Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia/Archive/Archive Mar 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

Parks WikiProject BC tagged checklist

Just tagged everything from TWeedsmuir until end of alphabet FYI. I will continue working backwards through alphabet from Tweedsmuir later, if anyone is feeling like a bot and want to start from beginning of alphabet at Category:Provincial Parks of British Columbia . Most I have been tagging as 'Low' with several notables Tweedsmuir, Wells Gray etc as Mid priorty--Keefer4 05:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that some of the upper alphabet ones are done already, I don't know if maybe someone was working on alphabetically tagging from letter A at some earlier time? Too tired of seeing them to check now :)--Keefer4 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: Did a bunch more. Now everything M-Z is tagged with WIkiBC, Map req and Photo Req. FYI--Keefer4 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
D, E and F are done KenWalker | Talk 08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)A B C G H I J K and L are now done as well. I think that may make them a done deal. KenWalker | Talk 09:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

List of ghost towns in British Columbia

I just started this, and there's lots more entries and I didn't try to keep track of current populations (some show '0' when they're not); hoping for thoughts on format; think maybe the latlong coordinates can get ditched, and the lifespan can be integrated into the era/peak population info; "company town yes/no" column could also make ref to if somethhing was purely a land spec but nothing ever got built (Lajoie and Tipella City, among many...and you thought real estate hype was purely a modern phenomenon...). Anyway, please look over and tweak as neede; source for most of that list so far/as it is, other than memory, is T.W. Paterson's Vol 2 of his Ghost Towns and Mining Camps books from Heritage House.Skookum1 20:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Old Photos, maps

I've seen a smattering of discussion here and there relating to old BC archival photo usage on wikipedia. But I'm just wondering if someone who is 'in the know' could provide a brief summary of what is acceptable use which doesn't violate copyright laws re: BC Archives, City Archives and the like. I'm looking for specific info on BC, so please don't refer me to a general Wiki guidelines page... Meanwhile, i'll try to find the answer on whatever thread I saw the discussion, and elsewhere. Much thanks.--Keefer4 22:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any special copyright laws for BC. Any Canadian work subject to crown copyright that was first published 50 years ago is PD. For things that aren't crown copyright: photographs created before 1949; and anything else whose creator died more than 50 years ago. - TheMightyQuill 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I should have remembered it was Fed matter since I referred people to the Fed copyright office in the course my last job.. how the memory fades. But that's good info to know, thx TMQ.--Keefer4 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully KenWalker will weigh in here, as I know he was going to look over the legal technicalities (he's a lawyer) when I told him about the 50year thing that Bobanny found out. If someone = all of us = gives me the go-ahead, there's all kinds of pics I can use to flesh out certain articles and will make possible various others (e.g. Great Fire of New Westminster, selected pics of which are currently in the external links on New Westminster, British Columbia; and any number of old railway/ghost town/pioneer portraits...); I suggest maybe we might need someonething like NASA's free licence {tl:PD-NASA}} or whatever it is, to indicate that these photos are in the public domain (no matter what BC Archives or VPL would like to pretend otherwise). This could revolutionize historical publishing in BC, by the way.....Skookum1 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's right here Template:PD-Canada. I don't know why the BC Archives are all possessive, since the Canadian archives have high quality PD images online without their name superimposed on the side. - TheMightyQuill 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
When asked to join in such a discussion, it would be handy to be able to say IANAL, but that ain't so. Even so, this is entirely outside of my practice areas and I have not looked into it beyond information that has been given to me around here. The PD-Canada template seems to answer it and is what I will use when I need it. That is not a legal advice, just what I have gathered around Wikipedia. Sorry I can't be more help than that. KenWalker | Talk 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Ken; I didn't mean to "out" you; it's on your userpage, though, no? Copyright, from what I know as a photographer, is just the right to sue. The law won't take someone down for you unless you call upon it to. The risks of precedents set by a case challenging Canadian copyright law by a British Columbia government agency can have only one outcome: something that no BC politician or bureaucrat can overrule, which is if these images are in the public domain there should not be a charge for them, except for custom-printed copies and rights over the negatives themselves and in fact the claim of copyright was perhaps knowingly misleading - a "bluff", which is all it really is. Where this has its roots in BC is the "user pays" ethic, the idea that public users of public resources (including data/photos/archives) should be the ones to bear part of the administrative costs; the idea that nothing can be for free, even if you don't have the actual right to sell it....to charge a fee for something that's already free is done all the time (think bottled water), and that's what this claim of copyright at the Archives and VPL seems to be; asking you to pay to use something that, as an image independent of owned prints and negatives, is of sufficient age and, private or public interest in its subject, anyone has the right to reproduce it (unless it is covered by copyright laws in another jurisdiction, which is how you get around all the messy stuff with cinema....). It's almost enough of a contentious issue that, if time were to be found in Question Period at the Ledge, a question as to why a government agency is gouging users (volunteer historian-editor users) when the pictures are of the public interest, and about the history of the province? Hmm, nope, not gonna happen, but I think the legal risks of BCArch actually exercising its nonexistent rights to public-domain material would probably be explained to them by their lawyers...Skookum1 07:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The BC situation is complicated with the BC Archives which falsely claims copyrights over all their holdings, even 110-year-old photos which are obviously in the public domain: [1] --maclean 06:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that possessive banner disclaimer on the side of those BC Arch. images says that they may be used for Research Purposes. My interpretation of that and what Wikipedia is, leads me to conclude that they're fine here.--Keefer4 07:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
While for that particular photo the copyright has long since expired, the assertion (although ultra vires) of "For Research Purposes" is essentially the same as "Non-commercial use only" which is not compatible with Wikipedia's use of GNU Free Documentation License. The GFDL requires that the work can (theoretically) be used for commercial (ie. non-research use) purposes. Best to use Library and Archives Canada which is much more forthcoming with their holdings. --maclean 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Except that Library and Archives Canada is very limited in terms of its BC collection, like so many other national-level cultural and heritage agencies and private bodies. The resolution of this I don't think we have clearly yet, although Bobanny's observations are in line with Keefer4's - and the truth os that its use of their negative, or a copy-print bought from them, that they have the right to charge for, as owners of the negs; many of the images in question were also postcards and similar materials, so clearly in the public domain; they don't have much of an online map collection, unfortunately.Skookum1 01:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with that interpretation. The "for research purposes" means that the image is being made available for purposes that don't require paying BCA a permission fee. If I was publishing a "History of BC" book and used a 100 year old image, I would have to pay a permission fee, regardless of whether the copyright had expired. If I refused to pay the fee, they just wouldn't give me access to the original to copy it, simply because they want their cut. If I just downloaded the low-rez image from the online database and used it for my for-profit book venture, there's no legal basis for them to take action against me as far as the copyright act goes because it's public domain. If I'm over-looking something, I can't see it. I emailed them for clarification and will pass any new info along, but they have a huge collection of great historical BC photos the feds don't have, and it appears to be little more than them trying to maximize the permission fees they receive. Bobanny 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, I emailed them too a few days ago. Last time I emailed them, offering to donate something, it took like 3 weeks for them to respond. Since we're calling their bluff on copyright, I'm guessing they won't respond at all. - TheMightyQuill 02:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to as well. But didn't yet. Glad I didn't, after hearing you two had already!--Keefer4 03:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Response from BC Archives

