![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
As this page is about issues, at least by its wording, rather than by specific cases (excepting for the Clayoquot mention, which is the only specific here as yet) I thought it worthwhile to start a short list of articles that I know are related:
Lots more just wanted to plunk those down; this page ultimately will probably be best broken down by province..... Skookum1 ( talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's one for you that I don't have time to do - including research and de-POVizing the relatively neutral tone; what's POV is the composition of what's talked about; a smaller reduced paragraph summarizing should stay on this page, with a {{ main}} template directing it to the Klappan coal-bed methane proposal (or "Klappan River coal-bed methane proposal]]); here's where it gets tricky; the same authors also wrote Sacred Headwaters, which I wish had a catchier name (Kablona doesn't sound like it would be; too easy to pun "kablooey"); it's a certified term, with a BC govt report usage to back it up; but it's essentially about the Klappan coal-bed methane proposal; the Sacred Headwaters movement only began in response to it. But when the inevitable "merge" template gets placed on them, if the Klappan is split off from the Tahltan article, as it really has to be, where would you stand on which was the correct name - the native-designated name, or the encyclopedic one? And it has to be split off, because if Wikipedia only reports on this project on the Tahltan page, and only has a Tahltan-perspective article, that is POV. There's other technical details which, like much rhetorical writing, takes a fact as if it means something without knowing all the rest of the related facts; that over half of mining activity in BC was in 2006 does not indicate a trend/long term - similar situatinos prevailed in the past, back during the Stikine and Cassiar gold rushes and since. Mining is always in flux....anyway what I'm getting at is that the mining industry has to be presented fairly, and articles shouldnt' be written just to advance agendas concerning them without also giving them the nod in the content. Or in the selection of titles; don't mean to preach, just observing all the technicalities/contingencies and hoping you might make the time to split the article; which can carry the new cat of course; there's other similar splits in need of doing out there, that one just happens to be in my memory at hte moment; another would be the Brittany Triangle, I suppose..... Skookum1 ( talk) 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Joshjay22,
Writ340ti,
Lavendermeadow1,
Abubna (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by 1namesake1 ( talk) 23:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
As this page is about issues, at least by its wording, rather than by specific cases (excepting for the Clayoquot mention, which is the only specific here as yet) I thought it worthwhile to start a short list of articles that I know are related:
Lots more just wanted to plunk those down; this page ultimately will probably be best broken down by province..... Skookum1 ( talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's one for you that I don't have time to do - including research and de-POVizing the relatively neutral tone; what's POV is the composition of what's talked about; a smaller reduced paragraph summarizing should stay on this page, with a {{ main}} template directing it to the Klappan coal-bed methane proposal (or "Klappan River coal-bed methane proposal]]); here's where it gets tricky; the same authors also wrote Sacred Headwaters, which I wish had a catchier name (Kablona doesn't sound like it would be; too easy to pun "kablooey"); it's a certified term, with a BC govt report usage to back it up; but it's essentially about the Klappan coal-bed methane proposal; the Sacred Headwaters movement only began in response to it. But when the inevitable "merge" template gets placed on them, if the Klappan is split off from the Tahltan article, as it really has to be, where would you stand on which was the correct name - the native-designated name, or the encyclopedic one? And it has to be split off, because if Wikipedia only reports on this project on the Tahltan page, and only has a Tahltan-perspective article, that is POV. There's other technical details which, like much rhetorical writing, takes a fact as if it means something without knowing all the rest of the related facts; that over half of mining activity in BC was in 2006 does not indicate a trend/long term - similar situatinos prevailed in the past, back during the Stikine and Cassiar gold rushes and since. Mining is always in flux....anyway what I'm getting at is that the mining industry has to be presented fairly, and articles shouldnt' be written just to advance agendas concerning them without also giving them the nod in the content. Or in the selection of titles; don't mean to preach, just observing all the technicalities/contingencies and hoping you might make the time to split the article; which can carry the new cat of course; there's other similar splits in need of doing out there, that one just happens to be in my memory at hte moment; another would be the Brittany Triangle, I suppose..... Skookum1 ( talk) 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Joshjay22,
Writ340ti,
Lavendermeadow1,
Abubna (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by 1namesake1 ( talk) 23:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)