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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This drew my eye, and curiosity:
The last line is a new bit from Antarctic Penguin, and it needes a specific line-cite unless it's in the BC govt reference provided. Both opening phrases credit the Campbell government - rather than simply the BC government - is that really teh wording of the reference, or its imputation? If so then it's an issue of using public resources to promote a political agenda, but that's nothing new in government information spending in BC either. Does the link say the govenrment led the effort or did it use some other verb. My impression is that iwas VAAOC who led that effort, followed closely by the Mayor(s) of Vancouver. The claim that the economy "has revived substantially" is pure politics - see this analysis which paints a very different picture; it's part of the neo-con mantra that business was in bad shape under the NDP but nothing is further from the truth, the GPP was higher and growth rates higher, notably under Harcourt. There was a lot of hype that BC's economy was in bad shape, but the numbers never held up - the tragedy of having nothing resemblign free speech in the tightly-controlled partisan press; "make a lie big enough" etc also being part of the disinformation that the economy was "revived", which is further explained by the 200 staffers in the PUblic Information Bureau in teh basement of the Ledge who crank out materials ilke the citation provided. I think a policy with regard to disingenuous use of government press releases has to be come up with; they can't be considered reliable sources if they start offering partisan - and false - analysis; official or not, or mabye especially because official, they can't be considered authoritative on any political matters. Two mentions of Campbell's name in one paragraph, also, strikes em as over-repetition, though for now I'm not into restructuring the sentences to remove it; maybe later. The shift in usage from "scandal" to "criticism" is also highly questionable; in BC it was an is referred to as a scandal; euhmerizing the term to "criticism" strikes me as POV, despit the edit comment that this was an effort to de-POVize....also most of our resource exports continue to be to the US....(and all privatization deals go to US ownership, not Asian; the last major BC assets to go to Asian ownership were the Expo Lands and the Bank of BC, adn those were done by Socreds). Skookum1 ( talk) 21:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is Eckankar listed as an Eastern Religon. The roots of this religon are clearly American. -Xaremathras ( talk) 04:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Category:British Columbia is itself a category within Category:Provinces and territories of Canada. — Robert Greer ( talk) 12:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I just tried to get to British Columbia Electric Railway, first by typing "bcer" in the search window; which raised the "BCer" redirect to this page; then I tried it all caps "BCER" and it also redirected here. BCER is the standard acronym for that railway and would be the most common usage, at least historically. There's a discussion either on this page or WP:CANTALK about whether or not "BCer" is an imported neo-demonym and whether or not it's proper or not; I'm from BC and I do use it, but apparently I may have picked it up from friends who are Easterners because as someone in wikispace asserted "I've lived in BC all my life and have never used it", i.e. that "British Columbian" is the only proper usage. I dunno, I've had lots of Nova Scotian and Ontarian friends over the years so maybe that's where I picked up the usage; or from the national media or the imported Easterners who work for the local networks. But "BCer" IS a slang term, and not a regular usage, that much is for sure. I'm of a mind to change the BCer redirect to the railway, but wanted to discuss it here first; even though I type it in all caps, by the way, the redirect is title "BCer", which of course should be changed to all caps and all small case; I don't know how that works from the search window as caps aren't an issue there.... Skookum1 ( talk) 13:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Took the tour of the Parliament building yesterday and they said that Tourism is now the second largest industry in British Columbia after forestry. I don't have an online source to quote, so I thought I would mention it here and maybe someone can add it to the page if they want. 207.6.24.207 ( talk) 06:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a few items to demonstrate who selective and "thin" the list had been; this whole section should just be a link to the " Outline of BC" page once it's done, and/or to " List of British Columbia-related topics", which simply organizes the same material as the Outline holds only in slphabetical order. I'll be back with a link to the Outline, which needs more fixes before it should be in mainspace, but this page is far too big for the See also section to look like this, and it's also not the point of the see also section. Skookum1 ( talk) 11:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Skookum, please see WP:POINT. If the section is bloated, you should cut it down, not expand it to prove your point. I think most or all of the section can be replaced by the link to the Outline that you are working on. Ground Zero | t 12:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It has been stated on your site in several locations under the heading of "Daylight Savings Time" that there are parts of British Columbia that does NOT observe this. However, you never say specifically who in B.C does not observe DST.
