Jump to content

Talk:Kamloops: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(33 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Canada|geography=yes|bc=yes|community=yes|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{Canadian English}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
==Subdivisions==
{{WikiProject Canada|geography=yes|bc=yes|community=yes|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Cities|class=start}}
I really don't understand the links to all the subdivisions of Kamloops on this page since none of them have actual articles. How would people feel if they were removed?
}}
: Do not remove. Add content. -- [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 04:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(1826d)

| archive = Talk:Kamloops/Archive %(counter)d
I edited the sports section, cleaned it up and removed some of the blazers content. I think that should be on the blazers page. The Tournament Capital motto should also be explained - as far as I understand ,it is a title the city gave itself and is more of a marketing campaign than an official status. [[User:Zarzwell|Zarzwell]] 11:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
| counter = 1
:No no no! It's absolutely been officially recognized as such. Yes, the city did in fact nominate itself, but provincial and then federal government backed it up. If necessary I'm sure I could provide sources with a little work. [[User:Adam Marx Squared|Adam Marx Squared]] 20:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
| maxarchivesize = 100K
::Yeah, I'm pretty sure I remember we had to prove we hosted more tournaments than the previous holder; somewhere in Ontario [[User:Lorddude|Lorddude]] 07:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1
==Kamloopsian==
| minthreadsleft = 3

}}
Wha-huh? I was born in Kamloops and lived there 12+ years, and now live 2 hours away in Penticton, and I have never in my life heard/seen "Kamloopsian" spoken or written. Is there official citation for this? Back in the day we called ourselves "Spoolmakers", as in Kamloops backwards... -- Darren

:well I have lived in Kamloops for 26 years and I AM a Kamloopsian and we DO say that ... if you live in Penticton now you OBVIOUSLY aren't a true Kamloopsian. Shawna Liza

::I am a resident of Kamloops - have been so for my whole life actually - and yes, people do refer to residents of the city as Kamloopsian. It isn't a word that is used on a daily basis though so I can understand how someone might not be familiar with it, even having lived here.-- [[User:hairytoad2005]] October 9, 2006

::For what it's worth, there are a few more Google hits for ''Kamloopian'' than ''Kamloopsian''. Google doesn't define significance or popularity, but it's something... --[[User:Ds13|Ds13]] 06:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Update from 2008:
Since the above author lived in Kamloops, the word "KamloopSian" has evolved and is in frequent use in the city. There was even a contest to determine the "Greatest KamlooopSian" <ref>( http://www.kamloopscanadians.ca/kamloopsian.htm ) </ref> and Senator Len Marchand ( http://www.naaf.ca/html/l_marchand_e.html )was chosen in a landslide of votes.
[[User:Megloops|Megloops]] ([[User talk:Megloops|talk]]) 17:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

== Kamloops Flickr Group link added to External Links ==

Hey all... I added a link to the Kamloops Flickr Group under External Links so that readers could see some visual representations of the city and surrounding areas.

:Could add some of those images to the article, assuming they pass cc 2.0 etc. [[User:Chensiyuan|Chensiyuan]] 07:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

== Coat of arms ==

I have been born and raised in Kamloops, and I can say with absolute certainty that the coat of arms on this page is NOT the City of Kamloops' coat of arms. The Kamloops coat of arms is a shield depicting three rivers, with the crest of the Hudson's Bay Company above. Atop it are a helmet and a spoked wheel. I have never seen the coat of arms as it appears on this page. [[User:Escheffel|Escheffel]] 05:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:Is this one ([[:Image:Kamloops-lCOA.png]]) the correct one? The one with the bull was probably from some corps of army in kamloops. [[User_talk:Qyd|Qyd<sup>(talk)</sup>]]20:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one. Correct, the previous one was of a former military base. Thanks! [[User:Escheffel|Escheffel]] 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)



==schools: Norkam==
==schools: Norkam==
Line 45: Line 21:
→the kamloops blazers attended norkam until last year when they switched to Brock- perhaps it could be relevant that several NHL starts went to norkam.
→the kamloops blazers attended norkam until last year when they switched to Brock- perhaps it could be relevant that several NHL starts went to norkam.


== Cree-Saulteaux c. 1590?? ==
== Removed reference to Elevator Tough Guy ==

I am from Kamloops and have never heard of that. Also a search on WP and Google netted no results. If anyone can find a [[WP:V|reliable source]] feel free to add it back. [[User:Meshach|meshach]] 18:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

==Page move==
{{polltop}} '''move'''.

[[Kamloops, British Columbia]] → [[Kamloops]]

