User talk:Skookum1/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Contents

Vancouver Expedition Ships

I could use some help or referrences for Fenis and St. Joseph, Zachary Mudge's ship. I'm getting threatening notices about deletion.Pustelnik (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rugged Point volcanoes

It appears that there are no volcanoes on Vancouver Island, just on the mainland of British Columbia according to Volcano World. Black Tusk 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Volcanics near Rugged Point

I found out that an ancient tectonic plate called the Kula Plate used to have volcanic and sedimentary rocks about 55 million years ago that were scraped off and plastered against the continental margin when it was being subducted under the North American Plate, forming Vancouver Island. Black Tusk 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinaman (dab)

I presume the edit I made will be bastardized within hours. Whether the term is derogatory or outdated or floral shouldn't be placed on a disambig page because then there becomes an edit war over "proof" that the word is whatever. This leads to the "need" for references on a page that shouldn't have them. The question, proof, explanation, etc. of what the term means is gone into on the article's page itself. Disambig pages should only consist of concise descriptions to help a searcher determine which term they meant to be looking for, not in depth explanations of said terms. Thanks, I hope it holds, too. Chickenmonkey 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

because then there becomes an edit war over "proof" that the word is whatever.
Yeah, that's exactly what happened here over the last few weeks, in fact. The demand for references was by HQG, who's since backed down variously/considerably on what the page should have and/or be about. But there's always going to be someone who wants to rev up the language (and politics) to suit themselves; to me it's no better than the hooligan vandalisms of the last few days, as it's much similar in tone (esp. re the one edit commented on in recent edit to the main talkpage, about the tone of invective, which is of course rooted in emotion. Encyclopedias can document that emotions exist, but they shouldn't express them, no? Thanks; this page is going to always take some watching over...Skookum1 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree encyclopedias shouldn't express emotions, in the general sense, and disambig pages in encyclopedias definitely shouldn't. It's kind of like a phonebook listing the ugly John Smith or the famous Jane Doe. Chickenmonkey 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
....something that might be useful to say on the talkpage...Skookum1 02:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll certainly keep an eye on the page and mention these things if need be. Whether anyone will listen? Who knows. Chickenmonkey 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey again. With the dab page on Chinaman, or with any dab page, the most common usage should be the intro (if there is to be an intro). Given that a search for "chinaman" goes straight to Chinaman, I assumed the most common usage was accepted to be "a term used to refer to a Chinese man". That, along with the qualifier you used "or in a less common usage", I would say that the other two uses in the intro should probably be listed with the other "alternate" uses. Which, according to policy (I think) all "alternate" uses listed should be linked to a page that mentions the term. Porcelain doesn't mention "chinaman". I don't doubt the three uses listed without being linked to an article that uses the term are accurate, but I'm going to remove the "drug reference" usage and the "porcelain" usage for now. I'm sure, with the China trade ship usage, the Old China Trade article (I think would be accurate, not sure) could be edited to include a sourced usage of the term "chinaman" to refer to their ships. Chickenmonkey 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the Chinaman as a porcelain dealer is well-established, and in fact in one dictionary quoted on the Talk:Chinaman page (or its archive) it's the first listed; the ship ref is even older, but much less common; I found two usages in Kipling, as well as somewhere out there today I found a 1740 cite for it, in a time when we were still toying with "Chinnish" and "Chinian" to name the people of the new country "we" were trading with. But as for the chinaware thing:

shows that it's alive and well, and probably quite normal in England; I suspect it's pronounced China + man, with more emphasis on "man", as in "old China hand"; or like some Newfs instructed me long ago, "Newfoundland rhymes with 'understand'". Whatever; there's no article needed for Chinaman (porcelain dealer), not that I can see; but it's certainly a real usage, and in fact older than the demonym. And as for the ship, I'm not sure if it was a physical type of vessel, or more the nature of the ship's business/trade/route; maybe we'll find that out somewhere....Skookum1 04:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking A Stab At

I sifted through some other articles on the coast with the Indigenous cultures and nations. I realized for a group which is heavily written about, there was little about. So, my main focus is working on the Kwakwaka'wakw, it's affiliations, and tribal groups. I moved a few articles around, and fixed up a couple others, but you noticed that already. The Kwakwaka'wakw article will become my main focus, along with the tribes. I'm probably going to create articles for all the tribes, if they are not created, but I think you kind of did that with 'so and so Nation'. I just think it should be the name of their nation, with other links following, ye know? I'll search around for pictures, and maybe stop by VPL to get some resources for books on the Kwakwaka'wakw. Let the article pimpin' begin! OldManRivers 05:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See the
Kwakwaka'wakw peoples

Laich-kwil-tach (Wei Wai Kai) | Wei Wai Kum | Gwa'sala | 'Nakwaxda'xw | K'ómoks (Comox) | Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-mish | ‘Namgis | Quatsino | Da'naxda'xw | Awaetlatla | Tlatlasikwala | Tlowitsis | Kwiakah | Kwagyulh | Mamalilikulla | Qwe'Qwa'Sot'Em

and other templates for tribal breakdowns, non-band.Skookum1 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why FN cat is displaying here

I just noticed "I" am in the BC First Nations category., I just had a look through the page to see if I could spot where I didn't, maybe, use the colon format Category:First Nations in British Columbia, but I looked through the edit-source and can't see/find it. What's causing this? If anyone else can find it, pls rmv.Skookum1 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

See the section directly above this one. The template in there puts pages that transclude it into the category. Xiner (talk, email) 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't you know that you, Skookum1, is First Nations? lol OldManRivers 21:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, I just noticed that and tried to fix it; must be a hidden Category reference, maybe on one of the archive pages; I've asked User:Xiner to help me as I can't find it myself, despite thorough searching.....still can't find that map I'm talking about; lots of pages to sort through, might be a language page or main nation page, or even a subnation page - one of the external links, goes to a really elaborate language-areas map with neat floating overlays you can turn off. BTW YOU should have a look at the BC MapPlace links I just put on the BC WikiProject page, and check out the First Nations displays...this is the same technology used to build the other map; maybe that one is linked off the main MapPlace page....hmmmm.Skookum1 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BC Treaty Process

I started it. Personally, I think it's great as it is, but I think others will want to add more. If you want to help out with it, that would be great. I'm going to find source material on the whole BC Treaty Process. I don't know a whole lot about the actual histories of each things, but, I know the Nisga'a Treaty was a template for the BC Treaty Process, or as I like call it, Selfish-Government. I also plan on starting senakw soon because the history of that village, pertaining to Vancouver would be great. (Ya know, how the missionaries and government murdered and destroyed the village.) OldManRivers 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's the title it's usually known by these days; but NB it's for THIS process, not the previous ones with the NDP, or the century-long abstention by the BC government that led to the Land Claims impasse in the first place (Ottawa wanted them to settle over a century ago; 85% of the province was Government Reserve as a result, land held in abeyance of eventual settlement, until its original political purpose/stake was forgotten/shoved aside and in 1976 the new Forests Act assigned the whole shebang to be run by the Forest Industry; this was, IMO, a tactical/pre-emptive move to take the resources before they could be handed back over; and the deal is that MacMillan Bloedel, who got over half the wood (maybe as high 2/3; I've forgotten - this is from an old Allan Fotheringham article, I think....), was the main backer of the Bill Bennett election campaign in 1975. The item I saw on the Forests Act was coming from the environmental angle and didn't make the FN connection; I recognized it when in another article or book I came across the Government Reserve-as-collateral-for-eventual-land-claims-settlement context in an analysis of how the land claims impasse had come about. As early as Dufferin's visit in 1874 BC was getting dressed down about needing to settle, so as to not leave a legal vacuum, and it was an issue in the Confederation discussions; the BC position post-Confederation was that the plebiscite to join Canada had somehow wiped any provincial responsibility for land claims or native governance, which was all Ottawa's problem; but Ottawa couldn't settle without BC, and Ottawa wouldn't/couldn't come to the table if BC didn't, and BC wouldn't. Anyway (as I could go on...). I think a history of Land Claims in British Columbia or something is a separate potential article, covering all the history of the various native political/legal manoeuvres and statements, from the original Nisga'a declarations and the Lillooet Declaration and others like those right down to Delgamuukw, Vander Zalm's grandstanding at Toba which was quickly followed by the chopper visit to Seton Portage which was followed up by five dozen riot-squad mounties, the NDP's "go" at a treaty process, the Campbell government's about face, which then introduces the current Treaty Process. The bands/peoples who abstain or have only observer status should all be noted, of course.Skookum1 22:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh gods Treaty just agitates the hell out of me. OldManRivers
You're not the only one. It's taken me years to straighten out what went down, i.e. technicality wise, and it's frustrating to watch/hear rehashes and modern-day press/political spins on it that don't conform to the actual history. Most British Columbians don't want to know; most also want it settled in the natives' favour, although you wouldn't think that from the letters to the editors and op-ed columns (that's intentional; they give airtime to loudmouths to drive readership, as people love to read people they hate...); and when I say "most British Columbians" I'm not referring to the new wave of immigrants, wherever they're from (Asia, Eastern Canada, Europe, Africa, wherever) but to the "old" BC intercultural community; sympathy for the native positionsn and a "damned right of course they own it" attitude has been around for a long time; it's just never given a media voice unless the person can be painted as a leftist or a loon or protesthead or whatever; calmer voices like Suzuki's and Glavin's are deliberately drowned out....whatever, it's sunny, man, and I've got to get outside with the guitar and open up for a while...talk to you later.Skookum1 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And btw most people I'm talking about want a settlement not because of economic/market stability, which is the political motivation lately (as well as land scams right and left, as with Tsawwassen and Temexw), but because they want to see justice. Canadians, though a bunch of up-tight pricks for the most part, are inherently decent-minded and believe in fairness, and although there's some bozos who say "get over it" or "they deserved it/no better" who get a lot of airtime/copyspace the vast majority of people are horrified and also know that they wouldn't like it if their grandparents were stripped of their rights, lands etc; you'd think the Chinese community, so hot-to-trot for its own settlement, would have recognized the much more severe abuse your people went through, and continue so to this day; but all new groups just see it all as dollars and sense; settlement for new money types, whether from ON or China or wherever, is all about economic stability and political embarrassment; but consider human/indigenous rights in places where most of them come from, and you begin to see why IMO, if I'm right, there's a general lack of sympathy for the natives among the newer elements, as they just have no connection to it and don't want to know anyway; although how natives were treated is brought up as something to be critical of the so-called "dominant culture" with. So "be of good faith" Wiki-style with some of us hwelitem, even ones that don't know as much as I do (and I know too much for my own damned good), as people want to know, they do want to fix what's done, and they're just as frustrated with the politicians as you are (and about nearly everything). Don't confuse the people with the politicians, I guess, is the way to sum that up. It goes for the old days too; there are lots and lots of stories of ordinary folks getting along with their native neighbours and cooperators etc; it's the bad stuff that gets print/air.Skookum1 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 07:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Shut the heck up Hagermanbot. I guess you're perfect and always remember eh? ;)--Keefer4 | Talk 07:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Hagermanbot's just a little too hasty. At least give me a minute to re-open the page to add my sig when I realize I left it off; fine to do it for me I guess, but I don't need a f**king robot telling me what to do because he beat me to it!! "He" and his "scolding" is more annoying than Hong or Uncle G. Guess I'll add a note on hagermanbot's little talkpage, wherever it is....Skookum1 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That (Personal attack removed) bot that just (Personal attack removed) goes and (Personal attack removed) leaves its (Personal attack removed) stamp should be (Personal attack removed)(Personal attack removed)(Personal attack removed). Oh that felt good, on so many levels. Now. Back to being civil.--Keefer4 | Talk 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You can opt out of Hagermanbot. Just use the link in the heading, here, and go from there -- its simple and self-explanatory. Hagermanbot is well meant, but annoyingly officious. It really needs a reasonable time-delay, instead of jumping on unsigned posts the moment they appear. -- Lonewolf BC 03:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Skookum1, a piece of advice. Obviously the 4. person is an experienced Wikipedian, but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that it is a sockpuppet. Until you have that evidence, it's better to assume good faith, because premature charges can doom the prosecution even if they are correct. Xiner (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than one comment in the last few days 4.x.x. has backed down since I mentioned the checkuser report. I've been waiting for more before filing a report, but "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck" applies here. It may not be who I and others think it is; but it's someone who's a regular Wikipedian who's "hiding" behind an IP address in order to make insults etc. "Assume good faith" is exactly what's not going on with the opponents of rationality in this fiasco. Well, it's not a fiasco because it's not over yet. But it sure is a nasty can of ideologically motivated worms, all writhing and posturing and puffery with their self-importance and righteousness. I left university to get away from sophomoric attitudes among people who think they're educated, and whose childish behaviour they hide behind procedural and bureaucratic manipulations; I may leave Wikipedia, ultimately, for the same reason.Skookum1 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
From what I've heard checkuser can go back about a month, for what that is worth. That gives you a little time to see if they continue the suspected sock behavior. Are editors allowed to use different names for different articles, so as to avoid someone being moved to stalk and undo every edit because of conflict in some contentious area? Edison 22:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark Britten

This was the entire content of the deleted article: <<Mark Britten is an American comedian whose stage name is "The Chinaman"..>> There's not much point in my restoring that one sentence. There's no block on reposting the article once it has some content. NawlinWiki 19:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have waited 5 minutes, could you, from the moment I created the article? Was it my fault for not putting a inuse on the article? Was my fault that I didn't warn other users possibly interested in expanding the article that it was tagged for sd? Oh, wait a minute, I DID warn other users possibly interested in expanding the article that it was tagged for sd. And I did IMMEDIATELY. Problem is, you were even faster in deleting the article. Now I'll have to report your behaviour, sorry. --maf 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify that the preceding post was directed at User:NawlinWiki. --maf 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: Behaviour reported. --maf 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark Britten article has been restored/written using available web resources. I'll be emailing him personally to tell him that the first try at this article got deleted in less than two minutes; maybe that'll find its way into his act.....Skookum1 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Vancouver Island

