This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
BC Ferries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
As it stands right now, the concept of the V class ferry is confusing to wikipedia readers, mostly because the names of the classes kept changing. Originally SEVEN VESSELS were V class vessels:
When they were built originally they all had the same basic specifications. All seven were also streched with an 84 foot insert section, so that doesn't split the class yet. What makes it confusing for some is that when 5 of the ships were modified with a new car deck, the two ships that were NOT modified had their class changed, so the Burnaby and Nanaimo became "Burnaby class".
Then they made it more confusing when the Queen of New Westminster was fitted with new engines, and they officially removed the ship from V class, leaving the vessel in a class of it's own, as a result we have three different types of ship which were all originally built the same.
Is there some way we can reflect this in the articals without it being confusing? Perhaps if we could make the "main" artical on V class ships include a "Sub Classes" section which includes the two Burnaby Class ships, and the Queen of New Westminster, whilst maintaining the pages existed for those ships?
I want to make this set of articals much less confusing for the reader. CarsonCo ( talk) 22:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=BC+Ferries -- Achim ( talk) 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The comment about the bridge which can be the alternative has been removed. At least a link should appear where this is presented otherwise it's censorship even if of course it's a hot political subject since this company has a monopoly.
Can anyone confirm that their slogan used to be "Cruise the straits with BC Ferries" until somebody pointed out the double entendre? Or is that folklore? It almost seems like a common enough story to be worth mentioning.
There was merchandise that referenced B.C Ferries using "Cruising the Straits" as a slogan on keychains sold near the docks in Vancouver, Canada in the late 1970s. It was a two-sided keychain dongle encased in clear plastic with the words "CRUISING THE STRAITS" on one side and "B.C. FERRIES" on the other side. It's not clear if this was official B.C. Ferries merchandise or something sold by a private manufacturing company. [1] Kirkwoodie ( talk) 21:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Kirkwoodie
This article seems set for images. Unless there is a specific image that someone can think of, we can remove the image request. - Dr Haggis - Talk 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not from Canada (but have a strange interst in BC ferries for some reason) so I am not too familiar with locations or anything, may I suggest the creation of a route map for 'non-canadians' to have a better idea of what routes are served, wozza 1 15:25, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
Does anybody else think that putting the accidents section so close to the beginning of the article--before information about the fleet or about their routes--might be giving the subtle impression that they have a lot of accidents? Nine in thirty-six years, for a fleet with thirty-five vessels does not seem too dangerous. The accidents information should be moved to closer to the end of the article. Stearnsbrian 01:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess other editors changed mind. Too bad, my dad was rescued by a BC ferry but I guess they are all about the crash and distruction stuff.
- I was thining that perhaps we should reduce the number of accidents on the article and then add a seperate article on "Maritime Incidents involving BC Ferries" or something to that degree. The current list focuses on the modern ones, and doesn't give historical ones proper recognition. Additionally, there has been a tendancy to add less dramatic, more modern accidents, while leaving on lesser historical ones. Some more spectacular ones, such as Queen of (Qo) Coquitlam's drydock roll over, or (Qo) Alberni's near capsize have been omitted. 24.86.197.153 05:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
By any objective measure, the BC Ferry system has a terrible safety record and I am shocked the the BC government allows this to continue. They must account for ~20% of the accidents in North American maritime passenger over the past ~40 years. It is reasonable for this entry to factually convey this fact. oysterengineer ( talk) 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)oysterengineer, 07 August 2008
It is reasonable for the entry to list every maritime incident BC ferries has been involved in, but by no means does the BC Ferry system have a bad safety record. Any system that operates on as large a scale as BC Ferries does would be lucky to not have a plethora of accidents much more intensive than that of BC Ferries. Anyway, I'm leaning on the idea of a separate page on "Accidents involving BC Ferries", so that we can fix the dramatic imbalance of the accident section in the main artical. This section should also include rescues made by BC ferries as the title includes the word "involving" BC Ferries, not "caused by" BC ferries. I'm going to be getting out by BC Ferries history book in the next couple of weeks to work on that project, because I think it's important to have this accurate information on wiki. CarsonCo ( talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I fully support the seperation of the Accidents into a seperate Incidents page, listing both good and bad. YYC T Dawg ( talk) 22:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm by no means an expert in nautical matters or encyclopedia etiquette, but is it proper to refer to a ship as "she"? Of course, I understand that this is indeed a common expression, but it strikes me as being colloquial (perhaps even a tad sexist?). I haven't made any changes to the article in this regard, nor do I intend to, but I'd be interested to hear what others thinks. Should "she" be changed to the gender-neutral "it"? Maybe it's a non-issue, but just thought I'd bring it up.