The Canadian geographic naming conventions permit an article to be moved to the undisambiguated title if the city has a unique name or is the most significant use of its name internationally. The title Kamloops exists as a redirect to this article, and as the name derives from a BC First Nations word, it's not likely to be repeated elsewhere in the world. Accordingly, this article is a candidate for a page move to the plain title [[Kamloops]]. Any discussion? [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
:This is a no-brainer. Support. There are no other Kamloops. [[Kamloops]] already redirects here. For the same reason that [[Lethbridge]], [[Gatineau]], [[Saskatoon]], etc. got moved to undisambiguated titles, so should this one. [[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed. No brainer. '''Support'''. --[[User:Kmsiever|Kmsiever]] 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
:'''Support''' move. [[User:Chensiyuan|Chensiyuan]] 01:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed. We should continue to move Canadian cities to the new convention, so '''Support'''. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 00:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Not sure how to vote here, actually; seems like a no-brainer, ''perhaps'', but there are other BC cities where the same would easily apply, and not all are native names (Cranbrook perhaps, Parksville perhaps, Alberni perhaps - Alberni's Spanish btw, not native as some people think); the current "standard" within "BC Wikipedia" is for major regional/locational names to be disambiguation pages even when also municipalities - [[Nanaimo]], [[Squamish]], [[Lillooet]], [[Comox]], [[Cowichan]], [[Saanich]], [[Sechelt]], [[Coquitlam]] (all are native-nation names, or versions thereof anyway...their native-name articles and the native-nation articles are in "preferred" native forms e.g. [[Sneneymux]], [[Sḵwxwú7mesh]], [[St'at'imc]], [[K'omox]] (or would be if created; currently [[Comox people]], [[Quwutsun]] [not created] [[Sencoten]] (a language page, as there is no Saanich nation in the same way as the other examples), [[Shishalh]], [[Kway-quih-tlam]].....[[Tsawwassen]], [[Chilliwack]] come to mind in the same context but not sure about their disambig format, if any....[[Matsqui]] may be a redirect to [[Abbotsford, British Columbia]], [[Sumas]] should be a disambig because of an identical US name, although [[Chehalis]] is primary-American despite an identical Canadian placename, [[Sts'ailes]] in the original language). So....I haven't looked, but what's the format on [[Kelowna]], [[Penticton]], [[Quesnel]], [[Sicamous]], [[Kaslo]], [[Keremeos]].....need I go on?? Point blank, if you/we do this for Kamloops it should be done across the board, no?[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 07:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Updated comment''' OK, I've just gone through them, or am in the process of doing so. Currently:
::::[[Nanaimo]] - redirect to [[Nanaimo, British Columbia]], with "There are several federal and provincial electoral districts with the name Nanaimo. These are listed on Nanaimo (electoral districts) "Nanaimo" redirects here. For the SkyTrain station, see Nanaimo Station" (IMO there should be a disambig page for various reasons)
::::[[Squamish]] - redirect to [[Squamish, British Columbia]], with ref to [[Squamish (disambiguation)]] ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Lillooet]] - disambig page ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Comox]] - disambig page ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Cowichan]] - disambig page ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Saanich]] - currently an article on the Saanich people with "This article is about the Saanich indigenous people; for the municipality in British Columbia, see Saanich, British Columbia" [[Sencoten]] redirects to [[Saanich (linguistics)]], which IMO is mistitled and if anything other than [[Sencoten]] should be [[Saanich language]] (aka [[Straits Salish]] I believe). ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Sechelt]] - redirect to [[Sechelt, British Columbia]]; includes "This article is about the District in British Columbia. For the Aboriginal people, see Shishalh." Should have a secondary disambig line because of [[Sechelt Peninsula]] (as also with Saanich) and other uses ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Coquitlam]] - redirect to [[Coquitlam, British Columbia]] with "This article is about Coquitlam, British Columbia. For the adjacent city of Port Coquitlam, see Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. For a discussion of the "Tri-Cities" municipalities, see Tri-Cities (British Columbia)." There is as yet no [[Kway-quih-tlam]] page or [[Kway-quih-tlam First Nation page]].
::::[[Tsawwassen]] - redirect to [[Tsawwassen, British Columbia]]. IMO there should be a disambig page because of [[Tsawwassen people]], [[Tsawwassen First Nation]], [[Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal]]. NB Tsawwassen is not a municipality but a part of the [[Corporation of Delta]] (I just now created that as a redirect to [[Delta, British Columbia]]). ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Chilliwack]] - disambig page with [[Chilliwack, British Columbia]] and [[Chilliwack]] band. IMO more entries needed, e.g. [[Chilliwack&mdash;Fraser Canyon]] (federal electoral district) and various org names. There is no Chil-hi-wa-yeuk people (not exactly anyway, or not anymore; now the [[Coqualeetza]]s I think, plus others in the area as well as [[Chilliwack River]], [[Chilliwack Lake]] etc as well as the BC electoral district [[Chilliwack-Sumas]]
::::[[Sumas]] - redirct to [[Sumas, Washington]]. Prob OK as [[Sumas, British Columbia]] is now part of [[Abbotsford, British Columbia]] but should have disambig page because of [[Sumas Lake]] (now [[Sumas Prairie]], [[Sumas First Nation]], [[Sumas River]], [[Sumas Mountain (Canada)]], [[Sumas Mountain (United States)]] (those are different mountains, though looking at each other across the border), [[Sumas Border Crossing]]. ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Chehalis]] - currently disambig, though [[Chehalis people]] (for the US native group) and [[Chehalis people (Canada)]] are still in need of creation ([[Chehalis people (Canada)]] -> [[Sts'ailes]] NB their ''government'' article would be [[Chehalis First Nation]]). ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Kelowna]] - redirect to [[Kelowna, British Columbia]]
::::[[Penticton]] - redirect to [[Penticton, British Columbia]] IMO needs disambig/dabline because of other uses (e.g. [[Penticton First Nation]]
::::[[Quesnel]] - redirect to [[Quesnel, British Columbia]] (no article yet on [[Jules Quesnel]], the member of [[Simon Fraser]]'s party it was named for. BTW for all you non-BC readers it's pronounced Kweh-NEL rather than ''a la mode française''. ('''dab page; has non-BC meanings as well''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Sicamous]] - redirect to [[Sicamous, British Columbia]] ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Kaslo]] - redirect to [[Kaslo, British Columbia]] ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Keremeos]] - redirect to [[Keremeos, British Columbia]] ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::[[Matsqui, British Columbia]] - exists as a stub, now part of [[Abbotsford, British Columbia]] like [[Sumas, British Columbia]] (since 1995); needs dab line at least because of Matsqui Village, Matsqui Prairie, Matsqui Prison (or whatever its formal name is) ('''not a city''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
:::There are scores of lesser-community names in the same bailiwick, e.g. [[Shalalth]] (where I'm from, sort of), [[Spences Bridge]]....[[Bella Coola]] and [[Bella Bella]] may already be redirects to [[Bella Coola, British Columbia]] ''or'' [[Nuxalk]] and [[Haisla]] cf [[Waglisla, British Columbia]] (-> [[Waglisla]] if the standard is applied). Other names that pop to mind are [[Kitimat]], [[Hazelton]], [[Atlin]], [[Malakwa]], [[Cache Creek]], [[Tete Jaune Cache]] [[Alert Bay]], [[Tofino]], [[Ucluelet]] etc........[[Nazko]], [[100 Mile House]]. [[Likely]] ...the list is ''very'' long. How much moving do you want to do anyway (I don't have time, and I think there's other articles needing to be written that are more important than this move; format propriety should be secondary to expanding/improving content, no?).[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 08:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC) '''not cities''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
:::minor note on one name - [[Boston Bar]] should have a disambig page because of [[Boston Bar Association]], [[Boston Bar First Nation]], [[Boston Bar, British Columbia]], [[Boston Bar Aerial Ferry]] (now defunct), [[Boston Bar Mountain]].[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 08:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:::PS how many of you voting above are British Columbians? Please note this discussion on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia]] and ask for input from actual British Columbians pls. BTW Bearcat - I meant to recomment on your response on "Canadian standards" vs normal/traditional BC usages re capitalization of "the Island", "the Interior", "the Mainland" but can't remember what page that was on....I've been on the road these last few months, and will be again in a few days (Montreal bound, currently in the beautiful [[Slocan Valley]] of British Columbia aka "the [[Slocan]]".....which btw should be a disambig page because of [[Slocan City]], [[Slocan Park]] (both towns), Slocan Lake, Slocan River etc[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 08:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC) ('''not cities''' [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
::::tangential comment on that last; [[Slocan]] should be a redirect to [[Slocan Country]] (which I'll create before I leave this oh-too-blissful place next week sometime.....); [[Slocan, British Columbia]], which is the village at the south end of Slocan Lake (not sure if that's official village or just the usage in the article; I'm just fifteen miles away and don't remember seeing a "Village of Slocan" sign while entering the place)...also referred to simply as "Slocan" in local parlance, but distinct from ''the'' Slocan, which is the whole valley/region from Slocan Lake down to the [[Kootenay River]]. It's mis-written at the moment as its official name is Slocan City (even today, to distinguish it from Slocan Park, which is ten miles the other way from where I am, [[Winlaw, British Columbia]] <- [[Winlaw]]? (aka "Winlove" or "Planet Winlaw"...I've never seen so many dreadlocks in BC outside of Commercial Drive or Okanagan fruit-picking camps....). This is only partially related to the name-<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">move discussion but points up issues with another needed disambig page ([[Slocan]]), which is a region as well as town(s) and river/lake name ([[:Category:Slocan Country]] may already exist within the BC-region hierarchy, as a subset of [[:Category:Kootenay Country]].[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 08:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:This is perhaps information that would best be raised at [[Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities]], perhaps on the talk page because the project page is focusing on cities for the moment. As for these other places, page moves are traditionally considered on a case-by-case basis, in line with the Canadian <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">naming convention - a larger-scale move might be a good idea, and could be raised over at the talk page for [[Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities]], but I think the initial focus right now is on sorting. As for your comment about British Columbians, Wikipedia discussions are never restricted on that basis. [[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::You misunderstood me, although I do grant I am a British Columbian chauvinist ;-). What I meant was that input from other BCers on this naming convention vis a vis British Columbian towns/localities is needed i.e. the list I've provided of parallel situations is only partial; the further issue, speaking as someone who finds "Canadian conventions" grating, whether in Wikipedia or not, is that this convention for Canadian Wiki articles was apparently made without consideration of the whole Canadian situation, in particular in BC's case because of the plethora of native placenames which ''here'' also have further meanings and of those meanings there are those which have different international meanings than their primary local ones; e.g. Lillooet outside of BC is mostly known as the name of a people/language (even though their own name for themselves, St'at'imc/Stl'atl'imx, is different). In Cowichan's case it is primarily known outside of BC as a type of sweater, whereas here it mostly refers to a region/valley and (incorrectly) in reference to the collection of [[Hulquminum]]-speaking peoples/nations in that area (around [[Duncan, British Columbia]]; the sweater-type was originally made by the women of those people. And also the ''primary'' meaning of various names, e.g. Slocan, may not be for the town/village of said name so much as for something else; in that case "the Slocan". In the case of Kamloops it's a bit simpler as there is no region or other name-use that may have a more primary context, at least locally; there is a term "Kamloops Country" which is more or less synonymous with Greater Kamloops, but unlike for example there's not also a Kamloops people (although there is a [[Kamloops First Nation]]/[[Kamloops Indian Band]], and there's also [[Kamloops Lake]] and [[Fort Kamloops]]; unlike Lillooet, Cowichan or Slocan where there are "the Lillooet" (which can mean either the [[Lillooet Country]] or the Lillooet people aka St'at'imc), "the Cowichan" (for the region, sometimes for the peoples) or "the Slocan" (for the region only, except when speaking of the river ''per se''). Internationally, yes, these other meanings are unimportant; but in other cases they are ''not'' (Lillooet and Cowichan primarily, but there are other potential examples). In the case of [[Vancouver]] there's of course also [[Vancouver, Washington]], which complicates the matter but as in a discussion on [[Talk:Vancouver]] somewhere the internationally-known usage is for the BC city, not the Washington one; and in the pre-railway "Vancouver" referred to Vancouver Island explicitly (in Canada and the UK and the US as well as in BC itself). In Kamloops' case there should be a dab line to [[Kamloops (disambiguation)]] because of the other usages (Kamloops Lake, Kamloops Indian Band, Fort Kamloops, perhaps a few others but not as bad for other uses as with Comox, Lillooet or Cowichan). But back to the notion of "Canadian conventions" which I alluded to in my note to Bearcat above; it appears to me, speaking as a British Columbian who's also over the years followed the homogenization of the Canadian identity/culture as largely dictated by the Central Canadian self-image/mythos, such conventions are often at odds with local realities/usages....in other words, the Canadian conventions have been imposed on regions where they were unsuitable. In BC's town-name case here this is, as noted above, partly because of the plethora of unique names, even non-native ones, which exist nowhere else and which ''sometimes'' have a different meaning to most people outside of BC than than their primary meaning in BC. I'll leave it to other BC Wikipedians (who I've notified of this discussion on the BC project talkpage) to comment further on this; but I do submit that "Canadian conventions" are often unfair or concocted in a vacuum of awareness about the realities/traditions in the non-central regions of the country e.g. the thing about how we have always capitalized region-names in a way apparently "outside of Canadian conventions"; "the Interior", "the Island", "the Mainland" are ''region'' names and ''proper'' names in BC, and so we capitalize them; "Canadian" (Toronto) editors look askance at this, whether in Wikipedia or not (e.g. in Toronto-published histories of BC such as Jean Barman's noxious tome). So, fine, impose Canadian conventions as you see fit; it'd just be nice if they had been created with some kind of awareness of their contexts/consequences in the "outer" parts of the country. We have our own history and identity, and IMO there should be "BC conventions" just as there are also (or should be) Quebec conventions and First Nations conventions. Deal with it or not; cultural imperialism is rife in this country, it's the nature of the place. But it's why I asked how many of the voters/commenters here are from BC, as the implications of this one move are that a whole host of BC town (and other) articles are going to need renaming if the convention is to stick. In my view, it's unsuitable to start with......[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:While I've noticed this issue, I've never been sure exactly what the conventions were, even after a pretty good search of [[WP:NAME]] or the more specific [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28city_names%29#Canada Naming Coventions, settlements in Canada], which seems to give advice on going on a case by case basis and reaching consesus, rather than offering any clear guidlelines. Therefore I don't feel knowledgable enough on the issue to add my opinion too loudly. I assume for the sake of simplifying searches, the one name should be used in the few cases when it is truly unique. (Side note here, I found [[Jules Quesnel]] under [[Jules-Maurice Quesnel]], which is a good example, I guess, of an article's name being overly specific, making it harder to find). Anyway, the naming issue here came up with me on the Moyie articles, there was [[Moyie, British Columbia]] [[Moyie Lake]], [[Moyie River]] and [[Moyie (sternwheeler)]] that I know about... so I asked the help desk what to do with it all, and after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_June_30#Disambiguation this] answer, made [[Moyie]] go to a dab page. Now whether that is absolutely the correct "convention"...? So, maybe a specific set of "guidelines" for these different scenarios could be prepared and wrote out somewhere (if they aren't already). New editors in particular, would really be aided by such a guide. As for Kamloops itself, it is clearly not a unique name, but I would guess that it could be the title of this article. But I agree with Skookum, that a note at the top linking to a dab page is neccessary, for the sake of [[Kamloops Lake]] and the electoral district, the Indian Band, the yet unwritten [[Fort Kamloops]], Kamloops University and who knows what else "Kamloops" will get written. Even Kaslo redirecting straight to Kaslo, British Columbia (as noted above) may become an issue someday, as there is the [[Kaslo (electoral district)]], [[Kaslo and Slocan Railway]] and a [[Kaslo (sternwheeler)]] with that name. It seems that no BC town's name is truly unique and most will need an accompanying dab page in some form or another.[[User:CindyBo|<font color="deepskyblue">'''Ci'''</font><font color="hotpink">'''ndy'''</font><font color="goldenrod">'''Bo'''</font>]][[User talk:CindyBo|<font color="deepskyblue"><sup>'''talk'''</sup></font>]] 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, and that's why I think the "Canadian convention" is inappropriate; [[Kamloops]] should be a disambiguation page as also with [[Lillooet]], [[Comox]] etc; the CanWiki convention, as established by other Canadians, is that the primary international context of a name should be the redirect; but in some cases that may be to a town/city (Kamloops) and in others to a language or people (Lillooet, Bella Coola, Comox) and in other cases to still other things (e.g. a river, as in Stikine). Better to have these "name-nodes" as disambiguation pages, and to create a "BCWiki convention" irrespective of what those east of the [[Granite Curtain]] have mandated and preserve the comma-tized town names, with the only exception I can think of being Vancouver ("and even then...."); there are too many uses with too many "internationally known" variables for it to be any other way. Sorry, Toronto, but you really don't know best.....[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but the notion that British Columbia somehow has a unique set of geographic naming circumstances that no other Canadian could possibly understand simply doesn't wash. Try reviewing the naming situations that apply to [[Mississauga]], [[Yellowknife]], [[Temagami]] and [[Ottawa]] if you think that no Canadian city or town outside of BC shares its name with a First Nation. Try reviewing [[Ottawa]], [[Montreal]], [[Saguenay]], [[Winnipeg]], [[Oromocto]], [[Miramichi]], [[Cheticamp]], [[Petawawa]], [[Kagawong]], [[Shubenacadie]], [[Pohénégamook]] or [[Napanee]] if you think no other Canadian location shares its name with a river or a lake. Try reviewing, well, any freaking city in this country if you think only BC cities share their names with railways, forts, colleges, universities, hospitals or other institutions located ''in'' or ''near'' those cities. You're free to think whatever you want on your own time, but you're not free to pretend that British Columbia somehow has ''special'' circumstances which dictate a ''special'' BC-specific naming convention ''separate'' from that for any other Canadian province or territory. It doesn't. And ''plenty'' of BC residents not only supported, but actively ''fought'' for, the national convention as it ''currently'' stands. Sure hope you didn't think you'd found yourself a hunting dog there... [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 08:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
