "past MLAs" and "past MPs", or both cats are going to be chock-full; not to say they can't be....Got confused a bit too because Bonner's predecessor as MLA for Vancouver-Point Grey was George Clark Miller, whose current article makes no mention of being an MLA - I'm not familiar enough to fix it; he was an MLA, an MP and a mayor, currently he's only got the BC politician stub.....so at what point does someone get the politician stub of the politician cat, and should the politician stub be good for all past MLAs and MPS and mayors and what-not? What about senior civil servants and others with political profiles who were not elected? (notable aides, consultants, party chairs etc). Basically just trying to sort out and understand the cat hierarchy; did the list of those I compiled for User:Buchanan-Hermit's old sandbox version of this project get migrated here?Skookum1 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

template for userbox for Members of this project

Hi; don't know how to create these well but it seems to me we should have userboxes saying "This user is a member of WikiProject British Columbia". Suggest we use a dogwood rather than the flag for this, as the flag won't look good if it's tiny IMO; and the escutcheon is an official trademark signifying government publications/authority.Skookum1 02:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your userbox looks nice. Good work. -- Selmo (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Chief Dan George article - COTM/FA?

Am I the only one of us with this page on their watchlist? Whatever. Just dropping the BC template into various pages I knew didn't have it, including Dan George, which is for Chief Dan George (redirect already in place). I've been giving "high" importance ratings for all major First Nations leaders/personalities, but I venture that in his case it's worth making him "TOP" priority and it's going to be more than worthwhile to try and turn this into an FA via a COTM at some point. I don't have any of his books, but I'm sure as far as pics go the Tsleil-wau-tuth would be happy to donate some, prob. already in the public domain. Easily the most recognizable and popular and influential First Nations figure in BC history, even though he's gone from us now, and well worth a feature article, wake nah? (wake nah? is the Chinook Jargon equivalent of n'est-ce pas?)Skookum1 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

All I know about Dan George is: his sister is my great great grandmother's auntie. errr' something like that. I don't have many books, or records of him. But, I'll add this to the list of things to do. OldManRivers 10:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Tools

I have been tinkering with the Tools for this project. I hope I am not breaking anything . . . In the tool box, under Tools|Announcements|Article Requests I have changed the link. It went to the Canada project. Instead I have created an article for listing articles wanted about BC. It is at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia/Article requests. I made the mistake of creating a category, but you can't put articles that don't exist yet in a category, so this looks like a better way to go. Being bold here, hope I am not messing things up. KenWalker | Talk 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Begun map collection/directory in my sandbox

Just now I finished the first batch of NASA Virtual Earth images in the form of a link-directory on my sandbox page at British Columbia and Pacific Northwest History Map Resources. The Map Resources page will also be a place I'll assemble other map and map-image (like sat photos) that can be used in Wiki, i.e. all will be public domain as these NASA images. A few of the Wikipedians in WikiProject Mountains (including Qyd, who also is in the BC WikiProject, are good mapmakers and there are others I've run into in the course of various articles who have provided maplinks or inserted images supplanting my own fudgy maps - see Monashee Mountains, for example, which uses one of these NASA images as its base (could be brightened, but we'll deal with that). A bunch of the pictures are neat in their own right, but because typically they're taken in clear weather, even if they're of forest fires (many are) there are areas which can be cut-and-copied to separate images for illustrative/mapping purposes. When you visit that page, feel free to comment on any of the images as I have (check out the one mentioning Meszah Peak in its notes, and also the Tagish Lake one, which is a very frozen view of what Yukoners prosaically call the Southern Lakes (Atlin, Taku Arm, Tagish and Teslin Lakes; you can see the cracks in the ice). Most shots tend to have snow cover on the ranges, but not all; good to illustrate some things, not for others; some have scattered cloud - mackerel sky and cirrus streaks - but it's a good collection. I'll be adding other maps in the next few days, and feel free to add sections for other maps and links, and thumbnails if you wish.

The bigger sandbox is BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum & Resources which also has a sub-sandbox at User talk:Skookum1/BC&PacificNorthwestHistory/Resources; the main area right now is a compilation of stuff I've left on talk pages all over Wikidom, and the intent was to migrate a lot of my geographical musings and historical ramblings to this "Forum". Items of my own and links to various historical and other regional resources will also be compiled here over time, or again that's my intent (it's been pretty fallow since I first created it, but I've been...er...busy with too much else....). The second-named sandbox User talk:Skookum1/BC&PacificNorthwestHistory/Resources is meant for transcribing out-of-print materials to be used as reference; not entire works but quotes/selections on different topics (since even out-of-print materials may still be in copyright). Some stuff that's archival/documentary that I know of I'll plunk into WikiSource as applicable, but the idea here is selected material on given topics. All that's there now is selections from a certain book on the subject of Joseph Martin (Canadian politician), but there are other things I've been meaning to hand-transcribe/excerpt - next on Arthur Bunster. The Martin material I will probably migrate to User talk:Skookum1/BC&PacificNorthwestHistory/Resources/BioResources where I've promised someone I'll put the Arthur Bunster stuff (I think it was User:JGGardiner, who may or may not have joined this WikiProject by now). Needless to say, those two are among the most outrageous and colourful characters in BC's history, and so a good place to start.... But pls add material on anyone or anything that can't be quoted directly in an article - except for short bits; this material is provided for reference and study towards the writing of articles; can't remember who took what I put up and augmented the Joseph Martin article, but they did a nice job - but there's even more on him I know of, it's just a question of transcription time. And anything someone else might care to add. Suggest that, if you use one of these sources, or something's interesting enough, linking to the sandbox from a talkpage might be a good thing to do, as appropriate.