Just created this today after near cardiac when I discovered there was/never had been such a category. It will obviously need to be subdivided at some point, but when/if your wikitravels take you to the island feel free to check/add to the cat. I guess in a sense this would also be the first of the traditional/historic region categories so we can work towards things like the elimination of the silly Regional District classifications for where people hail from &etc. Anyway, later. --Keefer4 | Talk 07:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that as lots of them are on my watchlist and I saw them all go by; it's the one definable region in BC, unless we define Category:British Columbia Coast or Category:Coast of British Columbia (not West Coast of Canada which irks me as a title and usage but may be mandatory by Wiki rules; cf. my notes on Talk:West Coast of the United States early tonight about "West Coast" as our self-definer, not of either nation; that commonality between US and LA and Seattle etc. Category:British Columbia Interior seems fairly well-defined, other than the Skeena maybe, and the Canyon and Pemberton; it implicitly includes the north, or maybe there should be Category:Northern British Columbia, from PG on up I guess, including of course the North Coast, though, so also overlapping, unless sep categories (and articles) for North Coast of British Columbia, South Coast of British Columbia, Central Coast of British Columbia were established; easier to just have of course Category:Coast of British Columbia which both Category:Lower Mainland (if it exists) and Category:Vancouver Island can be subcats; my notion about the whole thing is the tripartite division of the place, and also my old idea about the "traditional" regions; i.e. vs. using the RDs as how to further subdivide other cats and such; but there's overlap between regions all over the place, and Yale and Pemberton which aren't quite one or the either; and the North Coast are more connected to the Island than the rest of the Coast, and so on. I think we can safely establish categories Category:Cariboo, Category:Kootenay, Category:Chilcotin, Category:Fraser Canyon, Category:Okanagan, Category:Similkameen, Category:Shuswap, Category:Omineca etc (within the historical cats there could eventually be - hmm can't be Category:New Caledonia so (prob Category:New Caledonia (fur district) but I've never really noticed paranthetical titles in cats. So should these be made bold and let the chips fall where they may? Wiki rules would probably prefer that we identify what those are as officialized regions somehow; they're easily recognizable, even when they overlap or things don't fit right, too, though; but we also say "(the) Cariboo" as well as "(the) Cariboo Country" and so on through the list, eventually Stikine and Liard and Dease and Peace River Block (??) when there's enough articles up there to warrant; the Peace already but that cat name's going to be problematic, huh? Anyway, thoughts on seeing your Vanc Isl. cat; makes me think we can get away with all the others, and wondering on these other cat ideas; gona sign off; it's nearly 2.Skookum1 08:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Note overlap between e.g. Category:Chilcotin and the already extant Tsilhqot'in, which would seem to necessarily be a subcat of the otheres; not all native nation cats will coincide with these regions, but a lot will; or they could when necessary be in more than one region-cat, or only in the one that applies, e.g. Category:Ktunaxa in Category:Kootenay (provided that the Slocan is defined as being part of the Kootenay; I've never been clear on Nakusp and Revelstoke, Nakusp is maybe Kootenay as it's Arrow Lakes, but then so would be Galena Bay and Beaton and nearly Revelstoke; and again there's areas that don't fit like Category:Big Bend of British Columbia, though that's already in Category:Columbia River in its own way; as should be Category:Kootenay when it comes into being; the Okanagan cat is an issue because of the differential spelling, and it does span the border; it's one reason I specificaly chosen Category:Syilx as the name for the Okanagan people cat, because of course in teh US it's got two o's.Skookum1 08:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Y'see to me there would seem to be an obvious parent cat of some kind of the American Okanogan and the BC Okanagan; I dodged the bullet with the FN/Native American cat but harder to do as a purely geographic region (in a non-national sense, like that problem with the Georgia-Puget Depression wherever that winds up at now.Skookum1 09:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Georgia Strait-Puget Sound Depression, Georgia Strait-Puget Sound Basin?? - Anything but Whulge or Salish Sea. Fine if there were a common regional name spanning languages, but then it probably woudl hvae become part of regional english if that were the case, no? Whatever; g'nite for the second time, it's now 2:24am. One last PS I'll be reworking my Lillooet article, which needs work as I cribbed it from what was already there, but it's never been brought up to par and has errors; writing this tor emind myself, similarly with others in htat area, including those that need creation; I should really be spending my time writing/publishing a book on the area....but it's aresources thing, time/money spent while writing. Not that I'm making any money here, y'see... and get more grief than necessary sometimes ;-) Skookum1 09:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Geographic regions of British Columbia has Aspen parkland in it, which isn't the purpose of the cat but I can see someone seeing it there; maybe a Category:Biogeographic zones of British Columbia, provided there's a Biogeographic zones of British Columbia or a similarly-titled List article.Skookum1 09:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We've got a good redlinked 'to-do' list of possible future cats above this now, which I may cc to my to-do page, actually. I have been frequenting the Categories for Discussion boards lately, and chiming in occasionally-- since the streets and squares issue arose, and has since been overturned entirely. Anyway, it seems category deletion impulses are usually triggered by "over-categorization" and "non-notable" cats that don't specifically have articles associated with the cat. titles. In the case of most BC regions, we should be ok (Van Isle being the easy 'no brainer'), although there could be sourcing issues again re: the vaguely defined regions. But certainly in the cases of Category:Kootenay and Category:Okanagan, which are better defined, creation shouldn't be controversial. I think fairly strong community support could be obtained from the project members too, if we were to discuss this on the WPBC proj page. Of course, those subcats would/could (as you alluded to) be based on those obvious larger region articles which you compiled a while back, which would have cats (Category:Lower Mainland, Category:British Columbia Interior (purely a parent, really)..., Northern... &etc.). The categorization would have to follow existing articles, but would provide a more sensible and realistic flow of organization for articles relating to any BC subject. This way, we actually could realize and incorporate the different levels of self-identity into the cats (ie: "I'm from the Island" or "I'm from up in the Shuswap"), which we know exist at the various levels of regions. Same with the biogeographic zones under the geo cat.. Precedents elsewhere would be useful, I'll keep perusing the boards and other cats for some guidelines, so as to try and pre-empt deletionists, although I'm sure a few will surface in all this. Still some inevitable cat. overlaps with peoples/towns, but hey, things are different here, as we know ;). Later man.--Keefer4 | Talk 09:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
OK just found Category:Oregon Coast which bodes well for an overarching Category:Coast of British Columbia here, esp considering the British Columbia Coast article, of your creation.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC). Just created it, running on fumes...--Keefer4 | Talk 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC). Just started adding to coast cat. Need a fresh pair of eyes on it though... for example, put the whole category Category:Bays of British Columbia as a subcat of coast, which was probably wrong, considering Kootenay Bay &etc. but then all the bays were on the coast... a few conundrums, correct/organize as you see fit. ZzzZzz.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Bays of British Columbia? Yikes. Now is that geographic bays, or towns named "bay"???? And what about Category:Inlets of British Columbia and whatever you'd put sounds in or call; and don't forget that a lot of things that are Sounds and even Straits are actually also part of Category:Fjords, according to strict definitions of fjords....and BC has a lot of freshwater fjords (Harrison, Pitt, seton-Anderson, chilko, Kootenay, dozens of major ones more...). freshwater bays and marine bays might be a useful distinction (sorry given up with my shift key....). anyway, just got in, haven't looked at you-know-where yet and need to eat and, er, tune up. I'll send ya a letter about other stuff. (PS bornmann watch in effect with the trial opening and today's press coverage, haven't noticed anything yet but we should all stay tuned....the case is gonna be hard stuff to right; alreaDy the articles aren't up to date because of complexity; like so many - hey, you don't have any old copy on the Salmon War of 1996, do you? Have to be bothsides POV of course, so alaskan/washington papers which I've never read their side of the crisis in would be interesting research.....like so much else, but there's only so much time in this world, and so much else to do....sigh.Skookum1 07:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Nada for Salmon War material, unfortunately. Seems the only 'sounds'/inlets cat is in fact Category:Fjords of British Columbia, which I moved to coast. WIll probably move it back to general Category:Geography of British Columbia, and tag some of the individual fjords/inlets etc with 'Coast' or 'Interior' cats as applicable. Lots of close category calls today in your old neck of the woods, from Port Douglas up to Pemberton country and beyond, tagged some with both coast and int cats, same with a few rivers, mountain ranges and trails which straddle. 'Bays' category contained both geographic and settlement put it back to general 'geo of bc'. A few more then ZzzZzz.--Keefer4 | Talk 09:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Waiting for another section to load and noticed that last bit...NB Garden Bay, British Columbia should be in the relevant settlements category, Garden Bay (British Columbia) should be in the pure-geographic category (the parent of the Fjords of BC cat, maybe, since Fjords doesn't include all coastal waterways/waterbodies. Also the Pemberton Country is 'sort of both' Interior and Coast, although in the old days it was decidedly Interior (no road to Squamish, which didn't exist yet anyway); Port Douglas and Yale were coastal in the old days because navigable from Georgia Strait (well, navigable with a little help past various obstacles), though far inland. Prob a subcat of Fjords "Freshwater fjords in British Columbia" might be useful, and note that these aren't only in the Interior but include e.g. Owekeeno Lake and others up in the Belize/Seymour Inlet area (north flank of Queen Charlotte Strait) and bodies of water like Lake Cowichan and Powell Lake (hmmm. that's a reservoir and not a natural lake/fjord...or was it already there and the hydro development only raised it, as with Seton Lake and others?).209.53.125.81 07:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

English Names for Chinese People

Uncle G reverted your and Falsedef's edits AGAIN. Is there any way that his POV agenda can be stopped? It's pretty obvious that the article won't be deleted, so there needs to some way to get him to stop reverting everything that others write that conflicts with his narrow-minded view.Zeus1234 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise! The article was deleted after all. Looks like my note above was premature.Zeus1234 03:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

maps

yeah, hey, if you've got maps for stuff around bellingham bay (Portage Island, Lummi Peninsula, etc.) i'd be glad to deal with them if you don't have time. i've got plenty of time to work on that stuff right now. Cheers! Murderbike 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hereby...

The Original Barnstar
Skookum1 is hereby awarded the Original Barnstar for his extensive work throughout British Columbia related articles. Adding the new cats over the past few days has enabled me to see just how extensive that work has been. It is clearly an invaluable contribution taht extends to nearly all facets of the province. Also, for standing your ground, albeit colourfully, against such accusations of "hysterics" and acting like a "chicken with your head cut off", and being told to go get a blog, &etc. amidst controversies. The fact that you continue to contribute in the ways described above trumps any of these.--Keefer4 | Talk 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. I now have two - one for CanCon, of all things, given I'm virtually a BC separatist, and a Bridge River-Lillooet separatist on top of that ;-) Should I put these on my userpage or what? Been thinking of overhauling it and archiving what's there; esp. since my Grand Recuse is about to start....Skookum1 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bornmann

Congrats on that barnstar. I'm sure it is well-deserved. I doubt that anyone has added more BC content than you. Which is partly what brought me here. I was wondering if you saw the article about Bornmann in the Sun yesterday? "Liberals can thank 'Spiderman for exposure" from the Saturday paper, B1. I tought that you might be interested in adding something to our article. I was also wondering if you had any plans on cleaning up Hollywood North or runaway production which was in a pretty sorry state the last time that I saw it. --JGGardiner 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been in a certain other bloodbath lately; there's only so much I can stomach at times ;-) and I'm starting to feel like sisyphus with articles like that, although I don't think we'll see much in the way or targeted you-know-what in future; I didn't get a chance to see the article, which I guess was in the second section because I looked through yesterday's front page tonight looking for it; but remember to be fair it's not only Erik's article that needs work, Basi and even Justice Bennett (or Barrett? whichever) all need articles, as with the defendants and more on Brian Kieran; the tie-in to Marissen and all that; we can expect your standard rant-edit from potty-mouthed and/or politically upset British columbians like on other pages, but while I think POV watch is worthwhile I don't think we're going to see any more savage edit wars. Now, as for myself cribbing the news into the article, it's partly awkward because I was such a main combatant and I'm also as you know rather prolix :-| in the extreme; what I've done with other topics is to make a list of points needed to be addressed and ask someone else to stich them together in simple language ;-) The other side of my writing situation is that I'm going to be un-webbing in about a month and have a host of articles I need to amend, and only a few weeks to go (adventures await...), and tidying up the BC Wikiproject. I meant to save that article, and the one before it, but I was hoping the expansion-momentum might come from somewhere else; I'm good at seeing what's missing, or what needs to be put in context; and I'd be wary of my POV throughout if I was original-writing it.Skookum1 05:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for ideas and encouragement

Hi Skookum, yes, I enjoyed working on the Barnard Express article and agree with you that it is high importance. Yesterday I added three fair-use images from BC Archives and I hope they stay as I believe the use is more than fair, after all wikipedia is a nonprofit research tool same as their site is. I wonder why BC Archives holds the rights to all those online pictures when Canada Archives freely admits when there is no copyright, and often on the very same picture? I don’t get it. But if those three pictures are allowed there are hundreds of others in the online BC Archives that could be used in a project regarding BC sternwheelers. I’ve noticed that writing articles on wikipedia seems to be like trying empty the ocean with a bucket, you write one and a dozen more need to be created to link to it and so on… ad infinitum. This certainly seems to be the case with BC history: I was surprised to find nothing on Cataline or Simon Gunanoot for example. Anyway, as to the ownership of the BC Express boats, only the two namesakes belonged to the company. Of the other ten, two, the Operator and Conveyor belonged to Foley Welch and Stewart who were the construction contractors for the Grand Trunk Pacific. Of the eight left, three, the Chilco, Chilcotin and Fort Fraser belonged to the Fort George Lumber and Navigation Company, who also held lots in the South Fort George townsite and used these steamers to bring prospective buyers to the area as well as contracting them to the railroad, survey companies ect… The Robert Hammond had a similar purpose and was owned by the rival townsite, Central Fort George on the Nechako River, which being less navigable didn’t have the service of the BC Express boats, which were too big, or the service of the Fort George Lumber boats which were their competition. An interesting aside: the Mayor of Kamloops and a party of other men in 1913 managed to get the government mail contract from the BC Express Company and were going to use the Robert Hammond as a mail steamer, but the plan fell through as they weren’t prepared for the challenge, nor was the boat, which was not powerful enough to keep the same twice a week delivery schedule from Soda Creek to Fort George like the BC Express boats could. Okay, where was I? That leaves four. The Quesnel was built by a merchant in Quesnel, perhaps in the hopes that he could contract/charter it out while saving money on his own shipping costs. The Charlotte was built earlier than all of these in 1896, just for the Soda Creek to Quesnel run, I would assume to serve the merchant and pioneer needs of the area. She was built by Senator James Reid of Quesnel and named after his wife, under the company he organized as North British Columbia Navigation… and that was as much as I ever noticed before. But, here’s the kicker, one of the three partners in the NBCN was Captain John Irving, another big name, and the other was Tingley, himself, who was running the BC Express Company at that time and had been for eight years. So, while not a BC Express boat the Charlotte had strong associations. The last two are the Enterprise and the Victoria and here’s where GB Wright comes into play, along with Thomas Wright, {brother?} they were the owners and operators of these two boats. The Enterprise was built first, in 1863, and was used between Soda Creek and Quesnel until 1871. But, here’s an amazing story, in 1871, the Wrights took her all the way up to Fort George, considered impossible before then because of the Cottonwood and Fort George Canyons, but they didn’t stop there and continued on up the Nechako to the Stuart River finally ending up at Takla Landing. Supposedly the Wrights took her there because of the Omineca Gold Rush, but it doesn’t seem as if she did any work there and was also abandoned there. By then the Wrights had built the Victoria which ran the Soda Creek Quesnel route from 1869 to 1886. And that’s all of them. Categorizing them by ownership like this ie: railroad, private and Hudson’s Bay Co, {oddly enough we had no Bay steamers here}, seems to make more sense than going in chronological order as I did in Steamboats of the Upper Fraser River in British Columbia. I think I’ll go back and play with that, as it looks rather amateurish right now and I was wondering how to divide it into sections while maintaining a timeline. The same could be done for pages for the other areas you mentioned. These articles would be much bigger than the Upper Fraser or Skeena River, as those each only had a dozen or so sternwheelers during a relatively short era. In the south, there were probably 200 sternwheelers on the various lakes and rivers, over a much longer time span. The Beaver in 1836 to the Moyie retiring in 1957. Also many of which were famous: Moyie, Sicamous, Kokanee, Nasookin, Slocan ect…ect… and will need their own articles. Not to mention articles that would need to be made for some of the captains, builders and owners. One thing would make starting a little simpler, I was thinking of categorizing the provincial sections much as Art Downs did on his two volumes of Paddlewheels on the Frontier. Kamloops and Shuswap. Okanagan Valley. Arrow and Kootenay Lakes. Columbia and Kootenay Rivers. Lower Fraser. Upper Fraser, {which I noticed he called Cariboo and Central}. Skeena and Stikine River. He also touched on the Yukon, but that is another project in itself. They could be called Steamboats of the {region in question} in British Columbia, giving everything some consistency. I’ve often thought that Sternwheelers of the… would be a better caption, but that takes out sidewheelers and doesn’t allow for anything that isn’t a paddlewheeler. Anyway, last thing, your comment on monopoly route rights is interesting, because I think that did apply in some regions, especially when there was too much rivalry. Paddlewheelers owned by the HBC and private interests on the Skeena often raced and one, the Hazelton piloted by John Bonser, who later piloted our Chilco and Fort Fraser, rammed the other one, the HBC’s Mount Royal, during a race, and the other captain left his pilothouse to go get a gun. I believe the government had to step in and gave the route to one or the other before the situation got out of hand. Our paddlewheelers also had rivalry, townsite versus townsite for one thing and BC Express versus GTP for another. When Charles Millar took over the BC Express Company he also showed some interest in Fort George and was planning a third townsite there and made arrangements to buy the Indian Reserve there. The railway was horrified, as that was their plan, they just hadn’t done much about it yet, and they had to give Millar part of the townsite that would eventually become the actual Prince George. It is highly inferred in the book A Thousand Blunders: History of the GTP in Northern British Columbia that the railway didn’t much like Millar or his company after that and deliberately built low level bridges across the Fraser between Fort George and Tete Jaune, to stop river navigation when they had earlier promised the BC Express Company that these bridges would have lift spans. Certainly Captain Bucey didn’t appreciate these new plans and when he was trying to take the BC Express up to Tete Jaune and found the way blocked, he threatened the railway workers with a shotgun. More of this GTP vs BC Express rivalry was illustrated when the BX and the Conveyor raced in the summer of 1914 from Soda Creek to Quesnel. Oddly enough the deal was that the BX still had to deliver the mail, but the Conveyor didn’t have to stop at all. Nevertheless Captain Browne pulled ahead of Captain Shannon at some key point and then Shannon rammed the BX with the Conveyor. The BX wasn’t badly damaged. Needless to say, it was the BX that was declared the winner when they got to Quesnel. Anyway, holy cow, I didn’t mean to run on for so long. I will keep my page updated with ideas for this province-wide steamboat articles project and will keep looking for stuff on Wright. I know he was a pioneer road builder as well as a sternwheeler captain.CindyBo 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

May I remove tag from improved article?