::::And to add to Bearcat's point, cities take precedence over regions, rivers, lakes, geographic areas, First Nations, electoral districts, and anything found in/around that city that uses the same name (eg, [[Calgary]] takes precedence over the [[University of Calgary]]). And before you ask, it's a ''de facto'' convention/standard. It's why [[Saskatoon]] is the city and doesn't redirect to [[Saskatoon berry]] (which existed long before the city and gave the city it's name). -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Of Bearcat's second batch of examples, only [[Ottawa]], [[Montreal]], and [[Winnipeg]] have the no-comma form, plus [[Calgary]]; Oromocto, Saguenay, Petawawa and Kagawong are disambiguation pages; [[Shubenacadie]], [[Cheticamp]] and [[Pohenegamook]] all use the comma-form; Napanee redirects to [[Greater Napanee, Ontario]] i.e. comma form. Of the first batch [[Mississauga]], [[Yellowknife]] and [[Temagami]] all redirect to pages with the comma form. Fine they share their names with lakes, rivers, native peoples etc but the point is that the towns (other than the major cities (all well-known outside Canada) are all articles with the comma-form (either directly or via disambiguation pages). Kamloops and other regional centres in BC (e.g. [[Nanaimo]] and [[Kelowna]] are NOT well-known outside of Canada, even ''within'' Canada more often than not (among newly-arrived residents of BC to the Lower Mainland, many do not even know where they are, or even have not heard of them); for major cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa etc FINE, they ARE well-known outside of Canada; the others are not, despite being major cities within the Canadian context; and Mississauga, for example, is much larger and more important than Kelowna or Kamloops. Certain major BC regions - [[Okanagan]], [[Kootenays]], [[Cariboo]] are also all stand-alones, but ''they'' ARE well-known outside of Canada, even though the cities inside them are not. And I had a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28city_names%29#Canada Naming Coventions, settlements in Canada WP:Naming Conventions for Canada] cited above by Cindy Bo and it's NOT clear at all, as she notes, that what Bearcat is maintaining as an absolute standard holds, or should. At the very least "[[Kamloops]] redirects here. For other uses, see [[Kamloops (disambiguation)]] is more than adequate and I see no reason to impose the major-city standard as, well, Kamloops is not a major city even by Canadian standards, though it is an important city within BC. And what "plenty of BC residents" actively fought for this? Not the majority of participants on the BC WikiProject, I'd wager. They also wouldn't have gone for Bearcat's insistence that "Interior" and "the Island" and "the Coast" and "the Mainland" are not proper names; they are, within BC English usage; if Canadian conventions ignore BC usages, then IMO they're not really Canadian, except in a culturally-imperialistic sense. In BC, the capitalized forms "the Interior" clearly refers to "the Interior of British Columbia" (article is [[British Columbia Interior]] which is the alternate form) and "the Island" clearly refers to [[Vancouver Island]] and no other; "the Mainland" tends to refer to "the Lower Mainland" and so on; "the interior", "the island" and "the mainland" do not, and can mean or be used in other unrelatecd and/or vaguer contexts. That the Canadian academic/Wikieditorial precedent/consciousness has not encompassed this is a failing of Canadian-think, not a failing of British Columbian usages. That's a side-issue, but related. [[Kaslo, British Columbia]] and [[Sandon, British Columbia]] are unique names; but the comma-form is needed for people from outside Canada IMO, just as the various other examples cited by Bearcat use and NEED the comma-form. I think this is all red-herring, and as noted there's a lot more important things for Canadian Wikipedians to be doing than screwing around with irrelevant formatting issues.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
: Any article for which "City" currently exists as a redirect to "City, Province" is eligible for ''consideration'' of whether it would be appropriate to move the article to just city; the fact that move discussions haven't all ''already'' taken place does not undermine my point. Every single article on that list is either (a) already moved, or (b) ''eligible'' to be ''considered'' for a move as soon as somebody actually initiates the discussion. Not a single one of them has, as of right now, been nominated for a move debate that failed.
: And as for your irrelevant tangent about whether words like island, coast, interior or mainland can be taken as proper names or not, the point remains that Wikipedia is governed by ''correct'' English style, in which such words are ''only'' capitalized when appearing in the actual proper name of a ''specific'' mainland or a ''specific'' coast or a ''specific'' island. It has nothing to do with "BC English" vs. "Canadian English" — it has everything to do with correct writing style within the [[English language]] in ''general''. English capitalization rules cannot be overridden simply by asserting that non-standard capitalization somehow constitutes a unique provincial ''dialect'' of the language (in spite of the fact that no published linguist on the planet has ''ever'' asserted that BC English constitutes a distinct dialect — ''they'' decide whether such a thing exists or not, not you.) But I digress, at any rate; this has exactly nothing to do with the question at hand. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, you do digress, and as usual you're not getting the point, just as you didn't before, about the FACT that "the Island" and "the Interior" are PROPER NAMES in the same way "the Muskokas" and "the Laurentians" are, i.e. for regions. ''Correct English usage?'' ROTFL. Check the CP style guide for BC placenames; the usages I'm talking about are STANDARD ENGLISH and remember that this province was "the most British of all". That your concept of correct English usage can't grapple with the FACT that these are proper-region-names in BC is a fault of your own, and of your understanding of BC's geography and history. Correct English usage, as used by British Columbians, the British Columbia government, the national newspapers AND the CBC, is the capitalized form. Check the styleguides. [[User:Keefer4]] is on wikibreak or I'd ask him to dig out his CP style guide, but I already know what it has to say about this; the proper usages are capitalized, ''because these are proper names for regions of BC'' - and not just any regions, but the province's major subdivisions. Unless "the lakehead" is "only a term" and shouldn't be capitalized for the same reasons you claim for our regions, or "western Ontario" vs "Western Ontario" for that improbably-named triangle between Hamilton and Windsor. Get a grip and find something more valuable to nitpick over rather than try and tell us how to spell our own region names, fer chrissake. Someone here made a comment about "gee, and I thought Toronto was bad for thinking it was the centre of the universe"; to me, your attitude in this equation/discussion is darned good demonstration of that from-on-high arrogance your city lords over the rest of us with. "He went to the interior" could mean the interior of a house; "he went to the Interior" means, in a book about BC, that he went to the Interior, i.e. behind the mountains, which is our biggest region. "He went to the island" could mean any of Galiano, Mayne, Bowen or the ten thousand other islands; "he went to the Island" means he went to Vancouver Island. No doubt you probably think "lower mainland" is "correct English usage" too, but it's not; it's a proper name like all the rest cited and is used as such, unless some twit of an editor (like Barman's at UofT) decides that British Columbian usages don't make sense and Toronto's version of "correct English usage" should hold sway; It's that simple, and we don't need any pontificating Wikipedian from TO telling us that our usages aren't "correct English usage". They are, and that's that. if this needs to be laid out point-by-point for non-British Columbian Wikipedians, then that's a good thing as it's time you got educated instead of forcing your ignorance down our throats.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 08:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]], now you're getting into other issues. ''The'' policy for all article names is Use the Most Common Name. The article here is about the city of Kamloops. The most important part of the title is Kamloops. The BC part is an addon used to distinguish it from other possible Kamloops. Since there are no other Kamloops, there is no need to distinguish it, so the article can simply be called Kamloops. No article on Wikipedia ''needs'' to be distinguishable. That's an incorrect interpretation carries by the US cities convention. That's we formed our own, because we didn't want an all-inclusive convention, but rather a fluid one that can reflect the ideas and values of Canadians.
:::My main point about this irrelevant name/move issue is that it's irrelevant to the work needing doing, and if applied across the board sets a precedent for thousands of articles/moves, all a frigging waste of time. Internationally Kamloops is known as Kamloops, British Columbia or, say commonly in the US, Kamloops, Canada; if you say Vancouver or Calgary someone knows what your'e talking about; if you say Kamloops, people go "huh?" until you explain it's a city in British Columbia; people know what a Nanaimo Bar is, but they may not know what Nanaimo is. And as above re Cindy Bo's point, the naming conventions for settlements in Canada are NOT clear about this, it's just being claimed that they are. There's far more important things for Canadian Wikipedians to be doing than moving/renaming articles to conform to a convention that never was defined clearly, and really doesn't make much sense even if it were (and it's not clear). If you want to do it for your own provinces, fine; "we" don't think it's a good idea for ours. If it takes secession to get our way on stuff like this, maybe that's what it will take; "across the country" standards are homogenization efforts, and noxious to start with as well as pretentious; and there's no need for them, and no time for all the work you're talking about. Better to create all the town and other articles yet in need of creation. You guys remind me of the Demon of Useless Tasks in [[The Phantom Tollbooth]].[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 08:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::And many places of local dialects, but that's all they are; local. In Saskatchewan we call it a [[hoodie|bunnyhug]], but if I'm in Ottawa and I say bunnyhug I don't expect them to know what it is (and as a matter of fact that's actually happened to me in a store. After about 5 terms a sales associate pointed at something and said "You mean that thing with the hood?"). I've got cousins in BC (who live in [[Peachland, British Columbia|Peachland]], a little town next to [[Summerland, British Columbia|Summerland]] and [[Westbank]] in the [[Okanagan]]) and have never heard any of those terms before. If you think that local terms should be known to the nation, that's just being egotistic. In Saskatchewan we don't care what the Interior refers to, and in BC they don't care what a bunnyhug is. And I thought [[Toronto]] had a "we're the center of the universe" attitude. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 04:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::"The Interior", "The Island", "The Valley", "the Mainland", "the Coast" are NOT bunnyhugs; they are commonplace British Columbia usages and generally capitalized that way in BC publications, particularly newspapers and in particular government documents and in some cases agency/region names within the government. They are proper names, not bunnyhugs. If you're ignorant of that, it's just another example of what we in BC call the [[Granite Curtain]]. They're not local dialects; they are standard provincial-language usages. That they are unknown of in the rest of Canada, or dismissed by hoity-toities from east of the mountains, is irrelevant. Why not "united kingdom" or "republic of france" or "the pennines" or for that matter "the laurentians" or "the muskokas". Wake up and smell the cappucino. And if your cousins in Summerland and Peachland have never heard the term "the Interior" or "the Island" in BC, they're either dolts or they don't talk to anyone else; that they're in the Okanagan and have never heard the term "the Interior" seems ridiculous (their federal riding, for one thing, is [[Southern Interior]]; they're possibly the kind of people who use the non-BC pronunciations PeachLAND and SummerLAND, too (ick, something like hearing QUEEbeck). But the Okanagan is full of refugees from the colder parts of the country who don't know anything about BC, so that's not so much of a surprise either.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 04:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::The ''proper'' names of the things are [[British Columbia Interior]], [[Vancouver Island]], [[Okanagan Valley]], etc. Using the generic term as a shorthand when you have an audience that is likely to understand the same thing by it as you do is ''not'' the same thing as a proper name. "The Muskokas" and "the Laurentians" are an invalid comparison, because those are shorthands which use the ''name'' part rather than the ''generic'' part of the full name. It would only be a valid comparison to the matter at hand if the shorthand names for those things were "the District" and "the Mountains". [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 12:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::''The Interior IS a proper name'', period. It happens that I came across it in Canadian Geographic in that format - Walrus, a literary magazine, does not use it. But I'd go with geographic editors over literary ones, especially pretentious-literary ones like those at the Walrus. The Interior has always been capitalized in BC, ''because it is, and is used as, a proper name'', w/wo "British Columbia" attached to it. That raw application of supposedly hard-and-fast rules mean that "the interior" is ''supposed'' to be the correct version, doesn't mean that it's right. The interior of what? When it's capitalized, we know what it means. When it's not, ''it looks funny''. Just like "the lakehead" or "the interlake". Those, also are proper names even though, as with lakehead, it's also an abstract geographic term. The main reason the Interior is a proper name is that it is one of BC's main regional subdivisions, and it's in that form - not "the British Columbia Interior" - that people use it; also in the form "the Interior of British Columbia", where again "the interior of British Columbia" according to you should not be capitalized, while "British Columbia Interior" should be. That's poppycock and redundant/conflicting. It's "the Interior". Ditto with when we write "the Island" - we mean Vancouver Island, not Saltspring, Gabriola, or Princess Royal; when we write "the island" it's then generic. And, if used to mean Vancouver Island without the capitalization, ''always'' would tend to result in the question "which island?". ditto with "the North" vs "the north", with one used as a proper name for a region (whichever context, BC's or Canada's) vs the compass direction. One is a proper name, the other is not, and that's why the distinction exists. You may not care, or may wish to cite style guidelines, but those are only guidelines and obviously do not embrace reality, or the vernacular. Academicists and pontificators, that's all you are.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::''You'' mean [[Vancouver Island]] when you say "The Island". A person in Halifax means [[Cape Breton Island]]. A person in Sudbury means [[Manitoulin Island]]. A person in Toronto means [[Toronto Island]]. A person in [[Port-au-Prince]] means [[Hispaniola]]. A person in [[Douglas, Isle of Man|Douglas]] means the [[Isle of Man]]. A person in [[New York City]] means [[Long Island]]. A person in [[Hobart]] means [[Tasmania]]. A person in [[Davao]] means [[Mindanao]]. . A person in [[Iqaluit]] means [[Baffin Island]]. And on, and so forth. That's why "the island" cannot be treated as a proper name: the phrase means different things to different speakers. It ''only'' means [[Vancouver Island]] to a ''very'' small corner of the English-speaking world. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::All this does it prove that BC has become as egotistical as Toronto. Let me wake you up here: The rest of the country could care less about what BC thinks on most matters. The rest of the country could care less about Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the North, PEI, and the Maritimes too. Just because it's commonplace in BC doesn't mean the rest of the country needs to know everything about it. Bunnyhug is ''very'' common here too. As Bearcat has said, there is no such thing BC English. Maybe you could stop tooting your own horn for a minute and realize there's people that live outside outside of BC. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' move. No practical reason. Keep to the core naming convention "Settlement, Province", and avoid endless and useless discussions as to what what or who is ore important. A redirect of "City" to "City, Province" already solves the problem from a casual wiki reader point of view. From an editor's point of view, having a convention without exceptions makes things easier (such as automated tasks). --[[User:Qyd|Qyd]] 04:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::Big surprise that you're in opposition. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Please don't take it personally. It's nothing against you or Bearcat, I appreciate you both as editors. But on this particular issue I'm not convinced you are going the right way. --[[User:Qyd|Qyd]] 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::That sounds more like a personal attack than anything else....more to the point, [[User:Qyd]] is a long-time and active member of the BC WikiProject. Are you?