Please include them and any other areas of Canada
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.106.194 ( talk) 14:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we get one added to match the other provinces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.54.251 ( talk) 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I was through to update some Ethnic identity info from the 2006 census, and I also removed a paragraph or so of discussion on ethnicity in BC. I've copied it in below, so others can comment. There were no references, and some of it might not be true. Certainly, however, it seems to me like it doesn't belong, unless someone's going to put together a more complete overview of ethnicity in BC (including mention of relevant aboriginal ethnicities, immigration patterns and trends of self-identity. Feedback and disagreement welcome. AshleyMorton ( talk) 08:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed text:
I know this has been discussed before, however not only does the BC government website not have a French spelling, but the Canadian government website does not have a French name for BC on it's English page. So those of the opinion that the French name should be included due to the federal government being officially bilingual and the provincial government not having an official language, should be satisfied with the English Wiki only having English, as it would be consistent with the federal government's English pages.
Province of British Columbia - http://www.gov.bc.ca/ Government of Canada - http://canada.gc.ca/othergov-autregouv/prov-eng.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.44.83 ( talk) 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC) british columbia is awsome made by sierra rsoe eakins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.18.160 ( talk) 01:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Toronto's population is quoted in 3 times more area, Montreal almost 2 times more area, then there's cities in the US like Denver and Houston that cover 10-15 times more area than cities like Vancouver and Victoria. Why does BC do that when most of it's population is in the same general region ? Grmike ( talk) 11:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)grmike
A radius of 150 km of Vancouver would have about 3.5 million people. Campell River south to Victoria + the Lower Mainland. Said Area would be about 20000sqr km. I think that was the gist of what the original poster was trying to convey. This would be similar to how the CSA are composed in the States or like the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario. I could go into it deeper but the meaning would be lost in being overly verbose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.84 ( talk) 06:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In the etymology section it may be interesting to mention that the river itself got its name from a private vessel named Columbia Rediviva. Ergo, British Columbia got its name from that vessel. 78.53.47.125 ( talk) 23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I just think that It should be mentioned that the BC coast (specially in the south) has a very maritime climat, whith winter average temperatures far above the rest of Canada. Vancouver has more a three season climate then four season. Autumn passes over to spring whithout a long snowy and cold winter. This is dued to the fact that the coast of BC is a continental western coast (like Europe) - with mild winds from the pacific. (Continental eastern coasts above 35-40th latitide isn't helped by mild winds from the sea since the general wind is from west) Also the Rocky Mountains prevents the cold northern winds that the rest of Canada gets during a long winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.230 ( talk) 16:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
"Seventy-five percent of the province is mountainous (more than 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) above sea level); 60% is forested; and only about 5% is arable.|
-- Frankjohnli ( talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
They're saying that these percentages actually overlap. You can have mountainous regions that are forested, and mountainous regions with little pockets of arable land in the valleys, foothills, etc. So there is no mistake. MrMonday1 ( talk) 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed this phrase to refer to "arctic air masses" as such conditions are not always outflow winds but rather stable continental air masses which hold over the coast, deflecting the oceanic air masses. And NB "outflow winds" is a local usage which would need explaining, i.e. the descent of the plateau air masses via the inlets/river canyons through the Coast Mountains...the Alaskan term for these is williwaw but an archaic BC usage is a Squamish (wind), though that was really only used in the past for winds coming out of Howe Sound, as the name would suggest. Outflow winds might exist as an article, I"m not sure, but if not perhaps it should be written; it may apply in WA and OR, too I'm not sure. Also the rains are not just North Pacific cyclones, but often " Pineapple expresses" aka the Coastal Chinook, which are big streams of warm subtropical wet air coming from the direction of Hawaii, i.e. rather htan out of the Gulf of Alaska or other parts of the North Pacific. Skookum1 ( talk) 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The infobox heading should be restricted to the province's official language, which is English. GoodDay ( talk) 14:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for someone to provide a reliable source, that English/French are the official languages. GoodDay ( talk) 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