I may start a sandbox that's a joint forum for BC, Oregon, Eastern Washington, Alaska and Alberta WikiProjects, since there's obviously common/cross-over interests (WikiProjects Washington, Idaho and Montana bit the dust a while back, but their redlinks/templates still show up now and then on various pages, as I've found).

Please add anything you like on any of these pages that could be of use to other Wikipedians interested in history/geography to do with the region. The region defined as including the AK, YT, BC, WA, OR, ID, MT, western AB, northern CA and NV, and maybe far western NWT (as Selwyn Range and Mackenzie Range both need creation as well as maps/illustration). Skookum1 10:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

finally made British Columbia Interior!

It was getting to me, because for Interior many links were put to Interior Plateau, but that's not quite right because that's a landform article; this is for the region, including non-plateau areas like the Kootenays and Canyon; hard to cite my descriptions but if you're from here go ahead and quibble and we'll figure out how to cite the various subregions I've described; left open the Demographics, Economy, History, Society, Culture etc for expansion, and will come up with maps etc. This had to get made - if you're reading/editing a BC article and see an "Interior" link please check it and, if the context is appropriate, link it here instead.Skookum1 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Loose guidelines for ratings

As recommended by someone (Bobanny? KenWalker?) I'm posting here an FYI as to certain guidelines I've been using for giving articles their importance ratings in the WikiProject; these are what I've been using anyway; you don't have to but some kind of consistency would be nice:

  • All major First Nations ethno/people articles and major political groups get "high" rating (this is just protocol/respect and "smart politics")
  • All 18th-19th Century First Nations leaders get "high" ratings (e.g. Nicola, Maquinna)
  • All major fur trade-era, colonial and early provincial figures get "high" ratings (which is why I just gave Peter Skene Ogden a high rating, even though he's an obscurity by modern standards). All Premiers and Lieutenant-Governors and Colonial Governors are necessarily "high", as also certain cabinet ministers. Outside of politics, prominent businesspeople and landowners are a consideration, and "businesspeople" here includes prospectors like Billy Barker and Volcanic Brown (I'll be writing Brown soon) and freightmen like Frank Barnard, lumbermen like Sue Moody or Stamp or Raymur, etc. Major-city mayors also (defining "major city" is a different matter).
  • All major mountain groupings and geographic-region articles get "high" ratings. Lesser mountain groupings, i.e. subgroupings (e.g. Pacific Ranges, part of the Coast Mountains) get at least "mid" rating; if they're prominent/high-profile like the Garibaldi Ranges then "high" is more appropriate.

Those are the ones that come to mind at the moment; there are others I know I was ballparking so I'll come back and add them later when I see them again, or when they occur to me post scripti.Skookum1 03:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have assessed quite a few articles and I think I am following the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia/Assessment. It would be useful if those who have been assessing and/or writing articles refined the descriptions in that article so that they can be consistently applied, making the categories they produce as useful as possible. My comments are:
  • Low importance is only for things that are nearly not worthy of an article at all, things that someone out of province would probably not find useful at all. I think the example in the the assessment scale of the biography project was was a bio article of a political candidate who had not been elected. I put in the example about a local high school but on reflection I would think that the Mid importance scale would be better for the Skytrain example shown. Something on a mountain peak that no one really cares about that is just there because it is on a list or a village without any significant history or interest could fit here.
  • Mid Importance. Most articles should be here.
  • High Importance. Not too many here, for a selection of key articles.
  • Top. Reserved for very few core articles, for very important stuff.
and then, the Quality Scale,
  • FA - those with little gold stars . . .
  • A see below
  • GA See the discussion under Good Article Candidate at Talk:Taylor,_British_Columbia. I read the assessment guide to mean that until an article went through the Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates process to become WP:GA, it didn't move up to A so that if it wasn't a GA, B was as high as it rose. As you can see from the discussion, that was quickly dispensed with, partly because it seemed a burden but really because the particular article simply deserved an A on the face of it. I have never participated in the GA process, so maybe someone with some experience with it could comment about whether we should use it.
  • B see below
  • Start Clear enough I think.
  • Stub Same, I think we know a stub when we see one.
Overall, the quality descriptions seem to me to need some refinement. The descriptions don't really seem to distinguish between A, B and Start when I read them, they don't really seem distinct. Essentially they are the same descriptions leaving the editor doing the assessment those 3 choices to be used in a subjective way. Maybe that is good enough. Maybe all we need to know is that A is better than B and Start is just past being a Stub. It may not be very consistent, but it does seem simple.
Just my thoughts, things to think about and perhaps discuss. KenWalker | Talk 07:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Model Articles