Me again. I was just wondering if it was okay for me to remove the old needs improvement tag from Steamboats of the Upper Fraser River in British Columbia? And I don't know how that rating system goes, but it might be better than "start" now. And I finished a new companion page Steamboats of the Skeena River I decided the..."in British Columbia" is a bit of overkill. Would it be rated similarily?CindyBo 06:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, I should have done so; normally those things disappear by random/browser visitors who patrol pages that have the templates, but if someone's done enough work to warrant taking them down, go for it even if you did the work yourself; I'm about to pull the one off Yakima War once I find out about it a bit more so can figure out if it's still POV or not (it really was, i.e. from the cavalry's point of view/language). There's a paper or book somewhere on the raftsmen of the Omineca/Stuart and Fraser Rivers, some content of which might be suitable here as still be freight shipping/travel. The Skeena's a great place to start another article of this kind; I just returned to the Burnaby Public Library a "Lost Bonanzas of British Columbia" thing which had something on a certain boat/strongbox re Kitselas Canyon; such books typically also have bits that can go in first Nations articles, in this case Kitselas (the people, as I remember the context - they charged a toll to transit their waters and were also known for being, um, a little on the tough side; can't remember how Basque puts it, has to do with the chapter on the Mount Royal; the chapter on Brother XII in there is the most detailed I've seen...but he also has other steamship stories in there too...that's where I made SS Pacific from, and was going to do the SS Sophie, the infamous/tragic sinking in the Lynn Canal that's the largest in coastal history). Please note re List of ships in British Columbia that I've linked the Upper Fraser article to the shipnames there; more or less suitable esp. because of the way you've written the article. I think you'll find that the boats on the Skeena, Stikine, Lower Fraser, Okanagan/Kootenay Lakes/Columbia River/Arrow Lakes weren't on just the one river, more like several; Skeena and Stikine boats had done duty on the Fraser, probably the Columbia, probably Puget Sound, definitely Inside Passage, possibly the Sacramento River also. So I'm not sure what you've done for the Upper Fraser is gonna work anywhere else; maybe the Middle Fraser (Boston Bar-Lytton) as I don't think anything there ever saw service anywhere else, other than those on the Upper Fraser and (maybe) Shuswap Lake/Kamloops Lake and those on the little lakes of the Lakes Route (not gonna be a list, there's only 3-4 maybe 5 on each lake...). What I'm getting at is individual ship articles is a better idea as a focus for particular-ship content, and the general article should be about the steamboats as a business/era; and say on Steamboats on the Skeena River there's going to be vessels that, as just alluded to, were definitely on the Fraser, probably ran to Skagway; that's why the List of ships in British Columbia was partly built, so that all those that served on certain routes, e.g. the Inside Passage, Kootenay Lake, the Lower Fraser/Harrison Lake, can be listed in context by location, and this is so those that were in more than location can be indicated easily. BTW have you joined the BC wikiproject. You don't need an invitation but if you'd like one I'll plop one on your userpage :-)Skookum1 07:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally got time to reply to this, we keep crossing paths all over the place anyway. I see your point about seperate ship articles, even when there is only a tenuous connection to a gold rush and even when they run on only one river and have no past or future like most of the ones in the Steamboats of the Skeena River and Steamboats of the Upper Fraser River in British Columbia. Regardless of that, though, seperate ship articles makes even more sense because there are other links that will eventually be made to these boats, Collins Telegraph for the early boats on the Skeena page for example, not to mention the pages of the individual captains and all those great stories about the races, trips to Takla ect.. that could be main articles. Anyway, I rambled on about this somewhere else too, but I think the consesus then is: seperate articles for most, if not all, of the boats. Oh, and yes I'd like to join the BC wikiproject. I am a wikipedian in British Columbia and I think I had that mixed up with the project. I've gone to that page, but I'm still try to get a hang of all those tags and templates that are all over the place for everything, but I think I'm starting to get a slightly better idea of how things work around here. I'm sure we'll be talking again soon.CindyBo 03:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Just found..

Great Bear Rainforest. Have tagged it. Not a fan of the name of course, pure invention in the vein of Salish Sea IMO, but thought you'd want to know of its existence (I didn't see any evidence of your passing through there). Later.Keefer | Talk 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just read through it and what is there is wildly inaccurate in a few spots... wonder how this got in under our radar...--Keefer | Talk 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Tawdry neologism yes, but they did a better marketing job. What a name encompassing the region in question might be, but I do submit there's been an effort to equate it to Central Coast in the same way there's the effort to equate Cascadia with the Pacific Northwest (or even, more pointedly, a preferred term for); likewise the Salish Sea but with a much less convincing sell-job and also the place is too much in people's faces, unlike "the Great Bear" whichis the size of New Brunswick or whatever; can't even come up with a single name for it, too, because it spans so many different bits of island and different reaches of water. Princess Royal is the mainstay of it, and the most important part (and amazingly rugged for something with low relief...) but despite the nice ring it's only that island, and it's very un-p.c. I have a similar bitch with South Chilcotin, which sadly has caught on despite being incorrect and incorrectly derived; yes part of the Chilcotin Ranges but not part of the Chilcotin; it's gotten so bad adjoining areas to the south and east, even Lillooet, have been dubbed as being in the Chilcotin. "City geographers" I call it - "here, let's give this area a name as it doesn't have one". As someone I know up in Lillooet says about this kind of thing, re bivouac.com giving things names without any local context, the landscape "doesn't need names; it's what it is". There's other examples, but Salish Sea strikes me in the soppy category; so does Great Bear Rainforest, but that one we're stuck with now.Skookum1 05:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
i.e. sloppy geography comes up; the article said it was in "southwestern british columbia"...it's typical of the fuzzy writing that's around in envirobumpf....I won't go into other examples but the point is the drawing of lines and pasting names on the map from a distance has always been a mistake-making exercise; and this area's designated outline is a political boundary like any other when you stop to think about it; just not that or the ruling politick, but they've gotten the ruling politick to acknowledge the term, which is something I guess.Skookum1 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Some swordfighting to come over the term's origins. I expect a lot of the contributors who created that article will be none too happy with it being labelled as a recently created marketing term, which is of course, what it is. But one that has sadly, imo become recognized by the public consciousness, if not precisely mapped out (which is what I'll try to establish through LRMP sources &etc.)--Keefer | Talk 06:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well like I said there's a need for LRMP articles also ;-| but in all cases of such terms, whether hyphenations like Tatshenshini-Alsek for the "BC Panhandle" (as I've always called it) or Muskwa-Kechika or "South Chilcotin" (a contraction of Southern Chilcotin, full name should be Southern Chilcotin Mountains which is what the province had it named for a while; it's the Spruce Lake Protected Area again now (Spruce Lake-Eldorado Wilderness/Study Area was its name for a while in the '70s). Dates of provenance, and who coined the term, are fair game. What are they trying to claim -that the name is "from time immemorial" or something? They tried to pitch the Randy Stoltmann Wilderness too; that's now the [][Upper Lillooet Protected Area]] and nowhere near the scale they imagined; and really 40 years too late to pitch; as it is the "South Chilcotin" has been being pitched for park status for the '30s and it's still not. anyway, later....Skookum1 06:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at my comments on Talk:Great Bear Rainforest; added the template there and also to put the fly in the ointment the northamnative template; although if we do that then all LRMPs, if there are articles for them, should have them; well, the TCs and bands usually are part of the LRMP mechanism; much more than the RDs, which they're "outside" of and don't participate in.Skookum1 06:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

SS Enterprise

Hi again, just figured I'd ask about the name before I start an article on this boat, which I'll do after I finish with Hazelton. I wanted to get these towns that are heads and terminus's of navigation on these two rivers done first. Then I figured I'd do the ship articles in order, oldest to newest, by region. SS Enterprise isn't taken, although I'm sure there are others out there, I noticed a couple online. So should I just use that or get more specific SS Enterprise (sternwheeler)?CindyBo 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and do I put those wikiproject British Columbia and wikiproject Ship tags on the captain's and ship's talk pages too, as I start each one?CindyBo 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For a laugh

See Talk:Sinclair Centre. Think I need a wikibreak soon...--Keefer | Talk 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Central/Northern Interior

I believe the Northern Interior refers to everything from Quesnel up right to the borders on every side, excluding only Prince Rupert as it's on an island. [1]. Central Interior is definitely Prince George and its surrounding area, and then there are many other regions within the Northern Interior. I'm not sure exactly where the regional borders are, I think it depends on the purpose we're talking about, forestry, electoral, etc more than anything. So it's not unusual to see Prince George referred to as either Northern or Central, both are true, it just depends on how specific you want to be. I also read your comments on my user page about the towns along the GTP route, yes there are a lot of them, mostly forgotten now. I think one was planned for every five or six miles or so, either by the GTP or a land speculating company. I have some info on a few of them, can't find Birmingham yet. Quick and Hubert and a few other like that. Some were roadhouses, brothels or unlicensed hotels (or all three at once) and tough to track down. And yes, I did start the page on Simon Gunanoot, I didn't notice that it was on your page until yesterday, or the day before, when I poking around on other people's pages looking at user page formats. I didn't mean to barge in on your to do list, especially on something you have a lot more knowledge on than I do. I was wrapped in the Hazelton, British Columbia article which, of course, closely concerns Gunanoot, Cataline, Cline etc. I used Sperry Cline's version of the Gunanoot events rather than some others that I've come across that seemed... wrong somehow. There are some wild versions out there, very contradictory.CindyBo 20:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All versions should be mentioned/cited, as much as possible; it's the whole point of NPOVism, to make sure everything is covered; in the course of pre-research on this it was interesting how much material there actually was, as well as conflicting bios. Even in wildly-wrong stories there can also be useful/relevant factual detail that's absent from others; so integrating verifiable facts as well as recounting false rumours/reporting are both in the ballpark.Skookum1 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too, in some of the more outlandish tales the dates were often right etc, where the sensible seeming ones written by people who were there had wrong dates or whatever. What's unfortunate is how even the local newspapers can't be fully trusted, some journalists made things up as they went along: if you look back on the local Titanic articles dated a couple days after it sank, it gets quite amusing, names wrong, everyone survived and so on. I'll dig up whatever references I can on Gunanoot and add them. There's an online bio too,[2] that seems quite accurate, barring the Kitsegas error, but then it goes into some theories about Louis Riel and aboriginal resistance and everyone knowing where Gunanoot was all along... I'll add the reference to the article and leave it up to the experts, because I'm not sure what to make of it. I got in way over my head on that one. Anyway, back to Central Interior for a second, I will amend what I said a few minutes ago, although Prince George considers itself to be the Central Interior, for some purposes it isn't,[[3]] and can go much farther south than I realized. Some of these regional lines are quite subjective, I guess.CindyBo 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

About Mark Dalton

Hey, I saw it spelled "Jeramy James Sons" on the information page where he was arrested for something. Type the name into Google, and you'll see what I mean.
--69.137.135.33 01:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did find it weird as well at first. I couldn't believe it myself it was spelled that way.
--69.137.135.33 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

Always enjoy running across your comments on talk pages. They're always extremely informative and interesting. I learn a lot, so thank you.

I'd give you a barnstar, but I'm afraid I'm not finding anything suiting, so this'll have to do. Cheers. RichMac (Talk) 09:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Mine (above) can be from both of us, then. And of course, you're absolutely right.--Keefer | Talk 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Just ran across an old comment on Talk:Lajoie_Dam. I assume you've learned long ago that you can tag multiple stubs. And I'm sure you've learned how to sign your posts. Thought it was good for a lark though. Cheers. RichMac (Talk) 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham

I'll have to go get that book, because I do recognize the reference to Birmingham now, it's mentioned in Rev Runnals, History of Prince George. Fort Salmon still exists as a farming community of Salmon Valley and Willow City is a couple of trailers and two or three houses. I certainly envy that era their optimism. I remember reading that the GTP said that Prince Rupert was going to be much bigger and more important than Victoria because its Oriental shipping lines are 500 miles closer and all that. They commissioned Francis Rattenbury to build a hotel for there that would be bigger and better than the Empress and also wanted him to build Chateau Mount Robson, Chateau Miette and the Jasper Mountain Inn. A person has to wonder what this part of the province would've been like if any of those would've been built.CindyBo 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Direct answer: the downturn caused by World War I, from which BC never recovered, not really, is at fault. Likewise the grand days of settlement in the Thompson, Kootenay and Okanagan, as with the whole gilded age worldwide but here with a special wild-country charm like, of course, nowhere else, plus a self-conscious Britishness in some places like Walhachin (which needs a better write-up) and the genteel orcharding society in the Okanagan and spa-and-steamer society life on the lakes. Northern BC might have swung up more if Prince Rupert had turned into a real city (as if it had room, but neither does Vancouver; Terrace is more likely for a North Coast metropolis just because of available valley-floor real estate....provided it's more than 60m above current sea level I guess); consider if there'd been actual industrial/commercial development throughout BC, instead of just resource exports - all the spin-off industries and what comes out of that, which is greater metropolitanization and urbanization; could have easily happened, and of course has begun to in PG, Kelowna, Kamloops; but that whole Omineca-Prince George area, with all its space, looks ominously Los Angeles-izable in the long run, given current population/immigration trends. Lots of room for freeways ;-) Just kidding. But yeah, a lot of the dreamers and visionaries in pre-Great War BC had amazing dreams; if not for the War, many of them would have continued coming true...what a grand place this would have been...(instead of a fleeting memory of one).Skookum1 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen the little mini-chateaux built of timber; e.g. the North Bend Hotel, the *Balfour, British Columbia|Balfour Hotel, the Sicamous Hotel or Mount Stephen House in Field; I linked those on the Canadian Pacific Hotels article and on the Balfour and Sicamous pages maybe; don't think there's a North Bend page yet nor one for Field. Similarly all the CPR railway stations are highly photogenic, even the prefab/generic models. They don't build 'em like that anymore....the Prince of Wales is the largest of the style - timber-chateau I call it - but some of the others looked pretty neat/ the PoW actually looks a lot like the GN ones in MT come to think of it; Balfour and Sicamous were a lot smaller. I suppose Railway hotels in British Columbia might be a worthy topic, or another glorified table-list.Skookum1 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also read "that had the Titanic not sank and Charles Hays not died, he could've saved the GTP and made sure those hotels had been built, because he was a brilliant financier with big London connections,". Fairly,unlikely I suppose.CindyBo 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Such twists of fate and unwound destinies attend all disasters, especially high-profile ones; also the SS Pacific, for instance, and the aforementioned Sophie, and the Mount Slesse aircrash also (my uncle was on it).Skookum1 02:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read about the SS Pacific before somewhere, but not the Mount Slesse plane crash. It's funny how everyone can quote the story of Titanic chapter and verse, but other disasters, and more recent and local ones, are rarely mentioned. Hollywood strikes again, I guess. And perhaps how some of us as Canadians have a tendency to know more American history than we know our own. When I first started researching the Great War, I was frankly surprised at just how much Canada and British Columbia was involved from the very start, and how devestated we were as a country and province afterwards.CindyBo 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise

Yes, I noticed another when I was on BC Archives looking at pictures, I just found another picture of the one you mean, looks like I lucked out on the name, the other's a sidewheeler.[4] As to the article though, 1863, that's just Cariboo Road like I said or was it Old Cariboo Road still?CindyBo 07:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be interesting trying to figure out what was where when, but at least all of the 12 upper Fraser ones redlink on such and such (sternwheeler), I checked on my user page. And I didn't really want to go SS on them anyway because neither Art Downs or Willis West refers to any of them as SS. Hopefully this will all come together a bit more as more ship articles are created. The next one I was going to do was Blin Wright's Victoria (sternwheeler), there's probably a dozen more of those too, but at least Art Down's is clear about both of these two Blin Wright ships being built, used and wrecked/abandoned on the upper Fraser, so there isn't too much confusion yet. There sure will be some later though. Oh, I just saw your Overlanders suggestion. That's a good idea, I have some info on that around here somewhere, and can find more. So Overlanders (British Columbia) would be the right title? Oh saw second message, do a redirect too. Haven't done one of those yet, but that's what the help desk is for.CindyBo 08:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the BC-Map-Place link, it's already in my bookmarks. Cheers. --Qyd 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Carrier First Nations

I think I'd be a bit lost trying to do that one. I know very very little about that except for a tiny bit of history on some of the towns/settlements in question. I can ask around up here though, I know quite a few people who might have some of that information. Maybe Fishhead64 might be able to help, he seems to do some Northern related articles. I ran across him on the Prince George Talk Page.CindyBo 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't dump all this stuff in your lap alone; I already clutter up the wikiproject talkpage with my musings, and the article requests page, and certain subpages run by bobanny and keefer4 with other article requests, and my own make-work/think-big sandbox area, too; Fishhead might click in; easiest thing to do though would be to pick up the local native newspaper or hit one of the friendship centres and just ask; or better yet at the friendship centres see if their computer person has some recruitable as a wikipedian who'd like to "engage the machine"; there are quite a few aboriginal wikipedians, even here in BC (most articulately, and new like yourself, User:OldManRivers), so they'd have sympathetic company/support; it's not like it's totally white man's turf at all. I barely knew my way around Shuswap and Tshilhqot'in and Kwakwaka'wakw other band councils and tribal councils when I made those templated stubs, too (see First Nations in British Columbia); the templates/stubs are purely mechanical to make, unless some specific is known like in teh case of the Lheidl T'enneh their recent rejection of the treaty deal (though "recent" is a word not to be used in Wiki articles); it's an "if you have time" thing to create the stub-articles; the only research needed is what the current composition of the tribal councils is; I've got different web pages with different rosters for each of the Carrier Sekani and Carrier Chilcotin councils, for instance....and there may be associations of the other bands not in either of those councils that would be mentioned in the PG paper (or phone book?) but not down here.Skookum1 04:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about the Friendship Center too, and I know a few people who know a lot of First Nation's history and how everything is organized. And some of them would love working on wikipedia. I'll definitely ask around. It's funny, a person thinks they know quite a bit of local history until they get on here and then it's oops I didn't know this and I don't know much about that... and I was down-right wrong about the other thing, it's certainly a learning experience, especially as you go into unknown territory. But I like working on different subjects and getting new suggestions, otherwise I'd get stuck in a rut, and circle around the same topics forever.CindyBo 06:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

John Houston

I had to grab A Thousand Blunders history of GTP in Northern BC, because our local history just concerns him as owning our first paper in South Fort George. He had the first newspaper in Prince Rupert too. He despised both the CPR and the GTP and used these papers to call them out on some of their policies, called them tin-gods and so on. He was a huge name as a pioneer around here. In A thousand Blunders, it says he was the Mayor of Nelson during 1890's and a member of the Legislative Assembly during the Dunsmuir era and supported a move to cut off provincial aid to railroads, an attitude that got him barred from cabinet in 1903. In 07 he moved to Rupert and started his newspaper, once the railroad locked his printing press up in a railcar and he had to go get the police to get it for him. He wrote a particularly nasty poem about them, (the GTP not the police) first anonymously, then openly. The railway bought the lot his newspaper was on in 1909 and he showed up here and died a year later of pnuemonia being dragged on a tobbaggan to Quesnel hospital, as we didn't have one then. I don't know about his past before Nelson though. I can dig around, though. And we just say Houston like the Texas one.CindyBo 19:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and on the topic of hotels, what, if any, historical significance did the Castle Hotel in Vancouver have? One of our other founding fathers of that era left here in '14 and bought it. That's Al Johnson and his hotel here was the Northern. At times, during rail construction he'd sell $7,000 worth of drinks in one day (at 25 cents each), longest busiest bar north of Chicago and so on, you know how they used to talk.CindyBo 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's true that's notable all by itself. Most old hotels in Vancouver are getting historical articles either because they are historical or they're part of the current SRO controversy; the Castle's pretty notable but I don't know it's history; it was one of the classic and most popular beer parlours downtown - "Michael's" in its last days.Skookum1 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a great website about our John Houston right here: [5]. It seems unfair to call him a politician, newspaperman seems to suit him better.CindyBo 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NB he would nonetheless get both cats; also as an elected politician/mayor there's another cat that any article on him should have. And depending on where he's from/ethnic background, there's the "people from" categories and also "Canadians of xxx descent" etc.Skookum1 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so does John Houston (newspaperman) make the best title? I may as well do an article on him today/this evening as I have all this stuff out on my desk now anyway.CindyBo 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just read his bio on that link from houston.ca and I'd say newspaperman for sure.....Skookum1 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Rock Springs Massacre

Thanks for all your help on Rock Springs Massacre, it got GA, some more work and onto FAC, woo hoo! Thanks to your comments I still have some sorting out to do, but the article will soon shine beyond GA criteria. Thanks again, very much appreciated. : ) IvoShandor 07:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I am truly sorry to hear that you may never return, you helped me out immensley. People should calm down, in general, Wikipedia included. What can I say. Feel free to drop in the article as an anon or whatever and check it out. I have some other sources on the take on events and plan to condense some stuff and remove some stuff that doesn't really belong in the article, it will continue to improve. Have a good summer, sounds like an escape from technology. : ) Thanks again. IvoShandor 07:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, as much as I find the chattering trolls and sophomores who think they can write well (writing well does not mean you make sense....), it's much more a matter of time and personal energy/career activities/goals that's pulling me away; I'm a Wiki-addict and was a net-addict before I found Wiki (digitizing millions of lat-long points for http://bivouac.com's database took up about 3 years of my time, unpaid....) and I do have books that need writing; and yeah, my POVness and outspokenness and mud-in-the-pool style of debate aren't welcome around the prissy halls here, although even brutal admins have learned to give me my space ("my culture", as I maintain it is...). What's really boiling down is that I'm having to move, and the struggle to survive this summer means I may not be able to have a place that has internet and/or I'll be plugging at my career stuff and also scrambling to make a living (Vancouver's a deepening hellhole of real estate madness and overpriced consumerist idolatry...). There's whole reams of work I'd still like to do on Wikipedia - if someone could pay my rent and buy groceries and make sure I have respectable spending money for socializing etc, but that's not likely anytime soon (if I was more p.c. I could have applied for heritage grants years ago; but such grants invariably come with political baggage, and their application forms look like welfare of other bureaucratic-nightmare gobbledy-gook, so I've just "never gone there". I'd rather write with a clean conscience, even if an empty belly (figuratively speaking; I'm anything but underfed, for now anyway ;-0). Let me leave you with a couple of maxims of mine, which will make it on my new userpage once I get around to finishing it (before I leave); in amidst others from Twain and Wilde and Barney Miller's "Fish" character (Abe Vigoda) here are two of mine, the first not so poetic/pithy but maybe I'll polish it a little with time; it came out of "that AFD" and a few others:
  • "An article written from a politically-correct perspective or using politically-correct language is inherently POV." - Skookum1
  • "The opinions of ten fools do not make a fact" - Skookum1 (actually from a personal imbroglio, not Wikipedia....).

It's been fun....but there's other kinds of fun to be had; many of them not headache-producing. Skookum1 08:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That second maxim might as well be in reference to all the people who "cite, cite, cite" while constructing articles composed largely of nosense or POV-tellings; "hiding behind cites" is one of my most hated things in Wikipedia; the furtherance of p.c.-ness and other agendas by selective-evidence and selective-citing, etc. etc. I won't miss it....Skookum1 08:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, good luck with your books, what do you write about? Can I find them? As for the Wiki, I have been trying not to get bent out of shape about it too much, it only works to a certain extent. I have managed to contribute some interesting stuff on some obscure topics, so I like that and it fits right in with my own interests. Verifiability vs. truth, there in lies a conundrum that is sure to plague this project for the forseeable future, the way I see it as the project evolves its goals will change, maybe I am too idealistic, who knows, one can hope. Best of luck to ya, I know all about scratching to get by. And thanks for the maxims. : ) IvoShandor 08:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh and hiding behind cites, that's something that there isn't being enough done to flesh out, perhaps in the future, WikiProject:Remove POV citations and assertions. : ) IvoShandor 08:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And I should add that this applies in academia and regular publishing even more. The twisted things I've come across from people with degrees, or endorsed by them, are shockingly bad yet I find more of them all the time; pretentious wheedling and concealing of evidence in order to advance a particular agenda/ideology. I could "start in" on any number of examples, but take a deep breath and look at my comments on Talk:History of Chinese immigration to Canada concerning the lies told by the chinese Canadian National Congress (a PRC-backed organization with no real connection to the historic Chinese community in Canada but which led the political charge on the recent Head Tax Redress, partly on the basis of the BULLSHIT version of history they put on their website, which is "uncited but gets cited" - the reason it's uncited is because their version of events is uncitable, i.e. unfactual. But that doesn't stop them from getting airtime, or white-guilt tongue-clucks from academics and journalists, who repeat the lies and distortions, and don't even bother to read other acconts of the same events because, apparently, they can't be taken seriously because they were written by people of the wrong race or gender. I'm serious; this is the kind of response you get for trying to talk common sense, and for pointing out someone's hypocrisy rather than answer to it they'll claim you're a racist, etc etc etc. Don't need it anymore, but given our exchanges on your article you'd be well advised to know that others don't like my take on the history of the Chinese in Canada etc etc; I'm so riled about the false myths/history that's been foisted upon an unsuspecting public; lately I've browsed through various well-known local histories on thte chinese in BC, looking up towns I know that had Chinese stories attached to them; NOTHING, except for one or two mentions of Chinese being beaten up and driven out of town (in my ex-hometown of Lillooet's case, that would be the two claim-jumpers...or the Chinese who disturbed native fishing sites and got pounded by the Indians....the book in question Saltwater City mentioned the beatings as if all Chinese had been driven from Lillooet; when in actuality the town's non-native population stayed at between 30 and 50% for the next seventy years; similarly a post-modern historians' analysis of anti-Chinese British Columbian history talks about how the Chinese were driven off the Tulameen Gold fields in the later 1880s. I used to buy into that, thinking it was a reaction to the Chinese barring all other miners in the Cayoosh Gold Rush (one of the big success stories of the Chinese in Canada that, for some reason, they'd rather not talk about and would in fact apparently prefer to hush up...as the mythology is one of suffering, not of prosperity), but just this last week I read a very thorough piece on the Tulameen......and there was not one mention of anti-Chinese violence, but rather a town (Granite Creek, British Columbia, which I haven't written an article for yet) that was at least 30% at its onset and at its peak was up around 50% Chinese, and remained with similar proportions of Chinese until the town's destruction by fire. Simlarly, Richfield and many other towns were between 1/3 chinese - Richfield for many years entirely Chinese - but there is no mention of the goldfields successes; what you get instead is the myth/lie that the chinese were forced to work claims left by white miners and that few made any money, and that whites were always mean to them. Not in the British Columbia Interior, no way, despite the place's redneck reputation. Such stuff is completely codswallop, but government-funded and highly-respected in academia because of the alphabet soup following the names of authors....so anyway, that's the flip side of Skookum1 and maybe a bit chastening for you - the white bogeyman rears his head - but at least it gave me an opportunity for a classic "Skookum1 rant", as certain foes of mine like to complain whenever I write anything longer than their attention span can handle...Skookum1 08:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And no, that's not a book I want to write; similar diatribes against major published histories of BC, not just on that one topic-area, are also bugbears for me; but I don't want to spend a writing career tearing apart other peoples' writing. Other than who-knows-what in fictional writing (more scifi oriented than literary/depressing, but my background is poet - http://www.cayoosh.net/poetry) I'm planning, or have been planning for years, a book on the Lillooet Country; the 150th Anniversary of the town, and of the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush which spawned it, is a major topic interest for me; a part of the province whose story has never been much told outside itself (BC has a lot of self-contained cultures, isolated by mountains etc); but despite having all the time in the world this last winter (which I spent on Wiki) I still haven't written it and have other creative energies a-boil (I'm a songwriter); other writings of mine you can find on http://thetyee.ca in the Forums area on some articles, where I'm also Skookum1; hard to find which articles though; contemporary politics (BC, Canada, world), environmental jeremiads (I was predicting current climate changes and climate behaviour back in....oh, 1973 or so...) and occasional bouts of self-expurgation all call to me; what will spill out in bookform is anybody's guess (those grants I was bitching about always want to know what you will write, as if you can know....). I've been thinking, though, of The Collected Skookum1, which would be a compendium of various Wikipedia and Tyee materials and related bits; I use Skookum1 as a trolling name here in BC because politics is so vengeful here and "the authorities have many faces"; a lot of people on The Tyee also pseudonymize; it's a necessity here if you want to speak your mind openly; long story, but suffice to say the authoritarian bent in the old colonial order hasn't fully gone away, and "forelock-tugging" and "keeping one's mouths shut and looking the other way" might as well be events at the Canada Games.Skookum1 08:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OH, here's my main Lillooet site - http://www.cayoosh.net and my music site, such as it is (old stuff), http://www.cayoosh.net/music. http://www.cayoosh.net/hiyu is my chinook Jargon vocabulary site (which grew out of a UseNet flamewar, like the Lillooet site, because some twerp in HK (who hated me for speaking to the Tibetan cause...) was trying to insist that I invented the Chinook Jargon as a lie to back up my arguments, and that (in another thread) there is no desert in British Columbia...funny how things come full-circle....Skookum1 08:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, best of luck, you will be missed, let me know before you go? Haven't checked out the websites yet but will do so in the very near future. Thanks again. IvoShandor 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Skookum