But it doesn't. GoodDay ( talk) 21:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Under Demographics- Ethnic groups, there is a table showing the ethnic groups, origin and percent of population. It shows that English and Scottish are the largest populations. Then, further down the list, it says British. This makes absolutely no sense, not to mention that it says the British population is much smaller than the English or Scottish populations. It says that the English and Scottish percentage of the populations are 29.6% and 20.3%, respectively, also with a percentage showing the Welsh population. It then says the British population makes up 1.8% of the province. I propose this be changed by taking out the British piece and leaving the English and Scottish percentages. MrMonday1 ( talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that part of the paragraph underneath the table should be moved up over it, or even an asterisk should be put next to 'British' so that people don't misread it like I did. That's a funky little quirk about that table and I think a note like something above would help. MrMonday1 ( talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This word isn't in English and doesn't translate the motto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no section on the culture of British Columbia in this article. Joey11123 ( talk) 20:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:I 61926.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:I 61926.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
I have ordered and grouped the sections in a way that seems consistent with a majority of the Province articles. I intend to do the same with the other 9 plus territories unless someone disputes this. Verne Equinox ( talk) 00:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the opening section needs lots more citations and I don't feel it is up to Wiki standards. It reads like a press release from the BC Government tourism office or a personal opinion of what BC means to you.
Statements saying that BC is known for being more liberal/progressive than other provinces, and that BC is well known for its multiculturalism and that BC is well known for 'embodying the Canadian identity', while they may all be true, they look unprofessional without being supported by citation.
Therefore, I added the requested citations to that paragraph. If someone can find them, pls add it...Otherwise, if not fixed, this section will need to be re-worded. Suggested article for citation: here... http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/10/07/VisMinority/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.73.89 ( talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Mezaco ( talk) 20:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"Among the provinces, British Columbia has been distinguished by its strong liberal views (in stark contrast to the other provinces west of Ontario)"
This is patently false. Manitoba and Saskatchewan (at least until recently for Sask., that province has moved to the right in recent years) have generally always been more progressive than BC. The only thing that BC would appear to have more liberal views with respect to (libertarian would be more true), is drug laws. II think this statement should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.41.18 ( talk) 21:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Re THIS edit about overly precise coords - I'm not sure where those coords came from, with your adjustment it brings them south a bit, but either location is in the Omineca Mountains to the west of Lake Williston; the usual centre of BC, and which bills itself as such, is approximately the site of Vanderhoof, east of Prince George. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Under the Cities section, the article states that "Also in the metropolitan area but not represented in the regional district are the University Endowment Lands." But the UEL is in fact contained in and represented by GVRD Electoral Area A (stated in both these articles), which is of course a part of Metro Vancouver/GVRD. So perhaps this sentence should be removed, and two sentences back the wording should be "with adjacent unincorporated areas (including the University Endowment Lands) represented in the regional district as the electoral area known as Greater Vancouver Electoral Area A"? If there are no complaints here I'll go ahead and make this change. Lambda(T) ( talk) 20:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed all the copy and pasting of lists...Will work on making it into real content with sources over the next few days. -- Moxy ( talk) 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The article is huge we should move lots of the history section to History of British Columbia. Will take lots of time to source all this so would love some help with trimming the section before I start sourcing stuff. -- Moxy ( talk) 18:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This article currently uses a mixture of templated and handwritten citations. I'd like to propose standardizing to the {{ cite}} family of templates. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Kinda curious why there's mention of court cases and the current premier, etc., etc. in the introduction. It's an overload of information that isn't really friendly to the reader.
It could be better put somewhere else. Maybe instead, just list some stuff that BC is generally known for to outsiders, and then the nitty gritty details that only residents of BC are really familiar with can be included in other sections, like 'current events', 'controversy' or 'politics' or whatever.