"As you will have seen from the disclaimer on the BC Archives website, it is the page "content" that is copyrighted and is supplied only for Research not the images. There is no contradiction with Canadian Copyright legislation in protecting the intellectual property of the Royal BC Museum Corporation (e.g. Its website and individual pages on the website).

Copyright of individual images/records depicted on the web pages is another matter entirely. The BC Archives does not hold copyright for all of the records in its holdings. In the case of some records, a third party may hold copyright, or there may be a donor restriction on the use of the item. Under Canadian copyright law, the BC Archives cannot release copies of these records or images without written permission from the copyright holder and/or the donor.

The records or images held in the collections of the Royal BC Museum and the BC Archives are part of the Royal BC Museum Corporation. They are made available on our website and via in-person on-site visits and (subject to any existing copyright or donor restrictions) can be used for private or research purposes. Copies can be purchased for these purposes. However, it is our policy that for use in commercial or public applications, users must request permission in advance.

We hold our collections in trust for the citizens of the province, and thus do not charge licensing or use fees for private or research purposes. For revenue-producing projects or projects that request wide, often unrestricted uses (even if they are named applications agreed upon by both parties), our policy is to require use fees. In addition, as part of the permissions process a contractual arrangement is created with defined terms under which projects are approved for use. Such agreements include requirements for individual citations as per guidelines, timelines for approved use etc.

When reviewing applications we are mindful of maintaining a balance between what we view as fair use and exploitation.

The responsibility of maintaining (preserving, restoring, making available) the collections for future generations is a costly enterprise. Revenues from license and use fees are channeled back into the collections to ensure that they are indeed protected from deterioration and so that they can be utilized by researchers and others in the future. This is the reason we charge licensing or use fees.

