Talk:South Chilcotin Provincial Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Notice of RENAMING
Be advised that there is no such place as the "South Chilcotin", and there is no such thing as the "South Chilcotin Provincial Park". The official name is the Southern Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park, period. P-E-R-I-0-D. I don't care how many environmental/outdoors organizations call this place the "South Chilcotin", IT'S NOT; the area in question is part of the Bridge River Country and the misnomer is all the environmental movement's fault. When I confront them about giving it a better, more suitable name reflective of its history and identity, the line I get from WC2 and the Sierras is "we don't want to confuse the public". Well, guess what? You already have, and you've pissed off locals in the process. Blood was shed over this area NOT being part of the Chilcotin; the name was applied because only "Chilcotin Ranges" shows on the map; but the Dickson, Shulaps and Camelsfoot Ranges are all farther SOUTH and are also Chilcotin Ranges; assuming that this is the "South Chilcotin" based on that is like saying Ruby Creek, Harrison Hot Springs and the Old Settler are the "South Lillooet".
Thankfully there's only a few links to this page yet; later tonight I'll be renaming it to its REAL NAME (Wiki standard). I see that the provincial government website uses the "South Chilcotin" misnomer, but this is as a result of the shoddy geographic nomenclature in the first place.Skookum1 23:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- If BC Parks official name of the park is South Chilcotin Provincial Park [1] , then that IS the official name, no matter how badly you want it to be named otherwise. Take it up with BC Parks if you have a problem. Otherwise the name stands. You can't use Wikipedia to further your little agendas. --Dogbreathcanada 23:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a "little agenda". A year ago when I worked with bivouac.com on the equivalent entry, the official name as listed on the government website was Southern Chilcotin Mountains, and Bivouac followed suit upon my insistence; how the site has been renamed and why, and what the standing legislation is on the name, I'll look into. Somewhere along the way the "little agenda" of the environmental movements who've overridden local history/culture with their various renaming campaigns has affected the provincial government's name for the place, which AND I REPEAT when legislated into being was the Southern Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park. And yeah, I will take this up with the government and my MLA and find out why and when the name was changed; "South Chilcotin" is bogus historically/geographically and always has been. And that's not a "little agenda"; it's the real meal deal. The only alternative for now is for me to blog the argument and make a link to the blog; I'm one of the only "working historians" in the Bridge River Country and not without my own authority as an "expert" in these matters. The South Chilcotin name was come up over cappucinos in the WC2 office; it has nothing to do with the history of the region or its identity. It is NOT in the Chilcotin (Big Creek PP and Taseko PP ARE). Skookum1 06:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there's still a redirect from the name you'd prefer. If and when BC Parks decides to rename the park, the Wikipedia entry should reflect the park name that people will find on the official BC Parks website. --Dogbreathcanada 07:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a "little agenda". A year ago when I worked with bivouac.com on the equivalent entry, the official name as listed on the government website was Southern Chilcotin Mountains, and Bivouac followed suit upon my insistence; how the site has been renamed and why, and what the standing legislation is on the name, I'll look into. Somewhere along the way the "little agenda" of the environmental movements who've overridden local history/culture with their various renaming campaigns has affected the provincial government's name for the place, which AND I REPEAT when legislated into being was the Southern Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park. And yeah, I will take this up with the government and my MLA and find out why and when the name was changed; "South Chilcotin" is bogus historically/geographically and always has been. And that's not a "little agenda"; it's the real meal deal. The only alternative for now is for me to blog the argument and make a link to the blog; I'm one of the only "working historians" in the Bridge River Country and not without my own authority as an "expert" in these matters. The South Chilcotin name was come up over cappucinos in the WC2 office; it has nothing to do with the history of the region or its identity. It is NOT in the Chilcotin (Big Creek PP and Taseko PP ARE). Skookum1 06:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you do change the name back to a non-existent park ... I will bring Wiki admin into this issue. Just because you feel that BC Parks misnamed their