I recommend looking at the intro to the article on Montana, which describes it pretty well, with little bits of information that lead into the nitty gritty, such as general industry and economy information, as well as geography. Impfireball ( talk) 11:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on British Columbia. 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, 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) 20:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Who's Douglas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.32.216 ( talk) 00:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Columbia. 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
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/vplWhen 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) 02:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
BC is not part of Francophone Canada and French is only spoken by a small number of people in BC. It also has no official status. Should it be removed?-- 92.40.253.176 ( talk) 15:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not Quebecois "nationalist silliness" to provide a province's name in both official languages. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island all provide the French version of their names in their articles' respective introductory paragraphs - despite their small Francophone populations - because their names in English and French differ; British Columbia's article should match this precedent. Restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.235.233 ( talk) 05:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Where is the population of 4,991,687 coming from? I do not see a WP:RS for this value. It would be good to know if it's an estimate or an actual count (not likely since it wasn't a census year). Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
To editor Joeyconnick: I find it frustrating that a lot of the climate section is written like an advertisement. The advertisement-style language is not removed, but a couple parts I wrote was removed when you could have just fixed the citation, when in reality it just doesn't fit what you wanted to paint the climate as and you're just editing to push your own agenda. I can't help but think this is written not only for tourism, but to make it even harder to afford a home by increasing the amount of people moving to BC from other provinces. Thanks for not completely removing everything though, but I'm onto you. So are you in the tourism industry or real estate? Sorry if I'm assuming something that is wrong, which I hope I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctorchia87 ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't BC have any literature? Rwood128 ( talk) 14:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The first section of this article is, for lack of a better word - a total mess. Compare it to the articles for other provinces, and all of them state basic facts about the province that would give someone a brief idea of the geography, demographics, economy, capital/major cities, and in some trivia/points of interest. Meanwhile, BC's article jumps from basic geography and population facts to a lengthy paragraph about pre-Confederation history that simply rewords information from the "History" section of the article. It should be completely cut. The third paragraph mentions a population estimate that is six years out of date, and gets into provincial politics from 2017, the final paragraph goes onto talk about Native land issues, all of this is completely unnecessary for an overview of the province. I cut most of this content in an edit, added some lines covering the places BC borders (in line with most articles on countries and subnational entities). I hope someone more familiar with how Wikipedia works or how to write these kinds of articles will give this some more attention and add any other relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.82.195 ( talk) 19:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This drew my eye, and curiosity:
The last line is a new bit from Antarctic Penguin, and it needes a specific line-cite unless it's in the BC govt reference provided. Both opening phrases credit the Campbell government - rather than simply the BC government - is that really teh wording of the reference, or its imputation? If so then it's an issue of using public resources to promote a political agenda, but that's nothing new in government information spending in BC either. Does the link say the govenrment led the effort or did it use some other verb. My impression is that iwas VAAOC who led that effort, followed closely by the Mayor(s) of Vancouver. The claim that the economy "has revived substantially" is pure politics - see this analysis which paints a very different picture; it's part of the neo-con mantra that business was in bad shape under the NDP but nothing is further from the truth, the GPP was higher and growth rates higher, notably under Harcourt. There was a lot of hype that BC's economy was in bad shape, but the numbers never held up - the tragedy of having nothing resemblign free speech in the tightly-controlled partisan press; "make a lie big enough" etc also being part of the disinformation that the economy was "revived", which is further explained by the 200 staffers in the PUblic Information Bureau in teh basement of the Ledge who crank out materials ilke the citation provided. I think a policy with regard to disingenuous use of government press releases has to be come up with; they can't be considered reliable sources if they start offering partisan - and false - analysis; official or not, or mabye especially because official, they can't be considered authoritative on any political matters. Two mentions of Campbell's name in one paragraph, also, strikes em as over-repetition, though for now I'm not into restructuring the sentences to remove it; maybe later. The shift in usage from "scandal" to "criticism" is also highly questionable; in BC it was an is referred to as a scandal; euhmerizing the term to "criticism" strikes me as POV, despit the edit comment that this was an effort to de-POVize....also most of our resource exports continue to be to the US....