The banner on the Wikiproject BC page says: "It has been proposed that every WikiProject choose a single article which represents what the Project members hope each article will eventually look like, so that interested onlookers can see where a Project is heading." We couldn't go far wrong with any of these: Pouce Coupe, British Columbia, Chetwynd, British Columbia and Taylor, British Columbia Any other suggestions? KenWalker | Talk 21:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are really well-done!! Who is it that's focussed on the Peace River Country anyway? I note that there's a string of small town-stubs up there, too - and am still wondering where Baldonnel is, as it's not on BC Basemap...but seems "of a kind" with others in that area (e.g Beryl Prairie)Skookum1 21:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Those would be User:Maclean25's excellent contributions. Dawson Creek is probably the best in the series (and a confirmed FA). Baldonnel is a small hamlet east of Fort St John, near highway 97, at 56°13′02.0″N, 120°41′21.4″W. Baldonnel also gives the name to a stratigraphical formation used for gas extraction in the area. --Qyd 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not listed through "Find Location" on BC Basemap at http://maps.gov.bc.ca, which is why I was asking; but that it's probably a new settlement - ?? - is more than likely why. Not sure how often Basemap is updated, but I know how fast things are growing/changing up in that country, so it's not surprising it hasn't shown up. It's given in its stub as being at over 5000' elevation though, which is what surprised me in the first place about it; there are very few towns in BC of that elevation range, unless it was a typo.Skookum1 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My mistake; not Baldonnel - another one in the same area; I'll have to check my notes; Baldonnel is 2,204 ft; must have been a different one, but in the same series of very-short stubs, whatever it was (at 5000'+).Skookum1 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia is the best of them. Baldonnel is an old farming community (1930s), today it is about 4 miles (a couple of hay fields) east of Fort St. John (incredible thing is that FSJ is in Peace River North and Baldonnel is in Peace River South). Beryl Prairie is a farming community in Hudson's Hope and 300 people is a generous population estimate. --maclean 00:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah, Tumbler Ridge only has one photo, and the coat of arms was lost in the {{coatofarms}} deletion disastre. --Qyd 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So, can we pick one of these (or are there other suggestions?), complete the link the box asks for and get rid of the box? I would pick one myself and do it, but I am not clear on just where it is asked that we link our choice of model article.KenWalker | Talk 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. I used Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. Hope I did it right. It is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Geographical/North_America#British_Columbia KenWalker | Talk 07:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahousat - Ahousaht?

Hey everyone, I was just going through ranking some articles and came along these two (Ahousaht, British Columbia and Ahousat, British Columbia) and I think they're probably about the same place. Now I don't know anything about this place or which one is correct, but I thought maybe someone here might. Buzzfly 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahousat is the officially-gazetted name on BC Basemap, so I'd say we go with that and make the other a redirect/merge (probably both stubs, though, right?). Ahousaht is actually etymologically correct - the name of the people/language that we customarily call Nootka was historically "Aht" and they were the "Aht" people (18th C., with the usage dropping off in the early 19th). In some ways "Aht" is also more practical, as groups such as the Ditidaht and Pacheenaht and a couple of other groups, mostly southeasterly as I recall, are not part of the Nuu-chah-nulth, which is more of a conglomeration of various "Ahts" (Muchalaht, Mowachaht, Kyuquot, Clayoquot/Tla-o-qui-aht - which includes e.g. Opitsaht on Meares Island etc.). So ethnologically Ahousaht is more correct; but on the map it's Ahousat...Skookum1 11:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I've merged Ahousat into Ahousaht and subsequently made Ahousat into a redirect. The article is still a stub, but at least having one page will avoid future confusion. Buzzfly 22:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer in my explanation - I thought the proper title should be the "Ahousat" form because it's the legal descriptor and what's on the maps; Ahousaht is ethnologically correct and used by the First Nation even on its webpage; or - not sure here- what takes priority? The spelling on BC govt maps, or that preferred by the First Nation...OK, I suppose the answer is obvious, given precedents elsewhere - St'at'imc, Nuxalk, Secwepemc etc (which even redirect to titles with accents and other characters not present in English) although those are for whole First Nations/ethnic groups, not placenames. There's a few anomalies - Gitksan should, by reading the article, probably be Gitxsan). Not sure what happens with Tla-o-qui-aht vs Clayoquot so typing those here to see what happens link-wise.Skookum1 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, since we can't really decide for sure on which should be chosen, I think we should leave it for now and if someone strongly feels a need to change it, they can. Also since the First Nations web site itself says Ahousaht I tend to lean a little more towards that one. Buzzfly 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Clayoquot and Kyuquot - disambigs needed

Well, as it turns out, Clayoquot is a redirect to Tla-o-qui-aht, although because of Clayoquot Sound it would seem to be needing conversion to a disambiguation page. It's worse with Kyuquot, which unless I've disambig'd it goes to a whale named Kyuquot....Skookum1 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, still about a whale....I've been busy this last couple of hours making Okanagan band stubs and related material, and really have to get out of the house; if someone else would care to do the conversion to disambigs in these cases please do; I'm not sure if there's a "move" or "retitle" that has to be done in order for the changes to be made correctly. Re Kyuquot - Kyuquot, British Columbia, Kyuquot people and Kyuquot Sound for starters....Skookum1 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sample ranges and landforms map for Southwestern BC

Please see Trial Range maps for Sousthwestern BC on the WikiProject Mountains talkpage].Skookum1 11:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Do you have then information needed for Vancouver Island Ranges? KenWalker | Talk 16:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sort of: I don't know the Island's range boundaries as well as I know southern BC's; given a Bivouac membership I might be able to get access to the extensive boundary descriptions that underlay its pages, but right now they're not visible (I had a falling out with the site-owner and don't want to pay for a membership, ie. give him money....); peakbagger.com has some indication by way of its maps, but not creek-by-creek, pass-by-pass descriptions like I'd done in Bivouac (with long lists of lat-long points, all done by hand-parsing from BC Basemap.....for months on end.....seems like a long nightmare now.....;-0 ) Anyway, I could try the Island next I guess; would take some hunting and pecking with Basemap but it might be a nice break from all the FN stubs I've been doing (I like maps....). Were the yellow lines and number-coding OK? Should the colour-line be more transparent or lighter or darker or ?? Next I was thinking of the Ominecas and Cassiars, maybe the Selkirks, but if VI is what you've asked for first I'll do VI; there's a clear image of it from Nasa, also. BTW want to have a look at Talk:Wakash Indians for me?Skookum1 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

FN stub hierarchy discussion at Indigenous peoples project

Just to let y'all know there's a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America about stub-sorting, because of the large inventory of otherwise further-unclassifiable stubs, and also a discussion about new stub categories/hierarchies: First Nations/Native American stub discussion. I don't have a solution, other than making sure that if we find something we can call "start" instead of "stub" we take off the stub, maybe, but the notion of further layers of stubs/stub categories makes a lot of sense; it's just how to divide the pie that doesn't follow suit easily, which is what the discussion was when I found it. So this is a heads-up about the stub-clogging going on, and what the WPIndigenous folks are preparing to do about it; I'd say there's too much overlap between WPBC and WPIndigenous for there not be some deliberate effort at coordination of this kind of stuff....but ME, coordinated????!! Skookum1 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Category help?