[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 04:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::First of all, it was mealy an observation that Qyd has opposed every move proposed over the last year (and if you don't believe me, look at all them yourself) with nothing more than a comment that we should adhere to some wacky convention the US follows (see Bearcat below) even though we left that long ago. Second, do you really think Wikiprojects are all that powerful? A Wikiproject is a collaboration of editors who have interests in the same subject/area, and does not mean anything more. Being part of a project does not make you more of an expert on a certain subject than someone else (but if you pay attention to everything that goes on in that area you'll be more in the know, which still doesn't make you an expert). Being a member of a wikiproject doesn't give you some higher rights on a subject, just like being an admin is just some extra tools (I would ''never'' say "I'm an admin so therefore I know better"). -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::It's not a question of expertise, it's a question of "cultural territory"....or would you be happy with Brits coming up with a convention system for Canada simply because of their (former) imperial claims here, or if Ohioans came up with conventions for Ontario? My point is that the convention you're claiming is a Canadian standard isn't supported by the active Wikipedians who have been building British Columbia articles, and grappling with name problems (e.g. [[Christina Lake, British Columbia]] and [[Christina Lake (British Columbia)]] had to be separated from the previous one-article [[Christina Lake]]. It's a unique name, but it's got two contexts, and the format helps editors AND readers distinguish between which one is a town, and which is a geographic feature. Got it? Probably not.....[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::A town of 1,450 would ''not'' be important enough to take name primacy over the lake it's located on ''anyway'', so a move would never even be ''proposed'' in that situation. Did you ''miss'' the part of the naming convention in which it clearly states that this can only be done in cases where the city is the ''most'' important use of the name? (And for the record, BC ''still'' doesn't have any ''unique'' naming considerations that don't also exist in Alberta and Manitoba and Ontario and Nunavut.) [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::A town of 1,450 in BC ''is'' an important place; who are you to decide it's not? It's very debatable which usage of Christina Lake is more important - speaking as a BCer familiar with the place. Importance isn't a numbers game in BC, as there are lots of important places well under 2000/3000 inhabitants. They may not be important from your perspective, but then your perspective clearly doesn't include the BC realities.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 13:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Because ''only'' '''cities''' are eligible under the current convention to be moved on the basis of being a ''primary'' meaning. Towns and smaller settlements can ''only'' be moved if their names are ''unique''. This has been pointed out to you before. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Just an observation: I've never invoked the US convention, but always given practical arguments, which have been refuted or ignored. --[[User:Qyd|Qyd]] 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::And as underscored by Qyd, twiddling over formatting issues when there's content in need of being written is ''SUCH'' a time waster; there's no need for the changes in question, but there are all kinds of articles and talkpage templates in need of doing (including the WP:Canada template on many of the pages cited by Bearcat, e.g. Cheticamp).[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 08:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::You're just as free as anybody else to add those templates anytime you want. Nobody on Wikipedia has any responsibility to put a project on hold just because ''you'' think there are more important things to worry about. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, it just seems to me ironic that you cited pages that don't carry the WP:Canada template since you're a core member of that project, and ''also'' because those cities (e.g. Cheticamp) don't conform to the format you're trying to claim is an ''absolute'' convention (no convention is absolute, and this one's very vague).[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::(a) As I stated before, Cheticamp ''is'' eligible for a move discussion — the fact that nobody's actually ''nominated'' it for one yet does not undermine the convention, given that the convention ''requires'' a discussion in advance of a move. (b) Just because I'm a member of a Wikiproject does ''not'' mean that I have a responsibility to monitor ''every'' article for whether it has the right templates on it or not. I'm also a member of the radio stations project, but I don't exactly lose sleep over the fact that I haven't necessarily remembered to add {{tl|RadioStationsProject}} to the talk page of every single radio station article I've ever touched. I do what I can; I ''don't'' have a responsibility to be ''perfect''. And besides, the whole templates issue is a red herring here anyway. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 04:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::The ''core'' naming convention, as practiced by ''every'' country on Wikipedia except the US, is that cities go at "City" whenever possible; including the higher division in the title is an ''exception'' that's done only when it's necessary as a disambiguator. That the [[United States|US]] contingent deems it necessary in all cases for ''their'' cities does not make that form the ''core'' convention — it's still the exception, not the rule. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 12:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::If that is the case, then, for once, I agree with the US. I still haven't been shown a practical reason for moving the articles (the fact that a convention allows it is procedural, not practical). --[[User:Qyd|Qyd]] 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::To me, at least, the practical reason is that articles should always be at the simplest title that's feasibly possible. If [[Kamloops]] is already a redirect here anyway, then why does the title ''need'' 18 extra characters in it that one doesn't actually have to type to get to the correct article? What ''I'' haven't been shown is a convincing reason why Canada ''should'' stand with the United States under a naming convention that (a) goes against the naming conventions in place for every single other country in the world, (b) is actually in ''violation'' of Wikipedia's policy that articles should ''always'' be at the ''simplest'' unique title possible, and (c) is an endless quagmire of debate. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 17:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::There's the stink of Canadian knee-jerk nationalism/anti-Americanism in your complaint that we're conforming to a US convention when other countries don't; just because it's used in the US doesn't mean it shouldn't apply here (and that's if it really does, since there's a Canadian convention-definition which you're interpreting for your own bandwagon, but questionably in the interpretation, as noted by Qyd and Cindy Bo as well). Point of the matter is ''most'' Wikipedia users, in English anyway, like it or not, are in the US; another is that they're the most likely people to look up Canadian towns and cities and it would be helpful for them (if they are as "stupid" as you say their naming convention is) to see the province where the town/city is located when the article comes up; and further to Qyd's point below, it also makes sense that, say, [[Seymour Arm, British Columbia]] is distinct from [[Seymour Arm (Shuswap Lake)]] (where that townlet is located) or [[Seymour Arm (Queen Charlotte Strait)]] and, although in that particular case a disambig page is likely (all are obscure, except for a huge pot bust at the town a few years ago), there are countless other cases where the cityname-only format is going to HAVE to be adjusted, e.g. Peace River (presumably the river is the primary article, but I haven't looked), so your name-only format is NOT going to hold across the board and some towns are going to HAVE to have the comma-form, no matter whatever damned Ontario-concocted convention it is you want the rest of us to follow; you may think the American convention is "stupid" - I'm finding yours to be so.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::'''Point of Clarification:''' I am from Saskatchewan and helped to further this convention, so it is not Ontario centered. On another point, BC is not special. BC is a province in Canada. Nothing more, nothing less, so I'm not sure where you've gotten this BC nationalism from. We are not attacking BC. We are not insulting BC. I didn't even get this much yelling at when I supported a move for a US city (and ''their'' convention is more like Religious Law, if you disagree with it it's blasphemy). And if you read the convention, it says IF and only IF x redirects to x, y do we change it. And the province will be in the first sentence of the article (''Kamloops is a city in south central '''British Columbia''', Canada, at the confluence of the two branches of the Thompson River and near Kamloops Lake.''). And on another point, I don't care how many US users there are, I don't have to listen to them. If the US users wanted to ban Russia from editing, do you think it would happen? -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::There's nothing anti-American about the fact that Canada doesn't slavishly follow the American geographic naming convention on Wikipedia — to assert that there's a nationalist whiff about it is nothing short of absurd. One of the reasons the Canadians didn't want to stay with that convention is that even the ''Americans'' don't ''agree'' on it; there's been an ''endless'' and ''unresolving'' debate about whether they should move to something much more like the Canadian convention, which is itself virtually ''identical'' to the conventions in place for almost every other country in the world.
:::::I should also point out that the current Canadian convention is neither ''mine'', nor is it "Ontario-centred"; it was supported and developed by a group of Wikipedia users from every single province in this country, ''including'' BC. And if you peruse the "What links here" feature on [[Kelowna]] and [[Kamloops]], you'll notice that outside of this talk page discussion itself, BC-based editors are virtually the only ones who ''do'' use the plain "City" links instead of "City, Province". So the situation here clearly ''isn't'' that eastern imperialists are perpetrating a naming convention that BC editors would never actually support; based on how the links are ''actually'' used, BC editors are ''more'' likely than anyone else to expect these articles to be at "Kelowna" and "Kamloops". [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::Whatever BC Wikipedians you're talking about and claiming contributed to these guidelines, they are not currently active and weren't around during the creation of the ream of BC town/feature articles in the last couple of years. ''The guidelines are ONLY guidelines'' and, being guidelines and NOT rules, can and should be changed. The Christina Lake/Babine Lake/Williams Lake examples - all with different results for "importance" (if you're from BC and understand what and where those settlements are - are apt demonstrations for that. The ACTIVE BC Wikipedians in this discussion don't agree with the rest of you, and the "BC is not special" line is patronizing (and yes, I am a BC nationalist and think Confederation is a crock, as is the attitude of the rest of the country that we should think/behave and observe "guidelines" as if they were hard and fast rules). For MAJOR cities, OK, but for the host of small towns, it just doesn't make sense and creates one hell of a lot of SUPERFLUOUS work. Entirely superfluous, like the arguments in favour of treating these so-called guidelines, created in the misty past, as if they were constitutional. They are NOT, and should be changed if they conflict with reality. Telling someone that they HAVE to abide by "national guidlines" is noxious.....again, it may be that some British Columbians participated in the development of the guidelines you're worshipping, that doesn't mean they can't, or shouldn't be changed or adjusted. My main objection is the volume of work to get all BC towns to conform to this standard, and also that the inconsistencies that will result not only during that conversion but ALSO at the end of it, are unwieldy and will be more confusing than what you claim is the confusion now. Wiki readers are not stupid, but damn Wiki format-obsessors sure come across like it. Wrap your head around this - the guidelines are not hard-and-fast and, being guidelines, are not laws. And you (Bearcat) are not a Wikicop, though you're behaving like one. It's SO Canadian - tut, tut, tut.....[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 13:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I'd just like to know; what's your problem with non-BC people? Do you have some kind of beef with the rest of Canada? Are you [[xenophobic]]? -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 00:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Constant pompous, arrogant, homogenizing misrepresentations about BC, and downright shoddy history and shoddy political/historical writing, from people east of the mountains, as well as the "BC isn't special" attitude, when for anybody who's ever lived here for very long it's clear that it is. We get short shrift in national politics/media, except as a curiosity ("wacky British Columbians") and the shaft we got/get from Confederation/the national polity is dismissed as so much whining. Add on top of that the efforts to redefine BC according to the Canadian National Homogenization Paradigm. Xenophobia hardly. More like righteous outrage.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::PS in your own words, Royalguard: "The rest of the country could care less about what BC thinks on most matters." Yeah, including about BC itself, as exemplified in this very discussion.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::The more you talk the more you sound like a lost Quebec separatist. But this is Wikipedia, and no one province is more important that any other province no matter what you say. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's dismissive comments like yours that underscore the problems with Canadian nationalism's "levelling" of regional identities/realities; you may not be a Central Canadian but you're clearly indoctrinated into the "separatism is treason" line that's so common in our media/political mythology. Quebec separatists have a point, and so do BC "nationalists"; no one's saying BC is more important, ''but it is different'' and we DO have different perspectives and experiences of the national polity and so-called culture/identity; there is widespread support in BC for Quebec as a "distinct society", on the proviso that it's conceded that ''so is BC''. And we always have been. You may be content to be a maple-leaf-waving whitebread Canadian; I'm not, and know too much about my province's history to ever buy into the credo that you so clearly think is "superior". It's the self-aggrandizement of Canadian homogenizers/nationalists that's so nauseating, and so repellent west of the mountains, where our identity and history have never been incorporated into the national mythology (except in negative, tut-tut sort of ways). Whether it's this city-province thing or the capitalization issue for our major regions, the high-handedness and "Canada knows best" attitude of the "guidelines" is noxious and repellent. We all miss the Rhino party's old platform of walling off the passes through the Rockies and NB it was aimed as much at Saskatchewan as it was at Ontario....[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 14:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Separatism ''is'' treason to the Canadian Confederation. If you want out, then get out. Oh, but don't forget that you'll have to mint your own money, put your own health care system together, and don't forget about BC's share of the national debt (which includes the 2010 Olympics). And the Quebecois are a distinct society because of their roots in Confederation (and in France) and because they are one of 2 major areas of French culture/language in North America. They ''are'' different. BCers aren't. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 00:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::More proof of the invective-driven nature of Canadian nationalism and its supposed tolerance of differing views, and yet another demonstration of how LITTLE you know about BC's history. Newfoundland and BC were drummed into Confederation, and had separate histories; and the lines about national debt etc are such stock Canadian-federalist propaganda/cant that it's just underscoring the pedantic nationalism that is part of my (and many BCers) complaint about Canadianism. Using "treason" is a heavy word, but typical of the "oh, Canada is sacred and even better than white bread and Jesus" mentality that's such a turn-off to so many people, not just in BC. BC ''is different''. All you have to do is walk through downtown Vancouver, or even Merritt or Port McNeil, in comparison to the everyday sameness of Prairie and Ontarian towns. We ARE different. That this country is going to come apart at the seams in the next few years may not appeal to you; to me, it's long overdue.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Kamloops and Kelowna are cities, not small towns. We do not apply subjective criteria regarding how "major" a city has to be; [[WP:NOR|original research]] is prohibited on Wikipedia. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::[[Greenwood, British Columbia|Greenwood]] is a city, legally and formally, and MUST have the city-province format ''because'' of so many other similarly named cities/towns/localities; it is much smaller than the Corporation of Delta or the Township of Langley; the point AGAIN is consistency, that some cities MUST have the city-province format while others will not; and given that so many places in BC are district municipalities, despite being city sized (Delta, Langley, Saanich) the rest of the province's communities WILL have the name-province format; myself I think the particularism here - that you point out it's only 15 examples in BC, out of hundreds of communities, but you INSIST that this change is NECESSARY simply because of a tweedly guideline - just says to me "anal, anal, anal" about twiddly-f**k. It's not necessary, it's a waste of time, and creates one standard for incorporated ''cities'' vs other types of incorporations (district municipalities, towns, villages). the issue here is consistency, not some righteous "Canadian guideline" concocted in Wikipedia's distant past. CHANGE THE GUIDELINE is the solution. I think this is one of those examples of "admins on a rampage over nothing important" that makes Wikipedia such a turn-off to so many other people (indeed, part of the reason I took my wikibreak that now seems to be necessarily softening, because of the inanities of the rule-crazy).[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::If consistency were a requirement on Wikipedia, then every book's article would have "(book)" in the title, every album's article would have "(album)" in the title, and on and so forth. We do ''not'' have a "consistency" requirement on Wikipedia. We ''do'', however, have a "simplest title possible" requirement — which means '''disambiguate only when unavoidable''', ''not'' "predisambiguate an entire class of articles whether the title requires it or not". [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Oh, and by the way...out of all the Canadian provinces and territories, ''[[Alberta]]'', not Ontario, is the one with the most cities currently located at "City" instead of "City, Province". And Ontario isn't even in ''second'' place; [[Quebec]] is. So if you want to characterize this as an interprovincial dispute, you're whining about the wrong province. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