(and all privatization deals go to US ownership, not Asian; the last major BC assets to go to Asian ownership were the Expo Lands and the Bank of BC, adn those were done by Socreds). Skookum1 ( talk) 21:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is Eckankar listed as an Eastern Religon. The roots of this religon are clearly American. -Xaremathras ( talk) 04:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Category:British Columbia is itself a category within Category:Provinces and territories of Canada. — Robert Greer ( talk) 12:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I just tried to get to British Columbia Electric Railway, first by typing "bcer" in the search window; which raised the "BCer" redirect to this page; then I tried it all caps "BCER" and it also redirected here. BCER is the standard acronym for that railway and would be the most common usage, at least historically. There's a discussion either on this page or WP:CANTALK about whether or not "BCer" is an imported neo-demonym and whether or not it's proper or not; I'm from BC and I do use it, but apparently I may have picked it up from friends who are Easterners because as someone in wikispace asserted "I've lived in BC all my life and have never used it", i.e. that "British Columbian" is the only proper usage. I dunno, I've had lots of Nova Scotian and Ontarian friends over the years so maybe that's where I picked up the usage; or from the national media or the imported Easterners who work for the local networks. But "BCer" IS a slang term, and not a regular usage, that much is for sure. I'm of a mind to change the BCer redirect to the railway, but wanted to discuss it here first; even though I type it in all caps, by the way, the redirect is title "BCer", which of course should be changed to all caps and all small case; I don't know how that works from the search window as caps aren't an issue there.... Skookum1 ( talk) 13:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Took the tour of the Parliament building yesterday and they said that Tourism is now the second largest industry in British Columbia after forestry. I don't have an online source to quote, so I thought I would mention it here and maybe someone can add it to the page if they want. 207.6.24.207 ( talk) 06:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a few items to demonstrate who selective and "thin" the list had been; this whole section should just be a link to the " Outline of BC" page once it's done, and/or to " List of British Columbia-related topics", which simply organizes the same material as the Outline holds only in slphabetical order. I'll be back with a link to the Outline, which needs more fixes before it should be in mainspace, but this page is far too big for the See also section to look like this, and it's also not the point of the see also section. Skookum1 ( talk) 11:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Skookum, please see WP:POINT. If the section is bloated, you should cut it down, not expand it to prove your point. I think most or all of the section can be replaced by the link to the Outline that you are working on. Ground Zero | t 12:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It has been stated on your site in several locations under the heading of "Daylight Savings Time" that there are parts of British Columbia that does NOT observe this. However, you never say specifically who in B.C does not observe DST.
Please include them and any other areas of Canada
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.106.194 ( talk) 14:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we get one added to match the other provinces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.54.251 ( talk) 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I was through to update some Ethnic identity info from the 2006 census, and I also removed a paragraph or so of discussion on ethnicity in BC. I've copied it in below, so others can comment. There were no references, and some of it might not be true. Certainly, however, it seems to me like it doesn't belong, unless someone's going to put together a more complete overview of ethnicity in BC (including mention of relevant aboriginal ethnicities, immigration patterns and trends of self-identity. Feedback and disagreement welcome. AshleyMorton ( talk) 08:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed text:
I know this has been discussed before, however not only does the BC government website not have a French spelling, but the Canadian government website does not have a French name for BC on it's English page. So those of the opinion that the French name should be included due to the federal government being officially bilingual and the provincial government not having an official language, should be satisfied with the English Wiki only having English, as it would be consistent with the federal government's English pages.