park is an issue to bring up with them. Do not use Wikipedia to further your own agendas. The official name of the park is South Chilcotin Provincial Park. PERIOD. It is what is listed at the BC Parks website. A search of Southern Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park on the BC Parks website turns up not a single article or entry. --Dogbreathcanada 00:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- See above. I've long shelved my campaign to rename this area more suitably because of the intransigence and uncaring attitude of the WC2 and Sierras over the question; the environmental groups may have had their way for now, but a name more suitable to the history of this area is needed; and the reason because of the glacial implacability of the impact of the name as it stands. There's been a lot of name-fiddling in BC of late, including the new and very bland "Lake Country" for the Kamloops-Shuswap. Sure, "Southern Chilcotin Mountains" is a mouthful; it was pure laziness on the part of the latter-day preservationists to call it the "South Chilcotin"; even Chilco Choate doesn't call it that; mind you neither the environmental groups or the bureaucrats listen to HIM either, apparently because (like me) he's actually from those parts.Skookum1 06:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- There are lots of provincial parks with unwieldy names. I doubt that BC Parks decided to call it South Chilcotin simply because Southern Chilcotin Mountains had more syllables. --Dogbreathcanada 07:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fact is the name has been changed in the last two or three years, because I remember being able to point at the BC Parks site when working on the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia edits concerning this area; it clearly said "Southern Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park" and NOT "South Chilcotin". BTW there are no "Chilcotin Mountains", although there are the "Chilcotin Ranges"...... (which are as big as the Selkirks, and not just limited to this park).Skookum1 18:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if there are no Chilcotin Mountains, why are you so adamant on Southern Chilcotin Mountains as a name? And if the park is situated along the southern portion of the Chilcotin Range, then South Chilcotin doesn't seem misleading to me at all, it actually seems the more apt name. --Dogbreathcanada 20:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because the fricking government and enviro-orgs trumped up the name, that's why. If anything, the name should have been Southern Chilcotin Ranges. And if you knew anything about the history of the Bridge River-Lillooet Country you'd know that "South Chilcotin" is ANYTHING but an apt name for this area; and it was NEVER a name used by those advancing its cause until very recent times. It's NOT part of the Chilcotin, and that's part of the problem. Unless you want to be OK with calling the Slocan the "East Okanagan".Skookum1 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if there are no Chilcotin Mountains, why are you so adamant on Southern Chilcotin Mountains as a name? And if the park is situated along the southern portion of the Chilcotin Range, then South Chilcotin doesn't seem misleading to me at all, it actually seems the more apt name. --Dogbreathcanada 20:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fact is the name has been changed in the last two or three years, because I remember being able to point at the BC Parks site when working on the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia edits concerning this area; it clearly said "Southern Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park" and NOT "South Chilcotin". BTW there are no "Chilcotin Mountains", although there are the "Chilcotin Ranges"...... (which are as big as the Selkirks, and not just limited to this park).Skookum1 18:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- There are lots of provincial parks with unwieldy names. I doubt that BC Parks decided to call it South Chilcotin simply because Southern Chilcotin Mountains had more syllables. --Dogbreathcanada 07:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- See above. I've long shelved my campaign to rename this area more suitably because of the intransigence and uncaring attitude of the WC2 and Sierras over the question; the environmental groups may have had their way for now, but a name more suitable to the history of this area is needed; and the reason because of the glacial implacability of the impact of the name as it stands. There's been a lot of name-fiddling in BC of late, including the new and very bland "Lake Country" for the Kamloops-Shuswap. Sure, "Southern Chilcotin Mountains" is a mouthful; it was pure laziness on the part of the latter-day preservationists to call it the "South Chilcotin"; even Chilco Choate doesn't call it that; mind you neither the environmental groups or the bureaucrats listen to HIM either, apparently because (like me) he's actually from those parts.Skookum1 06:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