====Reasons to stick with the "Settlement, Province/Territory" naming====
First, the text of [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Canada]] is a deformed version of the discussions at [[Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#City naming convention poll]] and [[Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion/Archive 8#City naming convention poll 2]]. I've been against page moves to "City" titles (except for technically based cases such as [[Lloydminster]] and [[Ottawa]]) precisely to avoid precedent setting (which is now used as an argument).
*A redirect from "City" to "City, Province" solves the search question for someone looking for a particular place (if that is the primary meaning). This also answers the issue of extra typing in the search bar or in google.
*Double standards: having part of the articles spelled one way and the other spelled differently makes automated editing (such as off-line page/link generation or bot operations) more difficult. As many pages cannot do without a disambiguated title, the "City, Province" convention does solve this issue.
*Category listing: again, for editors search. If I want to expand articles about settlements in British Columbia, I would have a hard time finding them in [[:Category:Articles to be expanded since July 2007]], or if I want to add sources, I wouldn't find [[Kamloops]] in [[:Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2007]], but would have a much better chance with [[Kamloops, British Columbia]]. Same goes with such categories as Featured or Good articles, Settlements established in 1899, and the list goes on and on.
*Primary meaning: In most cases, this can be challenged, with or without a good reason, which in turn generates useless discussion and a waste of editing time (including here, but maybe the precedent principle is worth it). The "City, Province" naming prevents that.
*Naming patterns: there are more or less documented naming patterns that help identify the subject of an article: I would know that [[Peace River (Canada)]] is a page about a river, [[Sylvan Lake (Alberta)]] is about a lake, but [[Peace River, Alberta]] and [[Sylvan Lake, Alberta]] are pages about settlements. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Qyd|Qyd]] ([[User talk:Qyd|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Qyd|contribs]]){{#if:20:21, August 22, 2007 (UTC)|&#32;20:21, August 22, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I would probably reconsider my position if practical reasons for moving would be given (as opposed to procedural ones). --[[User:Qyd|Qyd]] 19:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::I think that last point is the most compelling of practical reasons - to avoid confusion with geographic-feature articles (and other types of articles). Simple and obvious. Georgian Bay, Powell River, Prince George, etc.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Both of those last ones are bad examples because the x article is a dab page. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|R!]])</small> 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Might be a bad example if one is looking for precedents (which I'm not). It's a good example on how naming patterms work though. --[[User:Qyd|Qyd]] 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