-- Ledavee 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not a point of sexism. Ships have historically been called "she" in respect. They respect the ship as if "she" were a woman. CarsonCo ( talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed we only have pictures of the Tsawwassen terminal, with no pictures of any of the other four major terminals. Could we get such pictures in this article? Denelson 83 03:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have some good shots of the Duke Point terminal. How do I submit or place them on the Site. I never personally thought that there would be this much interest in BC Ferries - but hey, now I have seen everything!!! Cheers from Nanaimo VI WIKIPEDIAVI 04:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
When the Queen of the North sank, it is believed two people likely drowned. When the two passangers could not be located afterwards [2] an investigation followed and they were presumed dead [3]. BeefJeaunt 14:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As there aren't any companies providing this service on the East coast of BC (and the service isn't limited in any way to the West coast), I respectfully offer a rewording of this sentence for clarity. Revert it or reshape it, but pls consider what "on the West coast" actually means. Tks. Joevanisland 18:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Brentwood Bay |
8) Village Bay |
15) Kuper Island |
22) Langdale |
29) Little River |
36) Heriot Bay |
43) Bella Coola |
-- Denelson 83 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the accidents section is duplicated in the articles for each individual vessel; which to me is where that level of detail belongs. I'm guessing it was created here before the individual articles existed. I think at this point the few missing vessel articles should be created, then the Accidents section should be purged from this article as this one should be a higher level over-view of the organization, not of the ships themselves. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 01:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed further up the page, I am wanting to review, expand and create all relevant BC Ferry related articles to bring them in line with especially thier closest counterparts Alaska Marine Highway and Washington State Ferries but also look at the handling of oversea ferry companies. It is likely that only the most notable of accidents by some criteria will remain on the main page, the QoTN sinking will probably remain for sometime regardless of criteria decided. Gunther87 ( talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if it qualifies as a paragraph on the page somewhere, but yesterday the BC Ferries site went down due to someone in their IT department not renewing their IP address or something like that. Here is the news article: BC Ferries Website Down. Thought it was pretty funny, especially since I need to book a reservation for our long weekend coming up! 129.42.208.186 ( talk) 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The accident section is (from my quick observations of my browser's scroll bar) over 25% of the article. This is completely off base for a corporation that has historically been considered comparatively safe. Secondly, that section could use much better referencing. Other editors thoughts?
PS And holy crap, I just noticed the Table of Contents (which is in the lead) being over 50% accidents! This is totally unreasonable.
PPS And the History section is extremely temporally unbalanced, with half of the paragraphs on the topic of a shipbuilding issue in 2004! BC Ferries has a long and complicated history....
These used to be Department of Highways.....are they BC Ferries now? Wondering what to say on the Galena Bay and Needles-Fauquier Ferry articles and the like, and re Commons cats for pix. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
BC Ferries. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
BC Ferries. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on BC Ferries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.professionalmariner.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=420C4D38DC9C4E3A903315CDDC65AD72&nm=Archives&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=C45A547E3CAA4A699C8DC883F0C13BABWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on BC Ferries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I propose that the section Accidents and incidents be split into a separate page called List of BC Ferries accidents and incidents. The content of the current page seems off-topic due to the page. The section and subsections are large enough to make their own page. Cascadia630 ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
BC Ferries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
As it stands right now, the concept of the V class ferry is confusing to wikipedia readers, mostly because the names of the classes kept changing. Originally SEVEN VESSELS were V class vessels:
When they were built originally they all had the same basic specifications. All seven were also streched with an 84 foot insert section, so that doesn't split the class yet. What makes it confusing for some is that when 5 of the ships were modified with a new car deck, the two ships that were NOT modified had their class changed, so the Burnaby and Nanaimo became "Burnaby class".