I'll always have time for you, my dear, dear Skookum :) I do not want to reply to you in a rush, tho, so I'd rather write you a long email like you deserve. Please, check your mail later, k? It saddens me a lot to think you're leaving, and not simply because the project will lose greatly, but because I don't want to lose my friend. Please, let's talk about this more privately, shall we, hun? I've missed you too much to let you go just like that. Hugs, Phaedriel - 08:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Phaedriel; I can tell you things in email about what's going on that I'd rather not post here for various reasons....but you might want to read the preceding posts above to User:IvoShandor about some of my issues that transcend Wikiworld; I've perserved through some amazing battles, and none too much worse the wear; even polished and honed now, i.e. it's done my writing/thinking lots of good, and I've learned more about my own province's history and people(s) than I ever could have gotten from that silly degree I went back to finish, only to drop out again when I figured out the professors had not a clue what they were talking about, and the papers they were having us read had even less of a clue. So don't weep for me, dearie, I'll be out in the Big Bad World hopefully creating all kinds of citable havoc in the future (near or otherwise).Skookum1 09:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I can appropriately post under this title :) Thank you for your good wishes. As I mentioned on my page, it came as a bit of a bolt from the blue, but now I am getting excited about working on improving Wikipedia, helping to protect a valuable enterprise from those who thoughtlessly or deliberatly try to undermine its value as a source of reliable information. More importantly, however, I am writing to beseech you to reconsider leaving WP - at least consider doing what I've done in the past, and consider taking an extended Wikibreak. Your contributions to BC history have been extensive and invaluable, and the loss of that skill and talent to Wikipedia would be unfortunate, to say the least. If there's any way I can be helpful, please let me know. Fishhead64 17:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, saw you at the Charlotte (sternwheeler) a while ago. I read these last few messages on your page and can only add my agreement with Fishhead and Phaedriel: wikipedia, wouldn't be the same without you. I learned as much from reading your comments on some of the talk pages of articles as I did from the articles themselves. I understand where you're coming from though. I haven't written a sentence for myself in weeks. I'm sure somewhere there's a List of wikipedians who can't get anything else done because of wikipedia. It is very time consuming, as you have mentioned before. Before, you go, though, (temporarily, I hope) feel free to give me some more suggestions and whatever touch-ups you'd like to see done on some of this Northern BC stuff and I'll plod away at it.CindyBo 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

I didn't lnow I could be emailed from my WP account. I've now set that preference. fishhead64 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, thank you for the book offer. It's very kind, but I think I shall decline. I've sworn off acquiring more books until I read the ones I have. At least some of them. fishhead64 06:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, like I implied I'm dodwnsizing (more in the email I haven't quite written yet) - you wouldn't believe the books I've taken to MacLeod's to flog; never mind all the ones that got burned from my storage a few years ago, and more lost along the way over the years. Someone somwhere once commented that it's no great brag to have a "personal library of 10,000 books", say in a big mansion; there's a physical limit on how many you can read in your life, that's far below that...but it's all dead weight; I browse my history stuff because it's around (and having eidetic memory that may explain my, er, voluninous tendency towards "too much information"....I remember everything I read, even if I only scanned it; I may not have gotten in quite right ;-) but I know if it's something important; BTW I just happened to find, for instance, a news clipping from seven years ago about the hornswloggle on the Alaska Boundary Dispute; as you can see on Talk:Alaska Boundary Dispute I mentioned that TE Roosevet had threatened war; none of the Americans on that page had heard of it; but I just found the cite, so will be addding it before I'm gone...amazing what you find when you're going through stuff to throw out....more in the email.....Skookum1 06:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mount Brew

Hi Skookum1, I noticed the multiple messages you left at the talk page of Mount Brew (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), all presumably addressed to Black Tusk (talk · contribs) who created that page. He originally intended that page to refer only to the 5700 ft volcanic peak near Mount Cayley, and not any other Mount Brew. See the first edit of 25 Jan 2007 for proof. Black Tusk is a well-meaning schoolkid who creates dozens of volcano articles, always completely without references (and often as copyvios as well, many instances have been reported to admins). His usual source for the Canadian volcanoes is the GSC website http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/volcanoes/index_e.php . I can see how his early edits resulted in confusion about the subject of this article.

Now you have repurposed that article to refer to a different Mount Brew, taller but completely nonvolcanic, and so the article has major factual errors, which is not good. The best solution is to change that article back so that it refers only to the 5700 ft volcanic peak, then rename it to Mount Brew (Cheakamus River). This is the only way to preserve the edit history properly. Then create a new Mount Brew (Lillooet Ranges) article about the 9400 ft mountain, and change Mount Brew to a dab page with links to the separate articles.

I would be happy to do this procedure, but thought you might like the honor of creating the Mount Brew (Lillooet Ranges) article since you appear to have an interest in it. I'll go ahead and do it myself soon if I don't hear from you. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like my message just missed you, so I went ahead and did the first part of the procedure. The article was changed back to a volcano article, moved to Mount Brew (Cheakamus River), and then Mount Brew made into a dab page. I did not move the talk page, so all of your comments are still at Talk:Mount Brew as they should be. I hope it's not too much trouble for you to grab the text needed for the new article Mount Brew (Lillooet Ranges) from within the history at Mount Brew (Cheakamus River). Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 22:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually there was some confusion in my initial talkpage post; because of the range/location designation used I'd thought he was talking about Mount Brew (Cheakamus River) in that article; but the data is for Mount Brew (Lillooet Ranges); it was the "Garibaldi Ranges" location that threw me; the Lillooet and Garibaldi Ranges are "sister ranges", flanking the Lillooet River; the Mount Brew by the Cheakamus River isn't in them, but it's at Garibaldi, Briitsh Columbia and there were other summits - Cayley maybe - that had previously been given Garibaldi Ranges. I'm sure you know them but heres' the "bivouac diambiguation page" for Mount Brew and here's its data - obviously 1727m is a lot different than 2891m. Would you mind building it? I need to build a whole slew of Lillooet Country articles in the next week, before I "book off", so my time is very limited. BTW I dno't feel one little bit guilty about copying bivouac date; not just that it's TRIM/GEMS to start with, but I inputted most of it ;-). BTW not sure if other mountains beginning with "Brew-" like Brewer and Brewster should maybe also be on the disambig; probably a-stylistic but you know how people are....Skookum1 05:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
PS after reading the rest of you post, it is my understanding that the Mount Brew just S of Lillooet is volcanic; eruptive only, as there's supposedly a cone/crater up there and it is very domelike; can't remember where I saw that, I think in an old newpaper article on geology in the region, i.e why that area is so phenomenally fugged - "torn up and gouged" - and apparently some cataclysmic earthquakes associated with the eruption, whenver it was, are what brought down the big cliff face on the south side of Seton and also ripped open the terminal moraine where Seton Creek comes out now; and the big gorge itself was riven in the process; could have been journalistic hyperconflation, and he was confusing them with the Bridge River Cones, which I know did devastate the upper Bridge River basin, and there's volcanic ash all throug the Yalakom/Lower Bridge River; I'm not a vulcanologist so I don't know what's what up there; it's been thoroughly geologically mapped, that's for sure; the Bridge River Canyon is one of hte most complex bits of ore/mineral content I've ever seen, if you can find a closeup of it (BC MapPlace might be good). Anyway, just thoughts on that area; to my understanding Brew is a volcano, and erupted within the last 10,000 years sometime; could be a dud/local legend, I don't know; it doesn't fiure in local Indian lore as such....or not that they're telling anyway (the St'at'imc are very secretive about certain stuff). BTW are you a mountaineer/climber or more primarily a skier: just wondering who might take up the cause of Marble Canyon (Canada); I can provide some photos, but as it's a climbing spot I figure it's maybe better to collaborate with a climber; I guess I could just always finally start it and see who adds to it.....btw trying a link here to see if it exists Wikipedia:WikiProject Canyons....if not, might be a good idea, but I won't be around to take part; gonna do a List of canyons in the Lillooet Country though (about a dozen major ones, two dozen smaller ones....).Skookum1 05:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mount Brew near Lillooet is not volcanic, the one ref I have that mentions it says that the rocks near the summit at almost 3000m are 140 million yrs old, made of sandstone/mudstone, and contain fossils (Roadside Geology of Southern British Columbia, p.177). So it sounds definitely not volcanic.

As for the disambig page, I think it probably just needs the three named "Mount Brew", since people looking for Brewer/Brewster are unlikely to end up there. As for me, I'm mostly a ski mountaineer, I prefer doing ski ascents/descents of big mountains. Don't do much rock climbing anymore, since I mostly ski year round. I do enjoy mountaineering/scrambling/hiking in late summer when the skiing finally gets really bad, even up on the glaciers. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 00:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

excuse me?

I think if you look back you'll see that I said you are the only friend I have on wikipedia, not the reverse. I'm sorry you found that patronizing. - TheMightyQuill 04:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Skookum

Have a look at your mail, please. I'll be waiting. Hugs, Phaedriel - 09:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Iceland

Maybe you are interested in this project... --Michkalas 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kettle River (Columbia River)

Whoop, I just realized I basically undid an edit of yours on this page. It's true though that the USGS doesn't say "aboriginal" -- perhaps the sentence can be reworded to point out that its an aboriginal name without saying the USGS explicitly say that... ? Pfly 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

well, it's pretty obviously aboriginal which is why I changed it; "alternate" isn't quite the right term; I would have been specific if I knew which language it was from; territories overlap in this area, y'see....Skookum1 04:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh yea, it is pretty obvious. I'll change it back if you haven't beaten me to it. Pfly 04:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
not into 3RRs especially on "friendly edits"; and I'm curious now to which language it is; probably Okanagan but as stated it might be Sinixt; Colville and Sanpoil are dialects of Okanagan like Similkameen; according to the Okanagan people so is Sinixt, from http://www.syilx.org/history-origin.php
“ The syilx Territory had eight organized districts. All speak syilx and have the same customs and stories. They are one Nation and are now commonly called the Okanagan.

These are:

  • Southern Okanagan or senq’a?tikw
  • Northern Okanagan or suknaqinx
  • San Poil or senp?wilx
    • Colville/Kettle or senxwya?lpitkw
  • Arrow Lakes or s?alt’ik’wet
    • Slocan or sen?ickstx
  • Similkameen/Methowor smelqmix
 ”

Interestingly the Spaxomin are missing; they are part of the Northern Okanagan originally; and Arrow Lakes and Slocan together were Sinixt, not two groups; but these days the surviving Sinixt live in the multi-national Colville Agency, and a new hybrid language has emerged there. But what's puzzling me is what the -kwu ending is, as in the Lillooet/Shuswap/Thompson Salishan languages rivers tend to be somethign like -meen or -sheen (as in Similkameen/Tulameen and the old name for Lytton, Kumsheen - usually spelled Camchin now); -ko is an Athapaskan style ending for "river", as in Chilko, Taseko, Atnarko, Endako, Nechako......I guess the thing to do is post on Talk:Okanagan language and ask someone to identify/translate "Ne-hoi-al-pit-kwu". I'll see if it's mentioned in Teit's stuff on the Okanagan people, which I've got stored as TIFFs.....Skookum1 07:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked the (limited) sources I have and found no leads. A bit of google-ing makes it seems like the USGS got their "variant name" from the 1859 "US NW Boundary Commission", which I think was a survey of the 49th parallel. Two maps that use the name are mentioned at http://www.historicalmapsbc.ca/browse/map/id_1654/ and http://www.historicalmapsbc.ca/browse/map/id_1695/ -- but unfortunately the maps are not available. A curious google hit that I can't seem to figure more out about is this one -- which is apparently an excerpt of some longer text, saying things like:
"We encamped on the shore of a small lake called the Skarameep, where was a Skoyelpi village; I gave these savages several instructions and baptized their infants. In memory of my visit, they gave the name of Lefieyou Pierre. There is a small lake called Karamip on the map in this part of Washington. Father De Smet's movements would seem to point to Kettle lake and river, but the native name for the latter is given as Ne-hoi-al-pit-kwu."
Not sure what to make of that. Pfly 07:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Northern Interior Categories

I take it that you want these to be similar to the regional districts? Fraser- Fort George, Peace Country etc... but as categories and only the ones concerning the Northern Interior? At any rate I added Hudson's Hope, British Columbia and W.A.C. Bennett Dam to the Peace River Category and I should be able to figure out the others. Mackenzie, British Columbia considers itself to be part of the Fraser Fort George region, I don't know whether that should be a category in the Northern Interior or not. As for Yellowhead, and Mount Robson, Mount Robson seems better to me, Yellowhead seems to be more on the Alberta side, I think. I'm fairly new at this categorizing stuff, so I'll make sure I have this straight. The towns go in the specific minor categories like Peace Country, and the rivers, highways and whatever ever else that go over more than one region just go in the broader Northern Interior Category?CindyBo 00:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Robson Valley, I mean, not Mount RobsonCindyBo 00:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Category:Robson Valley then as I know in BC "Yellowhead Country" can mean all the way out to Prince Rupert, although that's only a tourism/highway marketing campaign of course; Prince George and Vanderhoof and Hazelton are not "in the Yellowhead"; but McBride and Tete Jaune Cache are certainly in the Robson Valley; for lack of any more suitable name; hopefully that's everything upstream from the McGregor River - ?? - to keep things simple. These aren't mean to be similar to RDs, which have all kinds failings as useful subdivisions as far as I'm concerned; see Category talk:Regional districts of British Columbia (or was that Talk:Regional districts of British Columbia? - I'm on so many pages at once I lose track) and Template talk:Subdivisions of British Columbia where I lay out the why and wherefore. I know Vanderhoof and Prince George and Fort St. James etc aren't in the Omineca or Bulkley.....would Category:New Caledonia work (that may go to the French colony, though, we'll see if it's bluelinked. And if i create Category:Nechako Country, what should I put into it, i.e. that aren't obvious like Ootsa Lake or the Nechako River?Skookum1 02:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
OK so Category:Nechako Country has been created - did I do that, or did you?? and Category:New Caledonia goes to the French colony; so for now I've just been putting PG into Category:Northern Interior of British Columbia, which contains the Omineca, Bulkley, Stikine, Cassiar, Peace and Skeena Countries so far, and I'll put Category:Robson Valley in it as well. Category:Central Interior of British Columbia needs definition yet; to me that's from Quesnel down to Ashcroft-Kamloops - ??Skookum1 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I just did Category: Nechako Country I was thinking Fort Fraser and Fraser Lake and everthing else east of Burns Lake, though not Burns Lake itself as it seems to be more Bulkey than Nechako. I also did Category: Robson Valley. That one's fairly straightforward anyway. I can probably find a few more things to add to it, Dunster, British Columbia doesn't seem to exist, but I can make it up quick. As for Williston Lake the consesus among a few people I asked is that it is in at least two regions, Peace Country, possibly Omineca and whatever Prince George and Mackenzie would be in.CindyBo 02:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Central Interior seems to be a very loose term and is used widely in Prince George businesses and government agencies, I counted 13 Central Interior such and such's in the PG phonebook... Central Interior Auctions, Central Interior Native Health Center and so on. Even Vanderhoof considers itself to be Central Interior to a certain extent. I categorized Vanderhoof in Nechako Country, I thought that made sense, for now. So I don't know what to say about Central Interior, maybe PG could be, but then there's Mackenzie and Vanderhoof, so I don't really know what makes the most sense.CindyBo 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at your Interior of British Columbia and I think I understand a bit better what you're trying to accomplish here. Realistic regions, right? So Mackenzie, could be Omineca, really, it does refer to itself as that in places, because of the nearby Omineca Mountains. What if Prince George is left in the Northern Interior, where by rights it probably should be, and we call it (and any little hamlet/village within 30 or so miles of here, Hixon, Bear Lake, ect...) Category:Prince George Country or something like that, there's plenty of articles (future and present) associated with Prince George and area, thereby leaving Quesnel as the uppermost limit of the Category:Cariboo Country of the Category:Central Interior of British Columbia where it belongs.CindyBo 04:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Keefer4 has a Canadian Press styleguide so we'll see what that says for Central/Northern Interior; doesn't surprise me that Vanderhoof has that, though, given its boast about being at the geographic centre of the province and all; all in all I'm not sure Central/Southern/Northern are all that definable; as noted elsewhere Kelowna considers itself "Central" and the Southern Interior federal riding is Trail-Nelson-Grand Forks, of all things (but that's a federal-created name/perspective). Omineca I guess I'd just like some kind of definition on; there used to be or still is "Prince George-Omineca" but I always took that to mean that Prince George wasn't in the Omineca itself, although Stuart Lake and environs would seem to be; Mackenzie is on the Peace-Fraser divide right? Wish I could find a map of the old Cassiar, Stikine and Mackenzie Mining Districts; think there was a Peace River Mining District, too....Skookum1 05:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like Omineca Country is as subjective as Central Interior. This redistributed electoral one [6] and this enviromental one here [7] are completely different and both are bigger than what I'd think is sensible. I'll keep hunting around anyway, I think you're right in that we'll need some older maps here.CindyBo 06:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a map of the Atlin Mining District in the BC Archives, but it's not online; it's also in JSTOR but JSTOR I don't belong to (someone here might, not sure who); I'll regoogle for other Mining Districts; the only two listed in BC Archives are Atlin and Hedley (Hedley had been part of the original Similkameen Mining District, established during the Similkameen Gold Rush).Skookum1 06:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempte to asssing Category:Greater Prince George to Category:Omineca Country......would that "sell"?Skookum1 06:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It might sell, seems like we consider ourselves to be everything in the book up here (except Southern or Coastal) :). Northern Interior, Central Interior, Omineca, Fraser, Nechako, Fort George, Prince George, North Cariboo and North Central have all been applied at times.CindyBo 06:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian's in the North