According to [[WP:NC]], we have to prioritize what's most natural for the ''reader'' over what's most convenient for the ''editor''. For example, we must ''always'' aim for the absolute ''minimum'' complexity necessary in a title — any article should always be at the ''shortest'' title that's feasibly possible without conflicting with other things of equivalent importance. "Shortest Title" should always be either an article or a disambiguation page. It should ''never'' be a redirect to a longer title. If it is, then by definition the title has an unnecessary layer of complexity in it. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 04:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:''""Shortest Title" should always be either an article or a disambiguation page. It should ''never'' be a redirect to a longer title."'' I couldn't find this guideline anywhere on [[WP:NC]] or on [[WP:DAB]] or on [[WP:REDIRECT]]. Could you point me to the exact place where this is written? Thank you. --[[User:Qyd|Qyd]] 05:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::It doesn't have to be directly written down; it's covered by both the rule about minimizing complexity in titles and the rule about not disambiguating titles unnecessarily. Which are admittedly really the same rule expressed in two different ways... [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Well then let's not make up rules as we go just to make a point. As I already said, the short redirect solves the issue from the reader's point of view. And if it's the same for the reader, why not make it easier for the editor? --[[User:Qyd|Qyd]] 15:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not making up rules. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 17:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps not, but you're freely interpreting them according to your own agenda, which amounts to the same thing. The guidelines are NOT clear, and apparently were (anyway) built without regard to the dominant format, which is the comma-form. What seems also made up is that the guidelines were allegedly built with participation of British Columbians, which isn't clear and whoever they were, they're not all that involved with the ongoing editing and processing of articles, nor their creation, as are members of the BC WikiProject; Qyd, Cindy Bo and myself ''are'' and while I haven't polled the members of the WikiProject, they have been notified via the project's talkpage of your agenda/proposal here. Which, again, is a waste of time and if applied across the board means the renaming/moving of most BC town articles, with the result that some towns will have the comma format, others will not. In some cases such as many cited here - [[Christina Lake]] comes to mind....where should that redirect to? The unincorporated community by that name, or the lake it sits on the shore of. Neither one is "more important" than the other, and some distinction should be made, hence the application within the BC project anyway, if not in other parts of Canada (?) of the comma-format for the town and the parantheses-format for the geographic location. In others, e.g. [[Williams Lake]] the town is the more important, the lake (forgive me those from Billy's Puddle) little more than a puddle (hence the nickname). The opposite is true of [[Babine Lake]], where the lake would be the priority and the settlement a minor blip on the population map. Consistency is the main goal of guidelines, or should be; and so ''if the guidelines create significant inconsistences, the guidelines should be changed''. They are, after all, only guidelines, NOT rules. But you're behaving as if they ''WERE''.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 13:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::As has already been pointed out to you, Christina Lake is not a city, which means it's not ''eligible'' for any kind of debate about whether the community or the lake gets to be the ''primary'' meaning. Only '''cities''' can be moved on the basis of being a ''primary'' meaning; any smaller type of community ''must'' have an absolutely ''unique'' name. And furthermore, mixed disambiguation-vs.-non-disambiguation is the status of almost every single category on Wikipedia as it is; we don't automatically add "(band)" to [[The Beatles]] or [[Led Zeppelin]], nor "(book)" to ''[[Alias Grace]]'' or ''[[The Catcher in the Rye]]'', just because some other articles in the same categories have to have them — and there's no legitimate reason why cities should have to have an invariable naming convention, regardless of their lack of ambiguity, if other categories don't. We ''only'' disambiguate when multiple things of ''comparable'' importance have the same name. And even the "state name at all times" fanatics in the United States didn't manage to block moves when it came to [[New York City]] and [[Chicago]]. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with caveat. What a lot of discussion! What is the least complex for the reader.
:Option1: ''Tie goes to the runner''. I think [[Kamloops, British Columbia]] should redirect to [[Kamloops]] (the city) as most common usage and with a disambiguation flag atop the article.
:Option2: ''More than one runner - nobody wins''. If others disagree and think that there are other conflicting usages out there, they should create [[Kamloops (disambiguation)]] to prove it (at least we'd get some editing done around here and not just chatting). I'm open to the idea that [[Kamloops Indian Band]] and [[Kamloops Lake]] are equally notable (one named the geographical feature that was later adopted by European setttlers for their fort and city) but I doubt that either are known by the one-word kamloops. Let's have a discussion on that, rather than what the US or Toronto does. If there are multiple competing claims with near-equal weight, then redirect [[Kamloops]] to [[Kamloops (disambiguation)]] and let's be done with it. [[User:Canuckle|Canuckle]] 00:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' The guidelines are inadequate and need to be changed. Changing this page is the thin-edge-of-the-wedge for countless hours of similarly useless page moves/renamings. More than adequate reasons have been presented by Qyd and myself why city-comma (city, province) format is preferable. Consistency is the desired goal here, not hard-and-fast application of obsolete guidelines which were not created realistically, or with an exposure to the practical problems of unique names vs names that DO require the comma format. Fine for the major cities, but for smaller ones it's a non sequitur (and Kamloops is a smaller city, not a major one). As pointed out above, guidelines are NOT rules, and should not be treated as such. This whole affair is a CFWT and creates precedents for only more CFWTs. It's the guidelines that should be changed, not this page, or any other.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 14:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:It is not the thin edge of any wedge; there are ''only'' 15 BC-related articles (and less than 100 across all of Canada, of which the majority are in Quebec and thus don't affect you in the slightest) that are even eligible for ''discussion'' of a page move under the naming convention as it currently stands. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 05:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::List those 15, then, and tell me why the ''cities'' should have this name-only format, but BC's other communities shouldn't. I'm looking for consistency, not guideline-happy rule-cinching like you apparently are. Let's see - Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, New Westminster, Chilliwack, Nanaimo, North Vancouver, - Richmond, Victoria, Abbotsford, Greenwood, and Surrey and even White Rock clearly need the city province format, so ''they'' of BC's cities will have the comma while others will not; similarly Prince George and Prince Rupert for obvious reasons, also Castlegar, Trail and still others must have the comma-format; Burnaby is a unique city name, despite Burnaby as a family name, so should it ''also'' be name-only? I think, AGAIN, that the confusion between one group of cities NOT having the city-province format while others DO is a pointless exercise in "rule" application that more demonstrates the inadequacy of the guidelines, as well as the rule-happiness of those insisting on applying them ''instead of reforming them''.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Firstly: the rule is that ''any'' kind of community can be moved to the undisambiguated title if its name is ''unique'', or if it represents the ''most important'' use of its name. The reason cities vs. towns becomes an issue is that it's simply not possible to adequately ''quantify'' whether a town of 1,400 people is ''more'' important than the lake it's located on, or whether a Canadian town of 9,000 people is ''more'' important than a French town of 7,000 people. So towns and villages and neighbourhoods have to have unique names, because "most important usage" is too ''subjective'', too prone to "my Smithtown is more important than your Smithtown just because mine's near me and I've never heard of yours". It's ''easy'' to determine the relative importance of a ''city'' among similarly named topics — it's ''not'' easy to determine the relative importance of a ''town''.
:::Secondly: Wikipedia does ''not'' have a consistency requirement. Wikipedia ''does'', however, have a '''simplest title possible at all times''' requirement.
:::Thirdly: if you really need a list, [[Burnaby]], [[Campbell River]], [[Castlegar]], [[Coquitlam]], [[Dawson Creek]], [[Fernie]], [[Kamloops]], [[Kelowna]], [[Nanaimo]], [[New Westminster]], [[North Vancouver]], [[Penticton]], [[Port Alberni]], [[Port Coquitlam]] and [[Port Moody]] are the ones that are eligible for discussion, per the fact that the plain titles ''already'' exist as redirects to the disambiguated ones. Whether they should become dab pages instead is for the move discussions to decide. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 23:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