I have been browsing through the automatically generated page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/British Columbia articles by quality/1 as an aid to assessing article. In the course of doing that, I updated the assessment at Talk:British Columbia Parliament Buildings. That done, I clicked on the link in the BCproject box on the talk page to add comments about the assessment. That done, I notice that it added the category Category:British Columbia articles with comments to the bottom of the talk page as a red link so I went to that category, which said it didn't exist but yet had some articles listed in it. I added a line at the top referencing the BC wikiproject and added a link to the category under See Also at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia. So far so good, but the mystery I can't seem to solve is why, when Talk:British Columbia Parliament Buildings shows the category and it is no longer a red link, why doesn't the article show up in the category? KenWalker | Talk 22:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Are people "from" Regional Districts?

I noticed a cat change on Won Alexander Cumyow (or is that Alexander Won Cumyow? - both work, can't remember the primary) from "People from British Columbia" to "People from the Fraser Valley Regional District"? I've never thought to identify msyelf as coming from the SLRD or the GVRD of FVRD (my various domiciles), or DARD (which doesn't exist anymore - Dewdney-Alouette), and I don't know of anyone who does. For the rest of this discussion please see Talk:Won Alexander Cumyow‎ as to the utility of any cat hierarchy that says people are from an RD; I contend no one thinks/identifies like that - you're from a town, city, settlement, region (historic/geographic regions, not political-administrative units like RDs); Cumyow's particulars also involve the fact that the town he was born in didn't really exist ten years later, and in his lifetime there was no such thing as the Fraser Valley Regional District. Is anyone here "in charge" of the cat hierarchy and may wish to address/discuss this?Skookum1 19:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bedtime thought on happening to see this: although he was only born there, people with origins in what are now BC ghost towns is a whole list, and an interesting one, in its own right...I'm already planning on a series on ghost towns, to go with the gold rush articles and old steamer services.....hmmmmmmm. G'nite.Skookum1 10:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Priceless. Nope, no one has ever, or is likely ever to identify themselves as coming from an RD! That can be assured and must be avoided on these pages at all costs. Your contention is thankfully correct. --Keefer4 18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (Originally a person "From the Capital Regional District, now residing in the GVRD.)