I'm working on the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast (Just looking at other articles, going over wikipedia conventions, and such). Do you have any recommendations for articles to look at? (Comment on your talk page, I'll see it) OldManRivers 09:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now presenting Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast. It's a start, but I've built it, let's see who comes. (I just realized that Indigenous peoples of North America is gone, which is weird. I wonder if anyone will want to be rid of my beautiful creation. Well, like the Tlingit fighting the Russia's, I'll fight to the very end!) I wouldn't expect you to do much on the article since I know your leaving, but, have look. It'll need much work but, hey, it's a start. OldManRivers 20:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dancing peanut butter jelly bean thingie

Image:PeanutButterJellyStar.gif

Because you asked so nicely, I, Kingboyk, hereby award you with a Dancing peanut butter jelly bean thingie. Enjoy! --kingboyk 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perkin's Pillar

Hi Skookum1, do you know if Perkin's Pillar is a volcanic neck? Black Tusk 04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but Seattle Skier might.....where is it again? I've heard of it....Skookum1 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a tower that sits on the steep north side of Capricorn Mountain. I was just thinking it might be a volcanic plug, since Capricorn Mountain is one of Mount Meager's volcanic peaks. Black Tusk 14:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably is then; as anything on Meager would seem to be volcanic in nature, no?Skookum1 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Steamboats/Vessels of the Lakes Route/Douglas Road

Re our conversation a couple days ago at Talk:Steamboats of the Upper Fraser River in British Columbia. Did you decide what you wanted me to do with that and what to call it? The Category:Northern Interior of British Columbia sub-categories are looking good. Though I'm not sure what to do with Aitlin, Liard or Nass. I'm off to work for a bit until 11pm, but I'll come back and see what your ideas are for that major ship article for Douglas Road and where we're going to sub-categorize PG at, if anywhere.CindyBo 20:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Greater Prince George is probably best....I just created a Robson Valley article and see the code-template I added to Category:Robson Valley; similar stubs for other category-names that don't have principal articles yet would be good; I'll try and get to the Vessels of the Lakes Route article, at least its component vessels and such if not a proper article, tonight; right now I'm too busy and have too many errands to do...(in the non-wiki world).Skookum1 21:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made that Category:Greater Prince George and populated it as best as I could, for now, I'm sure lots more can be added later. Anyway, I'm out of here until later tonight, so if you think of anything else, let me know.CindyBo 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Vessels of the Lakes Route

Is that "fitting a title in the opening sentence rule" carved in stone? Because it seems to be fine as you have it. Otherwise all I can think of is something rather redundant like... The Vessels of the Lakes Route is an overview of the variety of vessels that plied the Lakes Route in British Columbia, Canada from 1858 (wasn't it?) to 19?? (whenever the last one listed left). I can't do much with it today, I'm off to work this afternoon and the sternwheeler stuff I have at hand is more Northern related, but I'll pop into the library here tomorrow and find some suitable books on the sunbject, that I've ran across before. Anyway, did you want me to work on, or keep an eye on, anything else while you're gone, other then everything we've discussed already?CindyBo 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I'll summarize those later; just writing main articles for some of the new region subcats (see Stikine Country and maybe use it as a model for others like Atlin, Cassiar; but I'll stub-up Nechako for now. Books to look up are listed on the Lillooet and Douglas Road pages - by Lorraine Harris, Irene Edwards and Frances Decker; if Decker's not there the book is Pemberton: A History of a Settlement - it's more likely to be in libraries than Harris or Edwards, but those should/might be in the UNBC library; I have TIF-scan copies of both, though; email me (link at left) and I'll send you them if you like.Skookum1 20:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Important to create, and I suspect you may have more materials than I would; if I'd written them it would have been from clues in larger provincial histories, i.e. references in bios and accounts of other areas: Stikine Gold Rush, Peace River Gold Rush, Cassiar Gold Rush, Omineca Gold Rush, Atlin Gold Rush. Also Fort Stikine if you're so inclined :-).Skookum1 20:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It is looking at bit slim at our main library, not sure about UNBC, but the only book at the PG Library on Pemberton is Lillooet, Pemberton, Bridge River & Seton : prospecting and rock-hounding. So I will email you, if it's no trouble for you to send those files. As for the gold rushes, there's tons of material around, although Omenica has always been a bit of a mysterious one, it's alluded to everywhere and rarely explained in detail.CindyBo 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Never heard of that particular rock-hounding book (Dad was a rockhound). Re the Omineca Gold Rush, a short stub will do to unredlink it; I just couldn't even figure out the dates; would be nice to know who the Gold Commissioners for the Omineca Mining District were; and I'm thinking, as before, that the Mining Districts need their own articles as they don't necessarily coincide with the "Countries", e.g. there was a Hedley Mining District in the Similkameen, and the original one in the Boundary Country was the Rock Creek Mining District.Skookum1 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Decker you may be able to get on interlibrary loan easily enough; I'm wondering if there's anything in Father Morice about the gold rushes and steamboats? I haven't read his History of Northwestern British Columbia or History of the French in Western Canada (both of which the originals are in French and I think only the former has been translated). They're stock material in Carrier-people studies for sure.....btw care to write something on the Chinlac Massacre? - you know what that was, right? Could be combined with Chinlac as that's the only particular notability of the location; I don't think it's been inhabited since anyway....Skookum1 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I had History of Northwestern British Columbia for a while, and I think there was a little gold rush sternwheeler stuff, I'll go get it again and check. The Chinlac Massacre I've read about, though not in detail, just a blurb really, but as it closely concerns this area, I can find a bunch of material on it and I can see what I can do. Unless I'm on a specific mission, I have a bad tendency to skim over important history in my quest for amusing (naughty) history like the roadhouses and the outlaws and the Madames and all that. But, I'm sure there's tons of stuff on the Chinlac Massacre, our First Nation's history section at the library is very good.CindyBo 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Hume recently had a lengthy column on it in the Sun; might be in their recent archives still, which are so far non-subscriber.Skookum1 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Either the HBC/Gov Douglas or the RN/Admiral Baynes stationed a gunboat at the mouth of the Stikine at the onset of the Stikine Gold Rush; not sure which one of so many possibles it was, but whichever it certainly is notable as an artile; although ignored by the Yanks now and the river's mouth is silted in below the border (the mouth was at the border, by definition), but under the treaties with the Russians, and I believe even in the Hay-Herbert Treaty (Alaska Boundary Treaty) the Canadian/British right to navigation on the Stikine was supposed to be sacrosanct; the gunboat was an effort to prevent Americans from taking over hte Stikine; even though the Panhandle was still Russian. Hence also the importance of the Fort Stikine article (and also Fort Taku - I'm not sure if the Taku is its own "country" or considered part of the Atlin Country or the Stikine Country; keep your eyes open in any sources that mention it for clues.Skookum1 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember about reading that somewhere too. Again, I'll have to dig around. It's funny, but that gets me thinking of this other story, minor in comparison, but still of historical interest. The Battle of Kelly's Cut at Prince Rupert. Have you ever read anything on it? Anyway, in April, 1911, the Prince Rupert City Council "held a meeting, in absense of the mayor" and decided that they wanted the SS Rainbow to come up and threaten some city workers who were on strike. The warship never did come, but the city hired a bunch of extra policeman and incited a riot and shot at some of the workers, just to break the strike. The GTP was all mixed up in it too, as I recall, they didn't want city workers getting paid more than rail workers, as they couldn't keep the men they had and weren't allowed to hire Asians and that whole mess. Kelly's Cut could use an article too, I guess. So much to do, so little time. I should get going anyway, but I'll be back by 11.CindyBo 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
sounds like User:Bobanny's territory - labour history; I suggest you throw it by him, he may already hae some materials on it...thing is with what we're collectively achieving in Wiki is the largest and most varied and extensive coverage of BC's history that there ever will be, impossible in an ordinary book....Skookum1 01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Farewell

Take care and rest well. From behind the scenes; Mkdwtalk 10:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Likewise - it has been good working together on this project, and I've learned a lot about the province from you. I hope our paths cross again. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

hulh mulh-lhalh Skookum1. wa chexw yuu stenamut. (Be gone then, so you can turn quickly. Take good care of yourself) OldManRivers 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gone yet?

Hey Skookum If you're still around . . . I have undertaken a significant expansion/overhaul/source verification mission on Rock Springs Massacre, which has resulted in a new version of the article. Soon, I hope to take it to Featured Article candidates. What it needs now is some outside input and copy editing. Anything you can offer in the area would be helpful. You may want to start by taking a look at the talk page first, I have been updating my progress on the article there regularly. Thanks ahead of time for your help. IvoShandor 09:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Skookumchuck in East Kootenay

Ah, I see. I was misled by the existence of at least one Skookumchuck River in WA and hadn't heard the term applied to rapids. Wikibreaks are good for the mind! I've been trying to improve some of the PNW rivers that cross the US-Canada border (Kootenay, Pend Oreille, Okanogan, Kettle, etc), and getting drawn into purely BC rivers, like the various Kootenay tributaries. Our little exchange about the aboriginal name of the Kettle got me into it. Perhaps something for you to see after wikibreaking -- always fun to see your work, comments, etc. The language stuff is beyond me, if fascinating. I browsed some of the pages on the Lillooet and related languages (forgetting right now the proper name for "Lilloeet"). I was amazed by how different most of the basic phonemes are from English. And the transcriptions into the latin alphabet always look curiously alien. Reminds me of a trip some years back through Lillooet area and down to Squamish. Beautiful. Pfly 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thompson Indians

Hi, just in case you drop by, I have a question at Talk:North Thompson Indian Band, an article that you are (so far) the sole contributor to. -- Ngio 11:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

no; they are Shuswap (Secwepemc). The Thompson Indians spoken of by Teit are the Nlaka'pamux and partly the Nicola people (who are partly Nlaka'pamux ethnically); they are concentrated on the lower Fraser Canyon and the adjacent lower Thompson River (below Kamloops Lake, at the head of which is the city of Kamloops where the North Thompson River meets the South Thompson River (Kamloops means "rivers meeting" in Shuswap/Secwepemctsin); the Nlaka/pamux/Thompson name for Lytton, their historical "capital" (not politically) also means "waters meeting" - "Kumsheen" historically, now p.c.-spelled Camchin.Skookum1 03:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've copied your answer to Talk:North Thompson Indian Band. -- Ngio 14:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Salish Sea

I know you don't like the name "Salish Sea" as a term for the Georgia-Puget-Fuca waters (or at least find it too much of a neologism, and I agree), so I thought you'd enjoy hearing, if you don't know already, that "Salish Sea" is already an old variant name of Flathead Lake in Montana, near the Salish Mountains. The Flathead Lake page mentions it as "Salish Lake", but the USGS GNIS page on the lake gives the variant name "Selish Sea". This makes the notion of calling Georgia-Puget-Fuca "Salish Sea" even less desireable, it seems to me. Thought you'd find that interesting, that's all! Pfly 02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; good to know; ultimately Salish is a misnomer for all Salisan peoples other than the Flathead.... ;-) Skookum1 03:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Coming back to editing? Mkdwtalk 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Come back. heqs ·:. 14:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Grand Recuse temporarily in abeyance

Only temporarily. I'm staying at a cousin's in Oliver, British Columbia for about another week and have too much time on my hands (despite a swimming pool and satellite TV and 90 degree weather). Found out some stuff in the course of my travels/travails this last couple of months which I'll be adding, and also will try and amend my user page if I get the time/focus. Nobody get excited; I'm only back temporarily, unless manna falls from heaven to pay my rent/bills in a non-threatening fashion, i.e. so I can live/eat and not have to spend eight hours a day being someone else......Prepare for some firestorms, mebbe.Skookum1 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Great timing

No, I didn't know you were back, but I've been fairly busy myself and when I've been on here I've been working on the BX (sternwheeler), which Ken Walker and I just got promoted to Good Article today. You've got good timing. I've been expanding and citing Barnard's Express while I have all my sources out... so if you have any thoughts, I know that's one of your areas of interest. I've worked on quite a few things here the last while. Take a peek at Frank Swannell when you get a chance and let me know what you think. Oh, and Gustavus Blin Wright too. I didn't have much on Swannell past what the book covered, 1914, but I doubt he was idle, he certainly was not the type to swing his heels.CindyBotalk 05:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see your back... for a bit

Not to long after you left, I took a leave of absence. Just needed a wikipedia break and with summer coming up, I wanted to do more living and learning. Although once I get back I think I'll do some major work for some article. (Been reading more books and getting better at my writing skills.) Your messages have been good although I have not read the last one yet. I hope all is going well with you. OldManRivers 20:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Snyder Treaties

Hey, what's the deal with the Snyder Treaties you mentioned? I've never heard of them. An american making treaties during the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush, is that it? Where'd you read about them? Wikipedia could use a lot of work on its treaty (or lack thereof) history. Like the McKenna-McBride Commission and similar things. - TheMightyQuill 06:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And the Vowell Commission, and the O'Reilly Commission, and the Douglas Treaties, and so on. The Snyder Treaties are mentioned in nearly all histories that cover the Fraser Canyon War in any kind of detail (many don't at all, except very abstractly/indirectly). Capt. Snyder of the New York Volunteers and Capt. John Centras of the Austrian Company, two of the six irregular regiments formed in Yale during the Canyon War, made their way to a parley with Spintlum and the other Nlaka'pamux leaders at Kumsheen (Lytton, sp. Camchin today) and somehow survived not being slaughtered by the Nlaka'pamux (apparently due to Spintlum, who out-talked Pahallak and the other war leaders who wanted to wipe out the miners, who by the time they got there were mostly barefoot and starving). Terms were reached, to the satisfaction of both sides, and Snyder and Centras' companies returned to Yale with the news. When Douglas heard that treaties had been reached between the Nlaka'pamux and an American, he was mortified as it set a precedent in the absence of any British authority, and indeed of any British treaties on the Mainland (the Douglas Treaties were earlier on, a bit, and the Treaty 8 or whatever it is in the Peace/northeast involved an area that was not yet part of British Columbia). Accounts are in Dan Marshall's 2000 UBC Thesis Claiming the Land and also in Donald J. Hauka's McGowan's War. Neither of these says Douglas destroyed the treaties, although it's self-evident since Snyder presented an account/copies to Douglas when the Governor showed up in Yale shortly after the war's end and dressed the miners down; prob. the easiest account to find is in Hauka, and then look in his bibliography for that chapter for further sources. The terms of the treaties are unknown, although there may be Nlaka'pamux oral traditions about them; I've never seen or heard of such though. Like so much of early BC history, lost through obfuscation or outright censorship.Skookum1 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chasm and Fire Mountain