Province of British Columbia - http://www.gov.bc.ca/ Government of Canada - http://canada.gc.ca/othergov-autregouv/prov-eng.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.44.83 ( talk) 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC) british columbia is awsome made by sierra rsoe eakins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.18.160 ( talk) 01:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Toronto's population is quoted in 3 times more area, Montreal almost 2 times more area, then there's cities in the US like Denver and Houston that cover 10-15 times more area than cities like Vancouver and Victoria. Why does BC do that when most of it's population is in the same general region ? Grmike ( talk) 11:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)grmike
A radius of 150 km of Vancouver would have about 3.5 million people. Campell River south to Victoria + the Lower Mainland. Said Area would be about 20000sqr km. I think that was the gist of what the original poster was trying to convey. This would be similar to how the CSA are composed in the States or like the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario. I could go into it deeper but the meaning would be lost in being overly verbose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.84 ( talk) 06:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In the etymology section it may be interesting to mention that the river itself got its name from a private vessel named Columbia Rediviva. Ergo, British Columbia got its name from that vessel. 78.53.47.125 ( talk) 23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I just think that It should be mentioned that the BC coast (specially in the south) has a very maritime climat, whith winter average temperatures far above the rest of Canada. Vancouver has more a three season climate then four season. Autumn passes over to spring whithout a long snowy and cold winter. This is dued to the fact that the coast of BC is a continental western coast (like Europe) - with mild winds from the pacific. (Continental eastern coasts above 35-40th latitide isn't helped by mild winds from the sea since the general wind is from west) Also the Rocky Mountains prevents the cold northern winds that the rest of Canada gets during a long winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.230 ( talk) 16:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
"Seventy-five percent of the province is mountainous (more than 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) above sea level); 60% is forested; and only about 5% is arable.|
-- Frankjohnli ( talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
They're saying that these percentages actually overlap. You can have mountainous regions that are forested, and mountainous regions with little pockets of arable land in the valleys, foothills, etc. So there is no mistake. MrMonday1 ( talk) 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed this phrase to refer to "arctic air masses" as such conditions are not always outflow winds but rather stable continental air masses which hold over the coast, deflecting the oceanic air masses. And NB "outflow winds" is a local usage which would need explaining, i.e. the descent of the plateau air masses via the inlets/river canyons through the Coast Mountains...the Alaskan term for these is williwaw but an archaic BC usage is a Squamish (wind), though that was really only used in the past for winds coming out of Howe Sound, as the name would suggest. Outflow winds might exist as an article, I"m not sure, but if not perhaps it should be written; it may apply in WA and OR, too I'm not sure. Also the rains are not just North Pacific cyclones, but often " Pineapple expresses" aka the Coastal Chinook, which are big streams of warm subtropical wet air coming from the direction of Hawaii, i.e. rather htan out of the Gulf of Alaska or other parts of the North Pacific. Skookum1 ( talk) 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The infobox heading should be restricted to the province's official language, which is English. GoodDay ( talk) 14:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for someone to provide a reliable source, that English/French are the official languages. GoodDay ( talk) 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
But it doesn't. GoodDay ( talk) 21:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Under Demographics- Ethnic groups, there is a table showing the ethnic groups, origin and percent of population. It shows that English and Scottish are the largest populations. Then, further down the list, it says British. This makes absolutely no sense, not to mention that it says the British population is much smaller than the English or Scottish populations. It says that the English and Scottish percentage of the populations are 29.6% and 20.3%, respectively, also with a percentage showing the Welsh population. It then says the British population makes up 1.8% of the province. I propose this be changed by taking out the British piece and leaving the English and Scottish percentages. MrMonday1 ( talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that part of the paragraph underneath the table should be moved up over it, or even an asterisk should be put next to 'British' so that people don't misread it like I did. That's a funky little quirk about that table and I think a note like something above would help. MrMonday1 ( talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This word isn't in English and doesn't translate the motto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no section on the culture of British Columbia in this article. Joey11123 ( talk) 20:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:I 61926.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:I 61926.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
I have ordered and grouped the sections in a way that seems consistent with a majority of the Province articles. I intend to do the same with the other 9 plus territories unless someone disputes this. Verne Equinox ( talk) 00:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the opening section needs lots more citations and I don't feel it is up to Wiki standards. It reads like a press release from the BC Government tourism office or a personal opinion of what BC means to you.
Statements saying that BC is known for being more liberal/progressive than other provinces, and that BC is well known for its multiculturalism and that BC is well known for 'embodying the Canadian identity', while they may all be true, they look unprofessional without being supported by citation.