I believe that our Licensing Agent has had discussions with some of the Wikipedia volunteers you mention concerning the terms under which they wish to use images and has not felt comfortable that our concerns would be addressed or upheld. I would suggest that they or you contact her again to restate your position, or change the terms under which you request the images. Negotiation is a fundamental core of establishing use fees and agreements for use.

I hope that this helps to answer your questions regarding our policy on usage of image material."

Quite the spin. I feel like I'm in the same place as I was when I wrote the message. She must be a lawyer or something. I plan to continue using their PD photos and cropping out their stupid copyright warning. TheMightyQuill 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yikes. I agree. They can control access and usage of the physical images in their collection, but that's contract law, not copyright, and has nothing to do with lifting PD images off their website. It's still very misleading of them to imply that public domain images on their website are copyrighted along with the rest of the website contents, and embedding the copyright in the image itself. But at least it's on the border and can just be cropped off, unlike some museum collections. Bobanny 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
An interesting interpretation in the letter, which explicitly expresses very little direction IMO, except the fact they -- understandably-- want the fees.--Keefer4 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Towns vs Ghost towns cats

Just wondering if at least a mention of the ghost town cat, and also of the unincorporated settlements cats, to be mentioned in the same way that village, town, municipality and city are; some ghost towns remain incorporated, though none so enduringly as Greenwood's city status, but many were also company towns which would not otherwise receive a listing; maybe those could be a subcat of the unincorporated settlements (actually they were "privately incorporated settlements" by comparison) that would be the company towns, which once outnumbered the incorporations if I recall. Anyway, while there's no way, it seems, that a ghost town should be a ghost town subcat; the ghost town cat is a subcat of Category:Ghost towns of Canada and Category:Communities in British Columbia, but it should be noted that some in this category may also be present in the others. Not often, but often enough; part of the point of my table which I guess isn't labelled adequately yet, is that "present status" can indicate somewhere that's not just settled, but also incorporated as in the case of a few, or are part of a municipality (e.g. Barnet, which is now part of Burnaby), New Brighton/Hastings, now part of Vancouver etc); some of these are alive/revivals, as with Moodyville, which as a commercial neighbourhood adopted the name of the original housing which was quite a few blocks east, at the bottom of Queens Boulevard); Lillooet is now a District, for decades was a Village, and didn't even get that until the 20th Century (place was Government Agent/Gold Commissioner-run, more or less, before there was a muni or any of the band offices). Anyway, special non-incorporated cats like ghost towns and unincorporated settlements should probably be mentioned on Category talk:Towns in British Columbia and similar cat pages. Thoughts, perhaps about subcat issues, too? Also where the crossover between First Nations IRs and other, i.e. non-IR communities in any category;they're obviously not - by definition - unincorporated, being incorporated, at least as legal/non-constitutional objects (they can't be constitutional, as the Indian Act ultimately can't be, but that's a long and very separate discussion....) under federal laws/administration unlike municipalities, which are creatures of the province; but as far as social landscape goes, they can be tantamount to the same thing, depending on population etc; and rural towns often are both in many areas; if someone looks up Chase they're as likely to mean the Chase IR and the village (?) of Chase, although the non-IR name of the rancherie/reserves is Squilax (whatever the correct modern Secwepemctsin spelling is); but Squilax is also a placename that got carried back into English; similarlly Seton Portage and Shalalth are both, despite distinct communities within the local microlandscape, necessarily sharing the same article; D'Arcy-N'quatqua and all examples mentioned are ghost towns as well....some bigger places like Kaslo and other survivor-towns - Clinton, say, opr Ashcroft - are also ghost towns in a way, though not generally thought of as that way; I included Spences Bridge not because it's in the sources, but because it's clearly not what it was thirty-forty years ago; there are a lot new ghost towns in BC; those will require different research/citation than the simple list drawn from Paterson and Ramsey that I used to build the list, other than those I know from my local Lillooet sources and certain other materials....Skookum1 08:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot to archive this Talk Page?

Werdna has created a dandy bot that archives talk pages automatically in a fairly intelligent way. The instructions for using it look pretty straightforward. It helped me set up mine to look at some examples at Category:Discussion pages automatically archived by Werdnabot. I have just set it up at my own talk page. Assuming it works, (won't know for sure until the next cycle) what would people working on this project think about using it here?--KenWalker | Talk 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I will set this up. I think with a page like this, a longer time period before a section is archived makes sense. 30 days would mean that only sections that have sat for a month without additional comment would get archived. A separate archive for each month would eventually make many small archives. That could be ok, better than a whole year in each archive. Somewhere in between means it would require manual handling which would take all of the fun out of this. --KenWalker | Talk 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First draft of List of ships in British Columbia