Historical regions of British Columbia - article/list proposal

This issue, discussed before, has reared its head again in the SFD on those new stubs I mistakenly created "out of school"; the issue is, if we subdivide BC stubs further, it's by sub-region, whatever those regions are. I have a distaste for using Regional Districts for this, because they're mutable over time and lack permanence; boundaries change with governments, and with changes in population/industry and so on; each time a new RD is created, or the whole system is re-decked, Wikipedians would have to go through the whole lot rejigging everything to fit the new map; it's also, for me, a no-go for historical articles, as the RDs were either different then....or, in fact, didn't even exist (not sure when they were first come up with; before that I think rural administration was via the Land District, in the person of the Gold/Land Commissioner (who was usually also the Magistrate, Tax Collector, Indian Agent, and Government Agent all rolled into one, and able to sport all those titles....). Whatever the history of RDs, this brings up again my notion of there being recognizable, if ill-defined, historical regions of British Columbia which remain in use in local parlance, both in media and by the public and also as used in various government agencies/ministries/regions, though variously between different agencies/ministries/regions (the Health Ministry's boundaries in the Interior do not, for instance, coincide with those of the Forests Ministry). So I'm pondering a new article/page that's either Historical regions of British Columbia or List of historical regions of British Columbia. The use "historical regions" here is implicitly geographic, as is our history, and they're generally defined by geography; but "geographic region" is different - like Interior Plateau, Coast Mountains, Columbia Mountains, and so on. Either one of those article titles would work for a listing, with indents for regions-within-regions (the Tulameen within the Similkameen, e.g.) or overlap (the Fraser Canyon is its own region, IMO, but also overlaps with the Cariboo, Thompson and Chilcotin, and depending on where you draw its southern limit, the Lower Mainland); and could also account for common hyphenations like Okanagan-Similkameen or Cariboo-Chilcotin (both of which, as with others, have also been either federal or provincial ridings or both). Thoughts??Skookum1 09:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re above, pls also see British Columbia stub types on my talk page, and follow the link to the SFD (if it's linked, if it's not, I'll put it in there tomorrow).Skookum1 12:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The RDs are probably also a little small for convenient splitting (in terms of numbers of articles, that is, not geographically). Given that the RDs are the official sub-divs, it would surely be preferable if the larger regions were those definable in terms of "whole numbers" of RDs aglomerated together, and as Skookum1 says, that they don't overlap, or get too fuzzy or controversial at the edges, insofar as that's possible. Alai 05:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well, like I said, one problem is that RDs are NOT permanent boundaries, in the way that counties are in the US or the UK; and I can think of a large number wher the RD is NOT composed of definable agglomerations of the historical regions; might work in some cases, e.g. the Lillooet Country, not usually considered part of the Cariboo (today) but definitely is part of the Cariboo historically, is in the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District; so the SLRD is actually two historical regions (the Squamish Country, though no one's ever called it that - the Sea-to-Sky Corridor, basically, plus the rest of the Squamish River basin (i.e. the Elaho), plus the traditional Lillooet Country (which includes the Pemberton-Mt Currie-Lillooet River, now part of the Sea-to-Sky Corridor). But that's the opposite to what you're proposing, although I appreciate the suggestion. When I look at the RD maps they're like the LD maps - they don't make much sense in terms of the experienced landscapes, with big straightlines cutting across the map, in defiance of actual regions on-the-ground. I'll go through the RD list, though, and see what DOES work; maybe Central Coast as a region can be compiled out of North Island, Waddington etc RDs; and in the north it might work, e.g. combining Atlin with the Skeena and the Nass, as I think one RD does. I'll see which ones work according to your formula, and which ones don't, and report back here. Please see British Columbia Interior for a listing of "traditional regions" there, which I just made yesterday.Skookum1 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Erg, that won't work either; I just went through the RD list and added the project tempalte throughout; the Stikine Country is "partitioned" for one thing; the one named "Fraser Valley" doesn't include all of same. Even if we wanted to divide BC into Cosat/Lower Mainland/Interior there's things that won't work....some RDs can be defined as combinations of the traditional regions, though, e.g. Cariboo, although the Thompson part of Thompson-Nicola, and the Lillooet part of Squamish-Lillooet, are technically Cariboo....Okanagan is three, and "Central Kootenay" is not a traditional appelation; it's the West Kootenay without Trail/Castlegar apparently, plus the Boundary Country. But come a change of government ALL Regional District boundaries will be subject to change/rearrangement, and will also be subject to change depending on changes in population; same idea as electoral districts, although not as directly politicized/political in the nature of the changes. The one fixed, immovable system, is the Land Districts; but even new ones of those have been created; the frontier-era ones (about ten-twelve, with small ones on the Island and huge ones on the mainland) is the only system of subdivision I can think of that IS fixed (as the new LDs are subdivisions of the older frontier-era ones).Skookum1 06:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"Permanent" is a long time, and UK and US county boundaries aren't really that, either... If they're as bad as US congressional districts though, I truly feel your pain. But are there regional definitions that have any "official" standing so as to admit a sufficiently crisp definition, that are more stable than the RDs, and that would have any general recognition and acceptance? Any list that lies on "roughly" defined boundaries will be basically impossible for non-BCer to apply, and perhaps might be controversial among the locals. (UK counties can be a bit like that, with some people outraged about counties being abolished and moved.) Alai 06:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
An interesting conundrum this region thing. And RD's in no way represent anything in tune to the landform or local perception. Why don't we just use those weather maps they use on TV? Kidding of course, but there has to be some source of official or semi-constant regionalization for BC somewhere. The BC Gov. Tourism model comes to mind, but the regions may be a bit big, no? And the names of the regions are certainly a bit repugnant. It really makes one wish that First Nations territories would be a more promising proposal, but it would never fly with most, and may create controversies all its own. Does this have to be based on some model out there which doesn't exist or is prone to change-- or can we put our own heads together and sensibly propose something ad-hoc? I worked at the provincial gov't phone service for many years until recently, and they had the province divided up into 11 regions, which I always thought were quite clever, and took into account mountains and locals' perception Map I drew based on these zones is here-
Greater Victoria
Greater Vancouver
Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands
Southwest BC (outside Greater Van): Sunshine Coast, Eastern Fraser Valley, Fraser Canyon, Sea to Sky corridor (as far as Pemberton)
Okanagan/Shuswap
Kootenay (east of Grand Forks)
Thompson (Merritt to Blue River)
Cariboo/Chilcotin (west to Anahim Lake, east to Barkerville)
Central Coast, islands andQCI
Northwest (Prince Rupert inland to about Houston, north to Stewart)
Central Interior (Burns Lake to Alberta Border along Hwy.16 corridor)
Peace River
Stikine/Far North (Telegraph Creek, Dease Lake)
I always got the sense the government used these divisions for purposes other than just phone statistics, but I could never verify that. As for a Historical Regions article-- sounds good. It will certainly be content rich. As long as 'heartland' stays out of it, all--Keefer4 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi; just looked at your map; the core of all these areas is always fine, the tricky part is the overlaps and the borders between them; the Lillooet and Shuswap areas I would tend to think of as alining towards Kamloops rather than to the Cariboo and Okanagan, respectively; I'm also enough of a diehard to insist that the Similkameen is part of the Nicola Country; but of course Keremeos is the overlap point (people from there being much more likely, for instance, to connect to Penticton than to Merritt or Kamloops). It's mostly the southern boundaries that are the complications; the North works pretty much like you've got it, although actual names for these areas are harder to define; "North Coast-Skeena" is descriptive of course, but "North Coast" properly doesn't include the Skeena; and should include the Charlottes; but I see why you've aligned the Charlottes with the Central Coast, culturally-socially speaking, even though their point-of-contact with the outside world is at Prince Rupert....my experience with fishermen and so on has been that the west coast of Vancouver Island is in the same "sphere" as the Central Coast and Charlottes, that is to say, a very different one from the Island Highway Corridor from the CRD to Campbell River..... Anyway, my list of historical regions, these being the names you'll find in the old histories and still in the public consciousness, if only rarely reflected in official names of any kind, is partially done on British Columbia Interior - see [1]. Now it's beautiful day outside, and I'm gonna go play in the sunshine and pretend I'm in Mexico.....later.Skookum1 22:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the definition of Interior on that page. I'm going to work on sketching some maps based on that and then eventually subdividing them into smaller areas based on discussion here and elsewhere. Would think V. Island would have to stay unified as a sub-region, even if demographic diversity plays it into other areas too, like Central Coast or even upper Sunshine Coast/Powell River area in spots. Note on my map (based on BC gov't zones for phone call statistics) Lillooet area is actually aligned with Cache Creek/Kamloops, although Shuswap is with Okanagan. Re-jig that and QCI with Rupert and we may be on the way to some non-RD organization for communities in BC, which in my mind, is a priority.--Keefer4 04:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note on that Lillooet Boundary; not just the town, but the west side of the Fraser and over to the south end of Taseko/Chilko Lakes, more or less; that's the Bridge River Country; also historically the Lillooet River Valley (including Pemberton-Mount Currie) is part of the Lillooet Country (and is where the name came from in fact), though Pemberton is now part of "Sea-to-Sky Country" for tourism purposes; but tourism brandings are, I'd say, the last thing we want to use for a regional subdivision system for encyclopedic purposes, no? I could try and make a basic map of my own, similar to the rangemaps I did in some ways; for my list of "countries", even though again there's subareas of some, and some variable boundaries (the format used by this government/First Nations mapping project would be good, because it handles transparent layers, though in a compicated PDF format/design...p.d. though, I think...Skookum1 06:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It does in all aspects except the character of First Nations geography; especially because the Kwawkwaka'wakw and Salishan peoples spill across onto the mainland and other non-Vancouver Island bits of real estate; and the Salishan and Nuu-chah-nulth-aht peoples spill over into Washington (if you include the Makah in the overall grouping, which like the Nitinat and Pacheedaht the Makah generally don't, even though their language is an intelligible dialect-tangent off Nuu-chah-nulth; and the Lummi and Nooksack and other Puget Sound peoples are interconnected, too. So sure, in terms of the post-colonization geography "the Island" exists; but in First Nations geography it's three, and all overlap on areas/land outside the Island. I've puzzled over the Coast/Island thing, too, because of the way Vancouver Island, at least the southeast of it, the Island Highway Corridor, is as apart from the upper and outer Island beyond the "metropolitan" part of it, in the same way and also for the same kind of geographic reasons that confine the Greater Vancouver population to the small built of buildable real estate by the border...what I'm getting at is like the idea that North Coast cities (and by local standards, they are cities though barely villages by European or Asian standards) are somehow more part of "the Intterior", while the Outer Coast, to coin a term or maybe revive one, is a much different place than Rupert, Terrace or Kitimat; Masset and Queen Charlotte City have more in common with Port Hardy or Waglisla/Bella Bella than it does with Rupert, other than where the shopping is, and it being the only way to get out other than by air etc. As I alluded to, or maybe blabbed about, on the adjustment to British Columbia Coast, the Coast/Island, too, is composed of subregions in the same way as the ones in the Interior I've already listed (and should stub some of; right now some go to the rivers, others are only redlinks for now; despite being in use for over a century and a half in some cases, the terms in question never really had precise boundaries; generally "the Similkameen Country" or "the Nicola Country" refer to the river basin, but often it's more than that, as in the Monashees or in the Lillooet, where several rivers and creek/canyon valleys are involved in the form of the region, instead of just being a basin; the southern boundary of the Omineca I'm not sure of at all; I'd think it would be the Stuart River but I've never seen, y'see, a definition; others are more clear like the Kootenays (sort of) or the Okanagan; so long as they don't get fudged into including the Similkameen, Boundary, or Columbia areas; the basic geographic regions almost describe some of these areas, and they also imitate the First Nations boundaries in many areas (e.g. the Okanagan, the Lillooet Country, the Chilcotin); and also, the mining districts, which at one time were near identical wit government agency and judicial districts because of the Gold Commissioner system, which maybe I might even find - ? - some definitions in the course of researching/writing (one-man regional governments, magistrate, coroner, tax collector and license-seller, and sherriff all rolled up into one; mainstay of Interior and non-urban administration right into the mid-20th Century in some areas, though dominant throughout BC even up to the Great War, and much moreso before the railway).