::::[[Burnaby]] is first and foremost a family name, including the city's namesake [[Robert Burnaby]], so a disambiguation page is there. [[North Vancouver]] MUST be a disambiguation page because of the separate City and District of the same name (which is more important? And no, they're not the same); likewise the City of Langley vs Township of Langley. Dawson Creek's namesake is relatively unimportant; Campbell River's isn't. And because of Langley, Victoria, Greenwood, Courtenay, Fort St. John, Prince Rupert and others which need city-province format the issue is overall consistency on city article formats, so it's not clear at all that the guidelines you're insisting are graven in stone are useful in the first place; Vancouver is the exception despite Vancouver WA (and they're not happy about it...). Rules, rules, rules, ''except'' these aren't rules ''BUT ONLY GUIDELINES'' and they're proving to be unsuitable, and to cause differing formats within what should be parallel formats. And you can't tell me that Dawson Creek or Fernie are wellknown outside BC, although Kamloops may be (only slightly) moreso, likewise Kelowna. Names which ''do'' have international cachet (Vancouver), OK, fine; but the guidelines are not producing a useful standard, rather a confusing one and also one which is going to need yet more discussion/squabbling ''over nothing very much important at all''. Aaargh. Fine, move away then but it's not a reader-friendly environment you're producing, it's an admin-tightened-and-cinched one not based in reality, but in somebody's one-time idea of "guidelines". As if graven in stone, and immutable.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::A reader-friendly environment is not enhanced by an invariable naming format that applies across the board regardless of the actual situation; for instance, it would ''not'' enhance Wikipedia's reader-friendliness to have [[New York City]] at "New York, New York" instead, or ''[[The Catcher in the Rye]]'' at "The Catcher in the Rye (book)". A reader-friendly environment is enhanced by always putting an article at the ''least'' complex title possible. That is, if a title is unambiguous enough that it can legitimately be at "Title" without conflicting with another thing that has an equally legitimate claim, then the article should be at "Title" rather than "Title, Extra Piece of Information That Isn't Really Necessary Because This Name Doesn't Mean Anything Else But Was Added Anyway Because Some Policy Decided We're Not Allowed to Exclude It". There's no requirement for consistency on city article formats any more than there's a requirement that every book article has "(book)" in the title regardless of whether its name is unique or not. ''That'' would be "admin-tightened-and-cinched" and "not based in reality". Putting articles at the simplest possible title does ''not'' detract from our user-friendliness — I can guarantee you that there ''are'' people in the world who ''have'' heard of Kelowna but ''don't'' know that it's in British Columbia; it ''detracts'' from the usability of Wikipedia to put the article at a title that's harder for them to find. And for those who ''do'' know that Kelowna is in British Columbia, the extra information is just superfluous rather than helpful. And for that matter, the Brits most certainly haven't experienced any kind of long-term problems arising from the fact that their capital is at [[London]] but the ancient Roman city of ''Aquae Solis'' is at [[Bath, Somerset]]. The many countries that ''already'' use the very convention you're arguing with simply '''do not experience''' these difficulties you're imagining. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 04:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Oh, and as things currently stand, [[Burnaby]] exists as a redirect to [[Burnaby, British Columbia]], and [[North Vancouver]] exists as a redirect to [[North Vancouver, British Columbia]]. ''Neither'' title is currently a disambiguation page. If they should be dab pages instead, then ''make'' them dab pages — but don't claim that they already ''are'' dab pages, because they aren't. And don't think you've found flies in the ointment, either — the whole point of this process ''is'' to identify which of the listed redirects ''should'' become article titles and which ''should'' become dab pages instead. Nobody ''ever'' said they would ''all'' get moved — only that they would all get ''discussed''. So taking two off the list like that ''helps''. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