Then they made it more confusing when the Queen of New Westminster was fitted with new engines, and they officially removed the ship from V class, leaving the vessel in a class of it's own, as a result we have three different types of ship which were all originally built the same.
Is there some way we can reflect this in the articals without it being confusing? Perhaps if we could make the "main" artical on V class ships include a "Sub Classes" section which includes the two Burnaby Class ships, and the Queen of New Westminster, whilst maintaining the pages existed for those ships?
I want to make this set of articals much less confusing for the reader. CarsonCo ( talk) 22:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=BC+Ferries -- Achim ( talk) 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The comment about the bridge which can be the alternative has been removed. At least a link should appear where this is presented otherwise it's censorship even if of course it's a hot political subject since this company has a monopoly.
Can anyone confirm that their slogan used to be "Cruise the straits with BC Ferries" until somebody pointed out the double entendre? Or is that folklore? It almost seems like a common enough story to be worth mentioning.
There was merchandise that referenced B.C Ferries using "Cruising the Straits" as a slogan on keychains sold near the docks in Vancouver, Canada in the late 1970s. It was a two-sided keychain dongle encased in clear plastic with the words "CRUISING THE STRAITS" on one side and "B.C. FERRIES" on the other side. It's not clear if this was official B.C. Ferries merchandise or something sold by a private manufacturing company. [1] Kirkwoodie ( talk) 21:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Kirkwoodie
This article seems set for images. Unless there is a specific image that someone can think of, we can remove the image request. - Dr Haggis - Talk 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not from Canada (but have a strange interst in BC ferries for some reason) so I am not too familiar with locations or anything, may I suggest the creation of a route map for 'non-canadians' to have a better idea of what routes are served, wozza 1 15:25, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
Does anybody else think that putting the accidents section so close to the beginning of the article--before information about the fleet or about their routes--might be giving the subtle impression that they have a lot of accidents? Nine in thirty-six years, for a fleet with thirty-five vessels does not seem too dangerous. The accidents information should be moved to closer to the end of the article. Stearnsbrian 01:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess other editors changed mind. Too bad, my dad was rescued by a BC ferry but I guess they are all about the crash and distruction stuff.
- I was thining that perhaps we should reduce the number of accidents on the article and then add a seperate article on "Maritime Incidents involving BC Ferries" or something to that degree. The current list focuses on the modern ones, and doesn't give historical ones proper recognition. Additionally, there has been a tendancy to add less dramatic, more modern accidents, while leaving on lesser historical ones. Some more spectacular ones, such as Queen of (Qo) Coquitlam's drydock roll over, or (Qo) Alberni's near capsize have been omitted. 24.86.197.153 05:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
By any objective measure, the BC Ferry system has a terrible safety record and I am shocked the the BC government allows this to continue. They must account for ~20% of the accidents in North American maritime passenger over the past ~40 years. It is reasonable for this entry to factually convey this fact. oysterengineer ( talk) 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)oysterengineer, 07 August 2008
It is reasonable for the entry to list every maritime incident BC ferries has been involved in, but by no means does the BC Ferry system have a bad safety record. Any system that operates on as large a scale as BC Ferries does would be lucky to not have a plethora of accidents much more intensive than that of BC Ferries. Anyway, I'm leaning on the idea of a separate page on "Accidents involving BC Ferries", so that we can fix the dramatic imbalance of the accident section in the main artical. This section should also include rescues made by BC ferries as the title includes the word "involving" BC Ferries, not "caused by" BC ferries. I'm going to be getting out by BC Ferries history book in the next couple of weeks to work on that project, because I think it's important to have this accurate information on wiki. CarsonCo ( talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I fully support the seperation of the Accidents into a seperate Incidents page, listing both good and bad. YYC T Dawg ( talk) 22:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm by no means an expert in nautical matters or encyclopedia etiquette, but is it proper to refer to a ship as "she"? Of course, I understand that this is indeed a common expression, but it strikes me as being colloquial (perhaps even a tad sexist?). I haven't made any changes to the article in this regard, nor do I intend to, but I'd be interested to hear what others thinks. Should "she" be changed to the gender-neutral "it"? Maybe it's a non-issue, but just thought I'd bring it up.