Anyway, just thoughts on the subdivisions of Vancouver Island, on the one hand, and the historical-geographic regions which I obviously believe need to be documented correctly, even though finding consensus on their boundaries might be an issue; I think the "Big Three Regions" model is classic in BC, but in pondering it it's never been clear where the Coast is aligned to, as Greater Victoria is almost the mirror image (with Vancouver as the evil twin) of the Lower Mainland, culture-space wise, and Nanaimo's increasingly an expansion of the emerging "Gulf of Georgia Metropolis" model of economic growth; anyway the point is that in the same way the North isn't really part of the Interior, Victoria's really not a part of the Coast in the same way that Vancouver isn't (even though of course in the purely georaphic sense they in fact are...as anyone from the Interior would comment as noted; there are flexible meanings to "the Coast", as also with "First Nations"; as with the sub-Interior terms, Central Interior, Southern Interior etc, depending on context....)Skookum1 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a disclaimer I should add-- Generally when I'm speaking to this subject, it's outside the First Nations ethno-linguistic territories and pertaining to the geographic categorization of communities historically since colonialization-- again mostly unoffically as you alluded to. Some overlap there with the First Nations geography indeed, but reconciliation on a geographic level for categorization here would be difficult. Victoria should be considered its own entity in the sub-region scheme of things for sure! I see your point on the coastal/island communities, however one could argue that there are Regional Centres to these areas such as Prince Rupert-- or perhaps some communities on the east coast of Van. Isl which would include them for this purpose in unifying the 'North Coast' and 'Vancouver Island (outside of Victoria)' sub-regions. Nanaimo's a tricky one, though. Just photo'd my giant BC wall map and now working on tentative sub-regional borders for discussion based within the Big Three. --Keefer4 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Title form for regional districts

The categories and articles in Category:Regional districts of British Columbia have a variety of different forms...