'''Comment''' Just for clarification, the convention to use the simplest form possible isn't about whether something is well known. More specifically, it is about whether that subject is better known than other subjects of the same name. whether Kamloops is a big city or internationally renown is quite irrelevant. The question should be whether the city of Kamloops is the most recognized use of the term. Oh, and can we keep the mudslinging to a minimum? It's hard to follow the discussion with all the unnecessary noise. --[[User:Kmsiever|Kmsiever]] 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

'''Support move to Kamloops''' - This is the convention for unambiguous Canadian settlements, and has ben discussed to death. I think it is outrageous that a fairly noncontroversial move should be held up by discusive polemics on issues of little or no relevance to this point. I'm still waiting to hear a substantive reason to make an exception in this case. If none is forthcoming, then the move should be made - or do we need to post this at [[WP:RM]]. Geez, it's no wonder I've become so univolved in Wikipedia lately - all these ridiculous, endless arguments over semantic minutiae. [[User:Fishhead64|fishhead64]] 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

:Renamed per consensus of all but two editors here, but more importantly the precedent established for Canadian settlement names. [[User:Fishhead64|fishhead64]] 23:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{pollbottom}}

== Padova Grounds ==

This article needs a section on the Padova grounds which are located on the outskirts of kamloops. It is possibly one of the most haunted places on earth and definately deserves mentioning. For anyone that hasn't heard of Padova before, it used to be a weird complex for mental patients which had odd underground tunnels linking the major buildings. There are tales of the mental patients killing the doctors/nurses etc. Anyways it is basicly a small ghost town with small parks, many buildings (residential and hospital-ish) and shacks completely abandoned. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.83.110.177|24.83.110.177]] ([[User talk:24.83.110.177|talk]]) 03:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You seem to be referring the groundso the [[Tranquille Institution]], whatever its formal name was (a few in succesion, I think); I've never heard of it being named Padova and cannot find a web citation for that. The alleged haunting - "most haunted places on earth" - is hard to cite, and very contestible, but I wish you luck with proving that.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 15:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
:Tranquille is wonderfully spooky, but I've never actually heard a ghost story about it. [[User:Megalophias|Megalophias]] ([[User talk:Megalophias|talk]]) 18:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


It was not actually a weird complex for mental patients. It began life as a sanitorium for tuberculosis patients, and was later used as an institution for children and adults with mental handicaps prior to its closure it the early 1980s. While the state of disrepair of the site does contribute to a spooky feel, I don't believe that there were any documented murders on the site. [[User:Oishiisou|Oishiisou]] ([[User talk:Oishiisou|talk]]) 05:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

==Climate section==


:''"Prior to the arrival of European settlers, the Cree-Saulteaux band led by Chief Yawassannay had migrated to this region in the early 15th century where they met the local Secwepemc (Shuswap) nation (part of the Interior Salish language group). The Yawassanay band's Kamloops settlement was the largest of their three tribal areas. "
"Spring comes early in Kamloops." Really? Do you mean "relatively" early? Spring comes early in Southern California, Arizona, places, like that. Not South Central BC.[[User:Ndriley97|Ndriley97]] ([[User talk:Ndriley97|talk]]) 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


This is gonna need a citation, I've never heard it before and know BC history and FN history very well; and it's not part of any the T'kumlups Secwepemc story that I ever heard, though I'll send t his to the Kamloops band and see if they've ever heard any such thing; the Cree-Saulteaux organization is in, I think, Prince George.
The weather chart data appears to be incorrect. I do not have verifiable data to support my assertion but I did live in Kamloops from 1979 to 1984. That so-called record high of 105F (listed in the table) was just an average summer day in those years and was by no means the actual record high. I experienced daytime temps as high as 114F in July of 1979 and some nights it went '''all the way down''' to 112F. The radio stations confirmed the readings of my own thermometer. It was not just my imagination. It was unbearable without A/C. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BMW-KTM|BMW-KTM]] ([[User talk:BMW-KTM|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BMW-KTM|contribs]]) 02:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There can be a big difference between backyard thermometers and official records inside a [[Stevenson screen]]. I have updated the temperature extremes for Kamloops, so that all weather stations within the city are used.


Stuff like this getting slipped in to articles is what happens when you block the most active/prolific British Columbian wikipedian on behalf of a non-British Columbian who didn't want to be "interfered with" while writing his own OR/ESSAY opus by anyone who actually knew enough to call bullshit on what he was contriving....not signing in, or I wouldn't be able to make this comment thanks to the American for-pay WMF admin who blocked me on behalf of ''another'' American admin who had an ethnic politics axe to grind........sheesh.
==Industry section==
I took out this because the one citation provided is not functioning, or rather it doesn't go to the specific article only to that newspaper; if it can be resolved some of this can go back in:
:'': however, there are constituent pressures to accommodate larger aircraft. Due to a persistent disagreement between the City's Mayor Terry Lake, and the area's Conservative Member of Parliament, Betty Hinton, there was no federal funding available for the airport's expansion.[http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=15&cat=23&id=815131&more=1]
Update: the federal government has agreed to fund their share of the airport expansion. Update: Construction of the Kamloops airport expansion began in late July, 2008 There has also been speculation of an inland rail port.
The updates and inland rail port would need separate cites before they could/shoudl be included. As for the deletion of the mayor's federal Liberal Party affiliation being part of the problem with the area's Tory MP, if tha'ts in the soruce article it stays in, though needs to be worded in such a way that it's clear that he is not a big-L Liberal in terms of civic electoral politics; "Mayor so-and-so, who is noted for his federal Liberal Party allegiance/activism/membership, vs the Conservative MP etc...".[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


== Humidex ==


I believe the claimed humidex record of 47.4C is corrupt. It is based on a [https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_data/hourly_data_e.html?hlyRange=1953-01-01%7C2013-06-13&dlyRange=1951-01-01%7C2013-06-12&mlyRange=1951-01-01%7C2013-06-01&StationID=1275&Prov=BC&urlExtension=_e.html&searchType=stnName&optLimit=yearRange&StartYear=1957&EndYear=1957&selRowPerPage=25&Line=1&searchMethod=contains&Month=7&Day=21&txtStationName=kamloops&timeframe=1&Year=1957 dewpoint measurement] of 28.3C, far out of range of any other reading Im aware of in western Canada. [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #a6ffe0; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 02:00, 16 September 2020


== How to incorporate the recent finding of a mass grave (2021) ==
For proper information go to http://www.tranquille.ca/ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.183.238.96|66.183.238.96]] ([[User talk:66.183.238.96|talk]]) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I'm not seeing a place in the structure that makes this straightforward. Someone dropped a See Also, and I unbroke that link.
==Etymology==
Added: there's a paragraph in Education, but that doesn't really make sense. Probably belongs to a recent history section? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Linlithgow|Linlithgow]] ([[User talk:Linlithgow#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Linlithgow|contribs]]) 12:31, May 31, 2021 (UTC)</span>
OK, "camp de loups"? That seems totally bogus to me (especially since it sounds nothing at all like Kamloops). Does Wikipedia have a policy on dubious etymologies? - a lot of pages seem to have them. [[User:Megalophias|Megalophias]] ([[User talk:Megalophias|talk]]) 18:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


== Current MP hasn't been updated to Mr. Caputo. ==
==YKA==
"Kamloops is home to Kamloops Airport (Fulton Field), a small international Airport currently being expanded, with construction underway into 2010. YKA has averaged a 15% increase in air travelers every month since 2004."
What is the YKA? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/220.236.241.100|220.236.241.100]] ([[User talk:220.236.241.100|talk]]) 13:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Frank Caputo is the current MP of the Kamloops area. As of September 20th, 2021. [[Special:Contributions/207.194.240.34|207.194.240.34]] ([[User talk:207.194.240.34|talk]]) 15:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
By my calculations, 15% monthly growth since 2004 would mean that traffic has increased by over 100 000 times since then. This is not the case. I am removing this; I'm not sure what it was trying to say. [[User:Megalophias|Megalophias]] ([[User talk:Megalophias|talk]]) 07:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
:Agree. There's no way this is accurate. YKA struggles along as a minor regional airport, with most international traffic in the region going to Kelowna. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">[[User:The Interior|<font color="brown">The</font><font color="green"> Interior</font>]] [[User Talk:The Interior|(Talk)]]</span> 07:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:10, 15 July 2024

schools: Norkam

[edit]

Hi i was just wondering as a former student of norkam secondary if there would be any point to me adding a section to the article about it under the schools heading?


→the kamloops blazers attended norkam until last year when they switched to Brock- perhaps it could be relevant that several NHL starts went to norkam.

Cree-Saulteaux c. 1590??

[edit]
"Prior to the arrival of European settlers, the Cree-Saulteaux band led by Chief Yawassannay had migrated to this region in the early 15th century where they met the local Secwepemc (Shuswap) nation (part of the Interior Salish language group). The Yawassanay band's Kamloops settlement was the largest of their three tribal areas. "

This is gonna need a citation, I've never heard it before and know BC history and FN history very well; and it's not part of any the T'kumlups Secwepemc story that I ever heard, though I'll send t his to the Kamloops band and see if they've ever heard any such thing; the Cree-Saulteaux organization is in, I think, Prince George.

Stuff like this getting slipped in to articles is what happens when you block the most active/prolific British Columbian wikipedian on behalf of a non-British Columbian who didn't want to be "interfered with" while writing his own OR/ESSAY opus by anyone who actually knew enough to call bullshit on what he was contriving....not signing in, or I wouldn't be able to make this comment thanks to the American for-pay WMF admin who blocked me on behalf of another American admin who had an ethnic politics axe to grind........sheesh.

Humidex

[edit]

I believe the claimed humidex record of 47.4C is corrupt. It is based on a dewpoint measurement of 28.3C, far out of range of any other reading Im aware of in western Canada. —Soap— 02:00, 16 September 2020

How to incorporate the recent finding of a mass grave (2021)

[edit]

I'm not seeing a place in the structure that makes this straightforward. Someone dropped a See Also, and I unbroke that link. Added: there's a paragraph in Education, but that doesn't really make sense. Probably belongs to a recent history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linlithgow (talk • contribs) 12:31, May 31, 2021 (UTC)

Current MP hasn't been updated to Mr. Caputo.

[edit]

Frank Caputo is the current MP of the Kamloops area. As of September 20th, 2021. 207.194.240.34 (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamloops&oldid=1234710153"