Hi Skookum1, glad to see your back, I just seen your discussion about The Chasm on the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts talk page a few days ago, what exactly is it, a lava formation? Also, about Fire Mountain.. Is this mountain located close to Atlin, British Columbia? Black Tusk 04:21, July 2007 (UTC)

Fire Mountain is just northwest of Port Douglas which is at the head of Harrison Lake; the massif south of it has summits like Ash, Embre etc. and it maybe is volcanic too, I wouldn't know. The Chasm is an eroded lava basin just NE of Clinton; not as impressive canyon-wise as even Marble Canyon or others in the area but much better promoted, partly because it's immediately adjacent to the route of the old Cariboo Road, not far off Hwy 97 also; over-promoted IMO. Part of a large plateau-lava formation that forms a box canyon, which the road limns the edge of. Maybe related to the Wells Gray/Mahood/Clearwater volcanoes, I'd think.Skookum1 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I found Fire Mountain on bivouac.com [8] which looks volcanic (to me anyways). Does The Chasm have any canyons formed by erosion? I would make an article, but I don't know anything about its history, etc. It's probably in the Chilcotin Plateau Basalts since that's where lots of basaltic lava is. I couldn't find anything about China Head Mountain being a volcano, but on bivouac.com there's a photo of it and looks like volcanic cones [9] (possible Pleistocene or Pliocene age but that's just my guess). On the Natural Resources Canada site, there are maps of the volcanic belts and fields [10]. Could you find out the location with those? Black Tusk 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There are hot springs in the area of Fire Mtn; one on upper Sloquet Creek, supposedly another at Fire Lake; you'd think that's where the name came from, but IIRC the name comes from a fiery sunset on it at sometime; you'll notice its "line parent" (in prominence terms) is Flicker, which is part of the Ember etc massif between it and Robertson. As for the Chasm, what it _is_ is a canyon formed by erosion. As for China Head, it's just those cones on top of it that mark it as potentially volcanic; Black Dome certainly is, and Big Dog Mountain looks like it might be (Big Sheep Mtn also looks like one, as do Poison and Red and French Bar Mtns). But the Marble Range isn't, and it's in between there and the Chasm, which is much closer to the Mahood/Clearwater area; one thing I remember from writeups about it is that the whole plateau around there was one big flow; but from where I'm not certain; I'd always assumed in connection with Wells Gray. Chasm I'll send you the coordinates for, it's easy enough (although just use BC basemap on maps.gov.bc.ca and search "Chasm" and you'll get it; if you use the Land and Resources Data Warehouse Catalogue, which is a glorified version of Basemap, it may have geological "tags" you can turn on.Skookum1 23:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on the Wilderness Committee's "Rainshadow Wilderness" video, which used to be online but now if for-sale-only, there's an aerial of what they misname "China Hat", the main cone formation on top of China Head; the stillpic may be somewhere in http://www.wildernesscommittee.org/campaigns/wildlands/chilcotin/reports/Vol17No05 but I couldn't find it right now.. I remember from looking at Mission Ridge from the top of the south ridge of Seton Lake, atop Cayoosh Canyon, that the top of Mission Ridge is full of weird looking bumps/cones, including the main summit Mount MacLean http://bivouac.com/MtnPg.asp?MtnId=7212 and also Mission Peak http://bivouac.com/MtnPg.asp?MtnId=1012

I don't think Big Dog Mountain would be a volcano because no Canadian volcanoes reach a hight of 2,862 m (9,390 ft). Mount Edziza is Canada's highest volcano, which reaches a hight of 2,787 m (9,144 ft). However, Mount Silverthrone has an elevation of 2865 m (9400 ft), but its elevation is not definitely known. Some references state an elevation as high as 3160 m (10,370 ft), but the current topographic map shows contours only as high as 2,865 m (9,440 ft), and no spot elevation is given. It addition, it is unclear whether the highest point is of volcanic origin or not, since the summit is covered with permanent snow and ice, and the composition of the underlying rock is unknown. Do you know anything about the Franklin Glacier Volcano and a peak called "The Volcano" [11]? Black Tusk 08:32, 04 August 2007 (UTC)

Christina Lake

I got a half decent start on Christina Lake, British Columbia. Still short on some history, and I didn't get to the Dewdney Trail connections and what-have-you yet... but the article's there now anyway. I'll add to it tomorrow and start Cascade City too.CindyBotalk 09:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thx; TW Paterson's Encyclopedia of Ghost Towns and Mining Camps in British Columbia has thorough coverage of all of the Boundary Country towns; in the volume (No. 2?) on the Boundary-Similkameen, that is, should be orderable on interlibrary loan; I had my own copy in Bby. The one that includes Lillooet-Bridge River is different but I noted some "off" bits in there, but generally that area's not covered so well; I think the reason the Boundary-Similkameen is so much better covered is there's been a lot more attention on that area, and Bill Barlee has done a lot of work popularizing the area. I walked up to Fairview, British Columbia last night - or where it used to be, and took a picture of the sign, though it's not easy for me to get pics off my phone; all that looks "old" up there is a zigzag log fence, the rest is sagebrush and it's a rural neighbourhood of Oliver now, with a bunch of vinyards around it. Should probably be an archaeological site, but not being either native or Chinese in nature it's unlikely to be designated as such and will probably wind up as vinyard (given enough water, which as you know is in short supply around here); the name Fairview is now used within Oliver to indicate the general neighbourhood, as well as the Fairview Golf Club, which was founded 1926 and is just south of the former town on a lower bench; and also surrounded by vinyards and orchards. BTW I put the Christina Lake "lake article" in the Boundary Country category, though it's dicey whether it should be in the West Kootenay or not; but often the whole Boundary Country is; at the same time as being included in the Okanagan in some reckonings (falsely). This is my last set of posts before recusing myself; I just got up and have to finish packing; next posts may be from Nelson, where I'll head after a day in Penticton on various errands and a visit to the Tibetan sand mandala ceremony at the Art Gallery of the South Okanagan; decided to roll east and follow my instincts rather than backtracking to Wells for the festival. Keep up the good work and you're on my newsletter list anyway; in the next few weeks I should be on the cross-country roll, '70s style, so next posts may be from anywhere, whenever I have the time/chance. Meant to do more this week but only so much time.Skookum1 15:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Coast Ranges

Hi, please see the talk page there. --h-stt !? 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sḵwxwú7mesh Name: "7" and pronunciation

Hi Skookum1. If you get a chance, please check out this talk page. OldManRivers 06:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Collins Overland Telegraph

Hey, you're back again! I left my comment on Talk:Kamloops, British Columbia, probably not that helpful... but those naming conventions are confusing as all get out and there seems to be no real consensus on what is "correct".

Anyway, last week, I finally got around to merging the existing Russian-American telegraph and Western Union Telegraph Expedition with a redirect from Collins Overland Telegraph, which created a confusing, rambling, essay style, POV, stub that I then had to rewrite from top to bottom. Before it was somewhat Alaska biased, but now, after I finished with it, it's hugely BC biased. But almost all the source material written on it is BC related. So, while the expedition had an enormous impact on BC, I have no idea how it affected Alaska, the Yukon, Russia, Washington Territory or Oregon. But that's not really my question anyway. One of the sources in the RAT article stated that the road from New Westminster to Yale was built for the sake of the Expedition. See page 28-31 of this master's thesis here. That detail alone makes the Collins Expedition far more important than I first figured it was. Any thoughts on what can and should be added to the article? Long as it is, I still feel that it is missing a few important points that I'm just not seeing.CindyBotalk 21:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Salish Sea and Strait of Georgia

Hi,

I was wading through the backlog and noticed that you put a merge tag on Salish Sea and Strait of Georgia. It seems that there was agreement to that on the talk pages.

Can you please perform the merge, if it is OK with everybody? You seem to be qualified for this job.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 22:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I'm on the road and not able to indulge this conversation much; I think if you suss around you'll note that Puget Sound also has a merge tag, or one of the two pages has a related merge tag; maybe it's Whulge, which like Salish Sea and BOTH should be nixed as titles as no one uses them; neologisms as you know are no-gos as titles; Strait of Georgia is only part of the so-called "Salish Sea" (and it's not exclusively Salish, either, and Salish properly original refers to the Flathead people, who have nothing to do with the sea....). What _I_ want is for Salish Sea to go away, except maybe as a footnote ref on Strait of Georgia and on Puget Sound that there have been efforts to impose the neologism, but it is not widely supported and is inappropriate; it's citable but only marginally, unlike the other better-known neologism Cascadia. I'll post a note about this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington and Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia for potential further input; but if you want to proceed with the merge, please bear in mind that Salish Sea as a name-concept, howevermuch spurious, refers to both the Strait of Georgia (aka the Gulf of Georgia, as we often call it, partly to include adjoining waters like Howe Sound and the intra-insular waters of the Gulf Islands) as well as Puget Sound; so it's not really a merge so much as a deletion of Salish Sea and introducing mentions of it on the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound pages; there is a geographic term the Georgia-Puget Basin/Depression or something of that kind, but I'm not sure where to cite it from or which term is used, or whether Puget comes first, or Georgia. But the Salish Sea does not exist, except in some pollyanna-ish vision of "politically correct toponymy". Even if political correctness weren't inherently POV to start with, the term isn't correct anyway because of the Chemakuan and Kwakawka'wakw peoples who also live around it (and who aren't Salish).Skookum1 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for detailed reply.
Kwakawka'wakw must be the coolest word i've ever read on Wikipedia or anywhere.
When i said that you seem to be qualified for this job, i really meant that i am not qualified at the least. I hardly know anything about the geography of the county in which i live, let alone some body of water in Canada.
I was just trying to clean up the Wikipedia backlogs ... --Amir E. Aharoni 10:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand of course; just trying to lay out above why I hadn't moved on the issue; it's complicated; so I've posted notices on the related wikiproject talk pages in the hopes that it may be resolved by others; I don't have time because of my current situation to do more than that, but I'll make a point of flying it by someone in particular who lives on the Gulf and I'm hoping that someone from WikiProject Washington may also weigh in; my position above is fairly clear; Salish Sea if it has its own article should only be in terms of defining it as a neologism rather than as a term-in-use, and nowhere near as any kind of principle article; maybe the merge tag should just be pulled, but in which case the Salish Sea article is overwritten and also largely unreferenced.Skookum1 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Gray Sails the Columbia River

There is no Akriggs in the sources, so we do need that, if you recall from when someone else reverted the same edit months ago. Who was the first Euro-American then? Aboutmovies 00:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Akriggs ref is thus:
  • British Columbia Chronicle: Adventurers by Sea and Land, Helen B. Akrigg and G.P.V. Akrigg, Discovery Press, Vancouver, 1975. ISBN (not sure at moment searchable on Amazon; absence is due to a technical Windows/Mozilla glitch when I had the Jah-jah plugin installed.