  • Regional District of XXX
  • Regional Distrcit of XXX, British Columbia
  • XXX Regional District
  • XXX Regional District, British Columbia

Anyone have any preference as to which one is adopted uniformly? - TheMightyQuill 02:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

They refer to themselves differently (ie: 'GVRD', 'Cariboo Regional District' versus 'Regional District of Nanaimo', and 'Regional District of East Kootenay'), and they each have their own acronyms, which are used by staff and government, in particular. Uniformity isn't possible without betraying this to some degree, unfortunately. --Keefer4 03:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Use whatever name is on the letterhead of their official website. As for the ", British Columbia" part, I would get rid of it. I can understand why it is used but "xxRD, BC" is not a widely used term and it is unnecessarily long (are there any other "Regional Districts" in the world?). (For other guidance, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)) --maclean 05:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To Do List

We now have more than 1200 nearly 1300 articles tagged as being within the scope of this project and all have been categorized by importance and class. There are probably many that need some tuning of the importance/class assessments and there are others yet to add to the project but at least the first run at this effort is complete. The question is: What's next? I have tried to answer that with the ToDo section added to the project page. It is just a first attempt. Feel free to add, delete or reorganize the list or to comment/discuss it here. KenWalker | Talk 22:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Recent Additions" listing and thoughts on cats

I don't suppose there's anyone in the project who knows how to write a bot? I'm wondering if there's a way to generate a page, linked off of the main project page, which would be [[Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia/Recent Additions). This would be all newly-created articles which bear the template, and find those with BC cats - new articles by non-project members - and identify them so we can add the template and whatever else is needed (stubs, cats, format) - and everyone please also add the BCproject template, rated or not (technically you're not supposed to rate your own articles, but for expediency some of us have been doing so...), whenever you create any article, even and especially a stub - plus any newly-templated ones, as I'm finding things all the time that should have the BC template and a BC cat or two added, often off of anthro and other articles lately, and some bios (people who wouldn't show up on the List of British Columbians type or Category:British Columbia people and its subcats, but who figure in Category:History of British Columbia or, as often again with anthropologists, linguists, etc. in Category:First Nations. I'd recommend, in fact, a cat Category:First Nations studies in British Columbia or something to that effect; under I suppose Category:First Nations studies nationally). The Category:Languages of Canada category should have a subcat Category:Languages of British Columbia because of the fact 60% of Canada's aboriginal languages are in BC. There's a few other category splits that have occurred to me in the course of the last months so when they, er, occur to me again, I'll come back and add them here for consideration/discussion, or action.

Back to the Recent Additions idea - this is so we can see what others among us have recently contributed, rather than having a manual "New Articles" listing; and also see, given category-hunts by the bot, any new articles which may have a BC-related cat. Many of these - the unidentified ones - in all topic-areas, by the way, I've often found by working through links on other BC pages (again, especially with the anthro stuff, but often with smalltown and local-knowledge bits/stubs here and there, and by recent additions on similar pages that give a new link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC).beat me to it, Hagermanbot - didn't even have time to reopen the page to sign.;-) Skookum1 23:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes on First Nations templates

See Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia/Article requests in the "List Templates" section; these are notes written in reference to the issues of why the templates named are needed:. ...because of variant organizational parameters and lots of isolated bands or tiny nations not part of any of the tribal councils, or who can be classified in both (the Pavilions, who are both Secwepemc and St'at'imc, or Douglas, which is both In-SHUCK-ch and Sto:lo, but culturally St'at'imc, and only formerly part of the Lillooet Tribal Council aka St'at'imc Nation; there are three Nlaka'pamux Tribal Councils, overlapping a bit, and the Lytton First Nation, one of the largest Nlaka'pamux groups, is not a member of any of the three; and one overlaps with the Okanagan Nation Alliance; in that case and in certain others including the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council, the tribal council/national organization is unified over the whole ethnic/tribal group, as also with the Council of the Haida Nation and the Nisga'a and certain others (there is no Tsimshian Tribal Council at present, although there was and it'll still need an article as something that had existed). Skookum1

So all the FN templates need redoing, although the priority one is {{First Nations on Vancouver Island}}. Even with the broader "peoples" templates there are a few still outside larger classifications; the Haisla-Heiltsuk-Owekeeno would be one template by themselves, but even "Northern Wakashan peoples" as a stab at a title won't quite work because "Northern Wakashan" includes Kwak'wala/Kwakwaka'wakw both linguistically and ethnologically - "Southern Wakashan" is the Nuu-chah-nulth-aht and Makah; Nuu-chah-nulth-aht is somewhat preferable because Ditidaht and Pacheedaht peoples do not use the term Nuu-chah-nulth because of its organizational assocations; "Aht" is the earliest and most correct term; Nuu-chah-nulth also means something to the effect of "peoples along the outer coast; and Pacheena and Nitinat aren't on the outer coast, but the inner...); anyway, in the case of such as the Okanagan, Haida and Ktunaxa peoples the template could use the name of the Tribal Council, but for consistency maybe should follow the name format of the other templates; in "peoples" templates, sub-headings for each tribal council, and then a sub-heading for "independent bands" is probably suitable for readablity/clarity. Skookum1

Another reason for all this is, as OldManRivers is around to remind us, is that the tribal council formulation is not as appropriate as a reference to the peoples in their own terms; the tribal councils are expressions of the Indian Act. They exist as articles, but they shouldn't be the definining paramater; it happens to be a useful concept for sorting out the FN templates, because of the different "organizational" nature of the aboriginal perspective on British Columbia. It's different with munis and such, because they were all legislated into existence from the top drawer to the bottom, as it were; there's no exceptions or exclusions from the RDs, for instance (except for Atlin and area, that is). For the FN templates to be useful, and not exclusionary of the smaller bands/peoples, and also respectful towards sentiments concerning "Indian Act governments" (see Talk:First Nations Government (Canada) - which needs retitling IMO - and the Talk:Kwakwaka'wakw, Talk:Kwakiutl and Talk:Sḵwxwú7mesh for more on this). Skookum1

And, in parting, do we have to stick with that blue-and-plum-red theme for the templates, or could something more tasteful-looking be come up with? Esp. for the FN ones, in fact....but also for parks, history etc. Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon has various history templates, maybe their main cities ones, which use a heavy brown (too much, but at least there's a shot at colour variations, and even logos from what I remember of the template)Skookum1 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Vancouver or B.C. or Both?