-- Ledavee 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not a point of sexism. Ships have historically been called "she" in respect. They respect the ship as if "she" were a woman. CarsonCo ( talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed we only have pictures of the Tsawwassen terminal, with no pictures of any of the other four major terminals. Could we get such pictures in this article? Denelson 83 03:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have some good shots of the Duke Point terminal. How do I submit or place them on the Site. I never personally thought that there would be this much interest in BC Ferries - but hey, now I have seen everything!!! Cheers from Nanaimo VI WIKIPEDIAVI 04:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
When the Queen of the North sank, it is believed two people likely drowned. When the two passangers could not be located afterwards [2] an investigation followed and they were presumed dead [3]. BeefJeaunt 14:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As there aren't any companies providing this service on the East coast of BC (and the service isn't limited in any way to the West coast), I respectfully offer a rewording of this sentence for clarity. Revert it or reshape it, but pls consider what "on the West coast" actually means. Tks. Joevanisland 18:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Brentwood Bay |
8) Village Bay |
15) Kuper Island |
22) Langdale |
29) Little River |
36) Heriot Bay |
43) Bella Coola |
-- Denelson 83 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the accidents section is duplicated in the articles for each individual vessel; which to me is where that level of detail belongs. I'm guessing it was created here before the individual articles existed. I think at this point the few missing vessel articles should be created, then the Accidents section should be purged from this article as this one should be a higher level over-view of the organization, not of the ships themselves. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 01:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed further up the page, I am wanting to review, expand and create all relevant BC Ferry related articles to bring them in line with especially thier closest counterparts Alaska Marine Highway and Washington State Ferries but also look at the handling of oversea ferry companies. It is likely that only the most notable of accidents by some criteria will remain on the main page, the QoTN sinking will probably remain for sometime regardless of criteria decided. Gunther87 ( talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if it qualifies as a paragraph on the page somewhere, but yesterday the BC Ferries site went down due to someone in their IT department not renewing their IP address or something like that. Here is the news article: BC Ferries Website Down. Thought it was pretty funny, especially since I need to book a reservation for our long weekend coming up! 129.42.208.186 ( talk) 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The accident section is (from my quick observations of my browser's scroll bar) over 25% of the article. This is completely off base for a corporation that has historically been considered comparatively safe. Secondly, that section could use much better referencing. Other editors thoughts?
PS And holy crap, I just noticed the Table of Contents (which is in the lead) being over 50% accidents! This is totally unreasonable.
PPS And the History section is extremely temporally unbalanced, with half of the paragraphs on the topic of a shipbuilding issue in 2004! BC Ferries has a long and complicated history....
These used to be Department of Highways.....are they BC Ferries now? Wondering what to say on the Galena Bay and Needles-Fauquier Ferry articles and the like, and re Commons cats for pix. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
BC Ferries. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
BC Ferries. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on BC Ferries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.professionalmariner.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=420C4D38DC9C4E3A903315CDDC65AD72&nm=Archives&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=C45A547E3CAA4A699C8DC883F0C13BABWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on BC Ferries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I propose that the section Accidents and incidents be split into a separate page called List of BC Ferries accidents and incidents. The content of the current page seems off-topic due to the page. The section and subsections are large enough to make their own page. Cascadia630 ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)