Might be better titled List of ships in the history of British Columbia; see notes on talk page.Skookum1 04:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Do you want me to run down to the nearest marina and add the names of all the boats there? What kind of notability requirements are you using? - TheMightyQuill 04:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Incorporating 'Notable Ships', or 'Notable historic ships' would be preferable I think. I like the idea, but the current title is flamebait for the abundant deletionists waiting to pounce. --Keefer4 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to both: yeah, notability's an issue; and I don't mean including the Queen's yacht here just because she visited the city in it; the list so far is just stuff from the earliest days, all of it notable, or most of it; the idea is the fleets of historical steamers on the lakes, Inside Passage, etc. as well as the notable shipwrecks along the coast (or on the lakes, for that matter); then there's things like Bowser's Navy (the two CC subs in WWI, for their short-lived duration as BC goverment property vs imperial/federal fleet). So yeah, what are the criteria? There have to be some, I'm unsure how to proceed on that account; it was simpler with the Royal Navy list, but this list should definitely exist. I was puzzling over table headings earlier too - "ship/name, captain, type (steamer, schooner, galleon etc), route/area, tonnage, year built, year wrecked/decomm etc. Thoughts?Skookum1 04:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD RG Properties

RG Properties, an article tagged as part of WikiProject British Columbia is being considered for deletion. --KenWalker | Talk 05:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly needs Wikification and de-advertising, and that long list of entertainment people it's had indirect connections to is superfluous; but this looks to be an important modern company with enough notable involvements - the Victoria hockey team, for example - that it shouldn't be deleted. I'll look at it more later but I think it more needs editing than deletion.Skookum1 04:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Banana Island Provincial Park

Banana Island Provincial Park has been proposed for Speedy Deletion. --KenWalker | Talk 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It survived the speedy delete proposal, and I expanded it. Note stub-makers: a stub needs to mention notability and shouldn't be just a single sentence. All this one said was that it's a park in BC. Bobanny 17:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Most provincial park stubs are like that, so maybe that's an "article request" kind of thing that all of us should have a look at; i.e. "adopt a park" or two and make sure they're all non-deletable. Oh, by the way what was the Southern Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park and then the South Chilcotin Provincial Park now is ONLY the Spruce Lake Protected Area, so there's a retitling issue over there to deal with, parks-wise; I was surprised not to see Churn Creek Protected Area not done yet, not even as a stub, so I created it; there are lots of ecological preserve and protected area articles that need creation, I'd say (List of British Columbia Provincial Parks or whatever the list page has 'em); I'll assign myself the Empire Valley Ranch Ecological Preserve but maybe people could "adopt" one from their own areas?Skookum1 19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be obvious that if an area is a designated provincial park that it's a worthy topic. Alot of those "speedy delete" zealots don't seem to distinguish between a notable subject and a stub. But yeah, it looks like someone just went through the park list and created pages for the sole purpose of making them blue links without attempting to create proper stubs, ie, with enough info to be useful.Bobanny 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Just looked at the list - damn, there's a lot. 830. Bobanny 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and note that it's only the parks list which is exhaustive; not all protected areas are in the system, and only a few ecological preserves; and none, or few, or First Nations-designated ecological/spiritual preserve areas like the one on the map Oldmanrivers linked or posted a while back somewhere. The ecological preserves all seem notable in the long run - or else they wouldn't be ecological preserves. I'd say what's needed to get them done properly is somebody involved in the scientific/eco-org end of things who might take an interest in the Wiki corpus, the way linguists and ethnologists have done for FN languages and peoples (esp. Terry Harris and Bill Poser); it's too fine-grained for casual write-ups; much in the same way that User:Black Tusk is focussing on his volcanic landforms subjectry, the same will be needed. I know where various ecological preserves are and sometimes something about their history; but I don't know their ecologies well enough to even begin, and I'd venture that what's on-line about them is "scientifically thick" and in need of condensation for Wiki usage; cf. the ext links on Black Dome Mountain, about its particular(ly strange) vulcanology and fossilized springs; Empire Valley's a bit of a pet one, partly because it's so beautiful and kind of legendary in the Lillooet Country/Fraser Canyon, like the Diamond S (the big spectacular ranch-benchlands around Pavilion); just redlinked that ranchlink, and have in the back of my mind a List of historic ranches in British Columbia - the Coldstream, the Douglas Lake, Empire Valley, Ashcroft Manor, the Basque, the Diamond S, the Gang, various ones around Lillooet and Kamloops and 100 Mile and in the higher Chilcotin (than the Gang, that is) - Hungry Valley, Sky Ranch, and others - and so on; it's a category, and a historical subject, all in its own right.Skookum1 02:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)