If an Article has a Vancouver Project tag should it have a B.C. Project tag as well? I mean anything in Vancouver is obviousally dealing with B.C. Correct? Buzzfly 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As one who has tagged many articles, including quite a few that are already part of the Vancouver project, I hope that marking an article as being within the scope of both projects makes sense. I have considered the question and came to the conclusion that marking with both does no harm. This would mean that everything in the Vancouver project would be part of the BC project as well although somethings, say Talk:SkyTrain (Vancouver) for instance, might be assessed as a higher priority for Vancouver than it is for BC. Overlap is not a problem, for example, with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, having both groups working on an article about a person or a mountain in BC should only make it better. These projects are really just a way or organizing work within the scope of a project. I can't see how it would help to say the scope should be articles about BC except for sub projects, that would make it kind of like swiss cheese. I have had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide and don't find an answer there. They say questions can be asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. I did have a look at various New York articles, and even though there are various state, city and sub city projects, they don't seem to flag their articles at all. But in Florida they do, eg Talk:Miami-Dade County, Florida is part of Florida and Miami projects. Looking at Talk:University of Miami I see several different projects. Others, such as Talk:South Florida metropolitan area and Talk:The Miami Herald do the same. I see Talk:Chicago is both a Chicago project and an Illinois project. The Talk:Merle Reskin Theatre is both. There is a directory of projects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory that can be drilled down to find other examples. Some pretty interesting stuff there actually. So there are quite a few examples where both levels of the project are assigned to an article. I think this is worth discussing further and would be glad to hear what others think about this question, but those are my views. KenWalker | Talk 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with KenWalker. I have mostly been tagging BC-related articles, but will use both if relevant and untagged. Normally if a Vancouver article is already tagged with the Vancouver Project, I tend not to add a BC, though. But it depends. Nothing set in stone with this, it seems. As long as it's on one of the lists. --Keefer4 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Just occured to me there is another side to this. Following what I have said, every BC article (and every Vancouver article) would then also get a Canada project template . . . . KenWalker | Talk 05:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be good to be able to use one template for multiple projects, where, for example, 'city = Vancouver' would add a VAn icon to the tag. If someone knows how to do this kind of thing ... Bobanny 06:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kootenay break-up into E/W

I've never bothered (yet) trying to deal with this, but the Kootenay article, where all of West Kootenay, East Kootenay and Kootenays redirect to, needs breaking up; the West Kootenay is such a different region from the East Kootenay, and has its own subregions to boot (esp. the Slocan but also the "Central Kootenay", and I've heard Lardeau-Beaton referred to as the "North Kootenay", which I suppose (?) would include Nakusp (which I always think of as "Arrow Lakes", even though that's singular now). This is also in respect to the stuff in the Historical Regions of British Columbia section farther above, where I just replied to Keefer4's comments there; "discreet geographical regions" should be recognized/dealt with; today the Similkameen and Boundary and Monashee areas often get lumped in with the Okanagan, as also sometimes the Shuswap and even Kamloops; even defining the usual Coast-Lower Mainland/Island/Interior dichotomy gets tricky - is it instead, for instance, Lower Mainland/Island & Coast/Interior? And where does the North Coast fit in, as in terms of economic-social regions it's more like the Interior.....Anyway, mostly just posting about the needed breakup/splitting of the "Kootenay" article; it's only "mid" priority but significant enough to need emphasis here.Skookum1 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Kootenays does not redirect to Kootenay. I would recommend expanding Kootenays until such time as there is enough material to branch off. - TheMightyQuill 06:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting; either things have changed since I first was around Wikipedia's BC stuff, a long time ago, and I haven't been around those parts since (the article I mean); it may be that I only ever searched for West Kootenay and East Kootenay. Hmm. East Kootenay redirects to Kootenays, but West Kootenay goes to the electoral district by that name; my bad, as I did the electoral districts, or the historical ones like this ones; the West Kootenay one should be redone as the region article, and West Kootenay (electoral district) becomes the electoral article, as per the names format on the Elections/Politicians wikiproject; I suspect there's East Kootenay (electoral district); nope, there were "Kootenay East" and others. BTW there's still no article yet on Slocan or The Slocan (as in "the Cariboo", "the Shuswap", as per my historical regions stuff; but I've never been clear exactly is the Slocan is properly part of the Kootenay; I've always thought of it that way, but I'm not from around there; and at the same time I consider the Boundary Country to not be part of the West Kootenay, although that's in pure-historical terms I guess as per the way things are now, not how they used to be...at one time the Boundary was considered part of the Similkameen, of all things (tied together by the Dewdney Trail in a similar way to the Sea-to-Sky bunch and Hwy 99). It's in this tuff where the issue of overlaps between regions gets elaborate; and my mistake about those redirects; I thought that's how it was, but perhaps it was only the East Kootenay redirect; and I do remember a singular Kootenay page somewhere. Skookum1 07:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)