Therefore, I added the requested citations to that paragraph. If someone can find them, pls add it...Otherwise, if not fixed, this section will need to be re-worded. Suggested article for citation: here... http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/10/07/VisMinority/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.73.89 ( talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Mezaco ( talk) 20:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"Among the provinces, British Columbia has been distinguished by its strong liberal views (in stark contrast to the other provinces west of Ontario)"
This is patently false. Manitoba and Saskatchewan (at least until recently for Sask., that province has moved to the right in recent years) have generally always been more progressive than BC. The only thing that BC would appear to have more liberal views with respect to (libertarian would be more true), is drug laws. II think this statement should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.41.18 ( talk) 21:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Re THIS edit about overly precise coords - I'm not sure where those coords came from, with your adjustment it brings them south a bit, but either location is in the Omineca Mountains to the west of Lake Williston; the usual centre of BC, and which bills itself as such, is approximately the site of Vanderhoof, east of Prince George. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Under the Cities section, the article states that "Also in the metropolitan area but not represented in the regional district are the University Endowment Lands." But the UEL is in fact contained in and represented by GVRD Electoral Area A (stated in both these articles), which is of course a part of Metro Vancouver/GVRD. So perhaps this sentence should be removed, and two sentences back the wording should be "with adjacent unincorporated areas (including the University Endowment Lands) represented in the regional district as the electoral area known as Greater Vancouver Electoral Area A"? If there are no complaints here I'll go ahead and make this change. Lambda(T) ( talk) 20:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed all the copy and pasting of lists...Will work on making it into real content with sources over the next few days. -- Moxy ( talk) 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The article is huge we should move lots of the history section to History of British Columbia. Will take lots of time to source all this so would love some help with trimming the section before I start sourcing stuff. -- Moxy ( talk) 18:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This article currently uses a mixture of templated and handwritten citations. I'd like to propose standardizing to the {{ cite}} family of templates. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Kinda curious why there's mention of court cases and the current premier, etc., etc. in the introduction. It's an overload of information that isn't really friendly to the reader.
It could be better put somewhere else. Maybe instead, just list some stuff that BC is generally known for to outsiders, and then the nitty gritty details that only residents of BC are really familiar with can be included in other sections, like 'current events', 'controversy' or 'politics' or whatever.
I recommend looking at the intro to the article on Montana, which describes it pretty well, with little bits of information that lead into the nitty gritty, such as general industry and economy information, as well as geography. Impfireball ( talk) 11:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on British Columbia. 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, 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) 20:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Who's Douglas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.32.216 ( talk) 00:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Columbia. 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
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/vplWhen 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) 02:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
BC is not part of Francophone Canada and French is only spoken by a small number of people in BC. It also has no official status. Should it be removed?-- 92.40.253.176 ( talk) 15:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not Quebecois "nationalist silliness" to provide a province's name in both official languages. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island all provide the French version of their names in their articles' respective introductory paragraphs - despite their small Francophone populations - because their names in English and French differ; British Columbia's article should match this precedent. Restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.235.233 ( talk) 05:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Where is the population of 4,991,687 coming from? I do not see a WP:RS for this value. It would be good to know if it's an estimate or an actual count (not likely since it wasn't a census year). Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
To editor Joeyconnick: I find it frustrating that a lot of the climate section is written like an advertisement. The advertisement-style language is not removed, but a couple parts I wrote was removed when you could have just fixed the citation, when in reality it just doesn't fit what you wanted to paint the climate as and you're just editing to push your own agenda. I can't help but think this is written not only for tourism, but to make it even harder to afford a home by increasing the amount of people moving to BC from other provinces. Thanks for not completely removing everything though, but I'm onto you. So are you in the tourism industry or real estate? Sorry if I'm assuming something that is wrong, which I hope I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctorchia87 ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't BC have any literature? Rwood128 ( talk) 14:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The first section of this article is, for lack of a better word - a total mess. Compare it to the articles for other provinces, and all of them state basic facts about the province that would give someone a brief idea of the geography, demographics, economy, capital/major cities, and in some trivia/points of interest. Meanwhile, BC's article jumps from basic geography and population facts to a lengthy paragraph about pre-Confederation history that simply rewords information from the "History" section of the article. It should be completely cut. The third paragraph mentions a population estimate that is six years out of date, and gets into provincial politics from 2017, the final paragraph goes onto talk about Native land issues, all of this is completely unnecessary for an overview of the province. I cut most of this content in an edit, added some lines covering the places BC borders (in line with most articles on countries and subnational entities). I hope someone more familiar with how Wikipedia works or how to write these kinds of articles will give this some more attention and add any other relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.82.195 ( talk) 19:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)