The Akriggs and others dispute Gray's claim, although as I recall there is someone else (not sure who) who details out the discrepancies in Gray's claims/descriptions vs. the actual geography. The reason other than that for "allegedly" is that he is the first white/"Euro-American" person (I hate that term, which is just as racist or even moreso as "white") recorded to have sailed up the Columbia (if, as noted, his claims are true, and they may not be); either terminology - "allegendly" or "recorded to have" will do; stating baldly that he WAS the first is unsubstantiated, since unrecorded voyages still may have occurred, adn the lore of the "Great River of the West" and rumours of the Columbia's existence prior to his voyage are the reason for the speculative maps showing it prior to his voyage; indeed he was looking for it based on sailor's lore as much on the prior Spanish and Vancouver observations of its probable mouth. cf. Admirals de Fonte and Maldonado, the 'great liars' whose maps appear in Derek Hayes' Historical Atlas of British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest, which is excellent and I suggest you try and get a copy of it; Maldonado's and de Fonte's depictions of the "mythical geography" of the Northwest Passage, the Grand Mer de l'Ouest, and the Grand Fleuve de l'Ouest, are entertaining all by themselves; but all based on sailor's lore; indeed it's why the voyages of Cook and Vancouver in the first place, to check out De Fuca's account of the Strait of Anian (presumably the strait now named after him), but even De Fuca came to the region looking for Anian in the first place, i.e. stories of its existence were already in place, as also were the stories of the Columbia when the Spanish and Vancouver noted its probable location. Point is that you can't state bald-facedly that he WAS the first "Euro-American" to enter the river; you just can't know, period. It's the same issue as the term "Discovery", which is anathemic to Native American/First Nations accounts......Skookum1 00:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Recorded is better as "allegedly" is a bit of a weasel word. But keep in mind it is not me who is saying he was the first. It is dozens of reliable sources that say Gray was the first, and I think George Vancouver's log would be one of those. Even the British in their negotiations during the boundary dispute did not dispute that Gray entered the river, they just claimed that he didn't sail far enough inland to qualify for discovery rights.
As to Akrigg, you need to add the citation and what it is saying as I don't have the book.
As to firsts and discovery, that's a Western Society problem, and yes in the grand scheme of things it would be great to fix all the injustices in the world. But I have a problem with singleing out Gray when this is a universal problem (see George Vancouver, Vancouver Expedition). Within Wikipedia it needs to either have the disclaimer "first recorded" or go with what the sources say, we can't just pick out ones here and there. Aboutmovies 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The BIG difference is that Vancouver's geography was exact, so much so that his maps remained in use as the basis for maps of the BC Coast into the middle of the 20th Century and were also shared and co-developed with the Spanish; Gray's logs are NOT exact and there are questions about whether or not his geography is accurate, and there were no secondary witnesses such as the Spanish to compare notes with; as noted that's in Akriggs and in other reliable sources; that period sources agreed/supported with Gray is irrelevant; knowledge of the Lower Columbia was limited until at least Lewis & Clark and David Thompson and there's no way that Vancouver's opinion held any validity, even with Lieut. Broughton's journal for comparison; Vancouver didn't enter the river and didn't chart it himself; out of captains' courtesy he made no dispute. I don't have the Akriggs handy so can't cite the page; I know this issue came up in L-CHINOOK a long time ago but a listserve citation is not valid; but I'll see if I can dig out (when I get the chance/ I'm still on the road) what citations disputed Gray's claims....as I recall, the Chinook themselves, or other river people's historical accounts, dispute Gray's claim, based on his lack of geographical validity. Reliable sources who simply parrot other hearsay opinions are not actual sources; they are only parrots.Skookum1 00:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Bruno de Heceta, sailing for Spain, found and tried to enter the Columbia River in 1774 or 1775. I believe this is the first documented European sighting of the Columbia (the wikipedia page on him, like the one on Gray, just says his was the first sighting, rather than first "recorded". I'm not sure if Gray had access to Spanish maps (I suspect he didn't). Vancouver did. In any case I just wanted to mention this specific source of pre-Gray knowledge of the mouth of the Columbia, and that whether Gray was the first to enter and sail up the river, he wasn't the first "Euro-American"-whatever-you-call-them to discover it. Pfly 05:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that...(are you listening, Aboutmovies?.Skookum1 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Oop, quick post-note. Just now reading the Gray Sails the Columbia River page more throughly, I see it does mention Heceta's discovery. But, contrary to my understanding, the page says that Heceta may have thought it was an inlet rather than a river, and that he did not try to enter. Both statement are footnoted with sources. However, the one about him not trying to enter, HistoryLink Spanish Exploration, simply says "the poor health of his crew prevented him from navigating it." This does not mean he didn't try, just that he was prevented. If I remember right, my source said that Heceta tried to enter but could not make headaway against the current, even under a "full press of sail". If I have the time I'll find the source and see about making Heceta's role clearer on the Gray Sails.. page. The claim of Heceta possibly thinking he found an inlet rather than a river is sourced to the book Horner, John B. (1921). Oregon: Her History, Her Great Men, Her Literature. I haven't read this book, but my understanding is that our knowledge of the Spanish exploration of the PNW has changed quite a bit since 1921 as researchers combing Spanish archives have been able to put together ever more detailed histories. Also, Heceta named it “Bay of the Assumption of Our Lady” (Bahia de la Asuncion de Nuestra Senora), which may have made later historians to assume he thought it was a bay. I think I read that he thought it was a bay at first, but soon realized it was a major river. Also he may have named the bay that does exist at the mouth but, not knowing whether the bay was fed by a single river or multiple rivers, or what, did not give speculative river names. I'll check my sources and see if I can offer a more recent perspective on Heceta. I may have learned some of this from the book Skookum1 mentioned, Historical Atlas of British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest, although I seem to recall a slightly different title. In any case, I'll check. If nothing else, I was surprised when I learned the extent of the mostly-forgotten Spanish explorations of the PNW. They were quite active in the late 18th century, with so many key explorers (all with super long Spanish names!) that I have trouble keeping track. Pfly 06:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the main issues with accessing the Columbia, also, was the Columbia Bar at its mouth, which wrecked more than one ship trying to enter the river; as I recall it was Vancouver who noted the probable location of the river but was deterred by the fogbank in the area, and also that soundings revealed that progress over the bar would be problematic; can't remember who it was that was wrecked on it (i.e. the first known to have been wrecked on it, discounting a Chinook legend that a copper-hulled vessel had been wrecked there at some point in the "pre-Euro-American" past - perhaps one of those Korean armoured vessels, or another East Asian vessel of some kind). Point is it's not like, even among Euro-Americans, that Gray "discovered" the Columbia River, although that term has since been discarded for the name of this page (as it was originally). Its existence was known of; I also seem to recall that one of the disputes about Gray's alleged voyage is that he sailed up it faster than its current and prevailing outflow wind would normally allow; and his logs were useless in producing meaningful maps of the are (though Lieut. Broughton's were, although good mapping of the area didn't come until Lewis & Clark and David Thompson and afterwards, so Gray can in no way be so facilely compared to Vancouver as you have done; most of the dispute hinges on his faulty description of geography along the river. And further, the obsession with Gray's voyage that this article reflects is part of the American national mythology, and other than its unfortunate consequences in the dispute over the lands between the Siskiyous/Shasta and the Strait of Georgia/Fraser Valley it's really fairly insignificant in terms of the exploration and other history of the Northwest Coast; all the Spanish expeditions deserve equally intensive coverage, as do those of Meares, Barkley/Barclay and various others. The Spanish in particular are interesting because, even with Spanish imperial archives opening up since the '20s, there's tons of still-unexplored documents in Madrid that are as yet untranslated, and few Spanish scholars who care about this region. Likewise with recently-declassified archives in Russia concerning Russian sailings and economic/scientific activity in the area. De Fuca certainly should have a good writeup if he doesn't already also. Gray is a blip in the history of the area, and a questionable blip, though much celebrated in US iconography.Skookum1 08:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Skookum, the camparison with Vancouver is not a "who is the better sailor" thing. It is in response to your "how do we really know" who was first part. With all the explorations, we don't know for sure who was first, never will be able to, so we have to go with what are in the sources. Now if you really want a lieing captain, see Meares. As to Gray, it wasn't just his journal, there is also Boit's log. And in the time of no GPS, and unmapped land as you point out, being off by one degree of longitude I don't think is that big of a deal. Now your friend Akiggs (not a historian by the way and his history books have been panned by critics) with (as you have pointed out) his anti-US sentiments might make a big deal of it, but other serious historians have not. Seriously, Gray went around 15 miles upriver over nine days, that doesn't sound unreasonable to me, even with the currents of the graveyard of the Pacific. Aboutmovies 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You're the one missing the point, Aboutmovies. It's not about who was the better sailor, it's about corroboration, and Vancouver's maps were corroborated by his Spanish contemporaries who copied his maps (and he copied theirs) and his maps, as noted, were the basis of cartography and navigation in the region for over another 100 years, virtually until aerial surveillance made more accurate ones possible. There is no such case for Gray, and Bolt's logs are not proper corroboration because he was part of Gray's crew. The Akriggs' panning by critics is not a valid objection; the Akriggs drew on other historians and on historical sources, which also contained the various questions (not just the degree of longitude issue); the Akriggs are simply one book in which I know the details of Gray's voyage are mentioned; as I recall, the controversy is also mentioned in Hayes' Historical Atlas. Sure, American historians would like to pretend that Gray's voyage was real for obvious reasons (backing up the spurious though ultimately fulfilled - through violent bluster - American claims to the Oregon Country). Your poor conception of the broader historical context of the region is further betrayed by your last phrase - the Columbia is not the Graveyard of the Pacific; nor is the Columbia Bar. The term applies to the whole coast from Coos Bay north to Russian America (except in whatever America-centric/Oregon-centric histories you think are reliable sources; but such a mistake is evidence if unreliability and of a narrow, one-nation focus. It's your whole problem with Pacific Northwest history - and you're not a historian either, nor should you be given the shoddy logics and gullibility portrayed by your hero-worship of Gray and his voyage.Skookum1 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. Period, end of story. That has always been my biggest issue with you. Notice, I did not say "Skookum is not a historian" ergo his opinions are invalid. Attack the arguement, not the editor. Saying I am not a historian, or "Your poor conception..." are personal attacks.
As to Vancouver, his longitude also varried:

"The survey had been carried out with remarkable accuracy. Vancouver’s latitudes vary little from modern values; the more difficult calculations for longitude show an error that varies from about one-third to one degree." Candian source praising the accuracy of Vancouver. Interesting, by up to one degree, just like Gray. And Gray was just a trader with Vancouver being a surveyor. Interesing.

As to the Graveyard, yes we in Oregon consider it the Columbia Bar. Just like in BC when you mention Vancouver it is meant as Vancouver, BC even though the place in Washington is older. So yes, we all have a bit of centrism. As to American historians, I'm sorry but with the revisionist histories coming out all the time lambasting popularly held beliefs and histories, if there was serious doubt I think a reputable historian would have come out with something. Honestly, what does it matter now, it's not like the US would have to give up territory at this point. My goal is not to "worship" Gray (my research time is spent on David Hill, but to transfer the history located in libraries about Gray into the articles and eliminate original research/uncited info. That's it. Aboutmovies 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
STOP THE CONFLATED DEFENSIVENESS. It's you who are in the wrong, constantly POVing articles and maintaining that only sources who agree with you are valid. Learn how to write neutrally and you won't have people (and I'm not alone) criticizing you for your shallow knowledge and even shallower and specious logics.Skookum1 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to introduce sources that disagree with myself or anyone on any page, the problem is you need to provide those sources. Which, per Wikirules should usually be reliable sources, and BTW Akrigg's book would likely not be considered a reliable source since it was self published, thus failing the: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources" with the third party part being the issue with Akrigg book from "Discovery Press". Also, a reliable source is needed for the refutation of Gray being the first Euro-American to sail into the river, see WP:REDFLAG. Aboutmovies 01:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Followup, I made the edits to Gray sails.. and the page on Heceta. I didn't remember everything quite correctly, but close. Anyway, done for now.. Pfly 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To aboutmovies: you know how boring you are? "Stop the personal attacks" etc etc is a wheedle by those whose b.s. has been called; at least I tell it like it is, not insinuate attacks right and left. I'm "on the road" and far from any library that has BC/PacNW historical resources (Montreal at the moment, Halifax next week) and you knew this - if you were paying attention - so stop asking for citations when you know I don't have them at my fingertips. What I have done is pointed out that the hard-facts version you are pretending to is not really hard-facts, and that there exist disputes; all I am doing is saying that the disputes exist. Vancouver's charts were confirmable/ none of Bolt's or Gray's were, and the trumping-up of Gray as some kind of iconic national hero is what irks me the most about this overblown pet-article of yours. There are dozens of other more significant explorers of the PacNW who need more attention; here, you're virtually promoting him as a candidate for a portrait on a dollar bill. It's boring, and so, so, SO American. The British views on PacNW history are noticeably absent in nearly all rah-rah-America articles like this one, Lewis & Clark, the various Oregon Country/Boundary Dispute articles. APOV all over the place, with "well, why don't you add the other version" while at the same time fluffing up yet more and more America-centric content. Boring, boring, boring. This article rightly belongs as a SHORTER section ONLY in the Captain Gray article; the only reason for a separate article might be to discuss the controversy; but you maintain there isn't one, and disingenuously call for someone else to do research that YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE YOURSELF before writing the article. Think outside the box, or crawl back into it, OK? I'm burning webcafe time so to hell with it, why don't you just write the History of hte World as told by America and be done with it?Skookum1 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
So if I put up a “wikibreak” template, continue to edit, and add a bunch of unsourced of material its OK? And where in the policies/guidelines of Wikipedia that all editors must abide by is that exactly located?

Oh, and I did do my homework before writing the sails article. Akriggs is not only not Wikipedia reliable source, but in history circles it has been panned as I have demonstrated to you in the past, and as you point out it was written from newspaper articles. You may want to note that historians disfavor regurgitation of newspaper articles, which was one of the criticisms. Of course if someone never cites sources it doesn’t really matter. Aboutmovies 00:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still on Wikibreak, just have intermittent access to the web and have the ability to type copiously, especially when confronted by stubborn one-note agendas like yours; if I WAS fulltime back on Wiki my contributions list would be vastly longer, and not on only one or two topics as is yours (where's the Capt Gray movie, aboutmovies, or are you planning to script it or what?). "Add a bunch of unsourced material" - where did it get added to the page? What was added was in the Akriggs BECAUSE they drew on major sources (sources which you yourself, in your diehard American-sources world, don't know anything about and apparently don't want to), and the other sources I don't have page specifics on, nor time to research them, I just know they're there and it's the lack of the differing/disputing point of view in your hagiography of Gray that's so noxious. This article shoudl be "Exploration and mapping of the Columbia River" and not focussed on one of the standard-bearers for American Manifest Destiny and the bully-boy expansion/annexation into the Columbia/Oregon Country which is OUR view of what went down, whether to do with the Gray or the arrogant posturing over the resulting boundary dispute. Get off your nationalist high-horse, and learn that the biases that you were educated with ARE POV; I'm only trying to make sure BPOV is there to balance the rank APOV that you wallow in. Now, go away so I can enjoy my wikibreak and can catch up on IMPORTANT articles, and get to work on making this also about the Spanish observations of the Columbia, and its actual (later) mapping by land-based explorers and actual cartographers who kept good notes; the terrain problems in the Gray/Bolt record are a matter of issue for Chinook and Wasco peoples....speaking of which where's THEIR POV. Imperialist fool....(oh gee, another personal attack.....). Exploration and mapping of the Columbia River is what this article should be, with Gray's part in it only a section of that, and on his own article, not a whole article in its own right AS IF IT WERE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER EXPLORATION ACTIVITY IN THE REGION. Or better yet, go back to writing about movies.Skookum1 04:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat myself. Please read, and/or remember. There should be articles on the Spanish and the whole Columbia Exploration. But there is no need to combine Gray into it. You may want to read Build the Web. Just like we don't have one really long article called Universe and have everything covered in that article, we split off all the different topics into different articles. Canadians may not care about Gray much, but Americans don't care about Alexander MacKenzie much. But on this side of the border we don't yell POV, POV just because someone were to write an article about his explorations. Did anybody in the USA scream at you for not starting a List of ships in Washington/Oregon/California after you started the BC one? Do you think it is POV that you started the BC one and not ones for American sub-political units? MacKenzie's explorations don't need to be combined with an Explorations of the North American Continent, there is enough space to cover his expolorations seperatly. Now could those be combined with an article on him, yes, but that would be unfair to the other members of his exploration party, not to mention drown out anything else he did. It's not that I think Gray's accomplishments are more important, that's just bad logic if you think because I only wrote that article I must be worshiping him. Do I think Gray's sailing into the Columbia is more important than you do, yes because I look at the lasting legacy (see the name of your province). Now, just because I write about something does not mean it is more important than something I don't write about. It does mean it is more important to me, that's it. You see if someone doesn't take the time to write an article then the article would never exist. Feel free to write all these articles you want, as ultimately it is up to you if you want those articles created. You act as those I am some gatekeeper preventing you and others from writing articles in this area. Seriously, did you notice someone wrote about Vancouver's expedition? That was after I wrote Gray's. For instance, to follow you ALL CAPS item above, because Cook's explorations were more important in world history, should we get rid of Vancouver's exploration article? Of course not.
Also how is 34 edits on the Gray article out of 12,000+ edits on Wikipedia some how an indication that that's all I do? If you were to actually look at what I do you will see I am far more involved with the Oregon Supreme Court. Aboutmovies 03:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
What you don't get is that Alexander Mackenzie has no relation to the history of the American claim/presence in the Pacific Northwest, but Gray DOES have relation to the history of the British claim/presence (part of how it was lost) and that there ARE differing interpretations of (a) the validity of his voyage and (b) its political import. And your write-up here is a hagiography and celebration, and overblown in details which have nothing to do with the Columbia. It's about Gray, and there is already an article on Gray. Vancouver's mapping expedition was a major project, with major tangible consequences; Gray's achievement, if valid, was largely ephemeral and more symbolic. It was not a "great act". As for Mackenzie's story not needing to be part of an article on explorations of the North American continent, it would be a propos to have it in an article detailing the overland mapping/exploration (by non-natives) of the Pacific Slope, and what his culturalpolitical content. What's most frustrating here is that you're unwilling to see that there is an important British-claim perspective/context and also to even, considering your obvious interest in the subject, resistance to investigate the suggestions of the voyage's invalidity farther than your already-dismissive attitude towards any such dispute (which wasn't about the 1 degree of latitude as I remember it). Whatever; the article is overblown, and needs more content. I've just tried to suggest what and you don't want to admit even the possibility.....Skookum1 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:OWN. Then add what you want, just follow the guidelines of sourcing it. That's all. It's not my job, or anybody else's job to make sure an article has everything you want in it. That would be your job. Aboutmovies 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Typically ironic for YOU to cite WP:OWN, as that's what YOU are doing with this article, as you did in its creation in fact, as well as your digging in your heels as to its context/pov/validity....my "wp:own" is not the problem, YOURS IS......Skookum1 23:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope, others have edited, and their info has stayed. It's just been sourced, which is the key ingredient, and oddly a Wikipedia guideline! But again, if you want it in, feel free to add it, just source it, its rather quite easy to do, see WP:CITE for details. Aboutmovies 00:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cost of Bridge River?

Whoa, chill. I don't mean it as criticism. It just seemed like an obvious thing to include. And all I want is a rough number like Global might mention, not a "to the penny" accounting... (I'm actually using it in a story I'm writing, so I don't need so much detail...) BTW, it's a great article on something I'd never heard of before. Keep up the good work. Trekphiler 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 :-) no, no, no my friend; not upset, I just have this thing called run-on-mouth and a flair for saying too much....Skookum1 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pge 130-35px.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pge 130-35px.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Kawdy Plateau

Hi Skookum1, do you know if the Kawdy Plateau is volcanic? It appears to be near the Level Mountain Range which is a spectacular shield volcano. Black Tusk 12:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That whole area is, although I don't know if the Kawdy itself is a particularly volcanic landform. Best way to find out is to find S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia, should be in nearly any university or school library, and look it up, as he discusses some geology in there (but not overmuch). There's an aerial of Meszah/Level Mountain in that book also; I have a scan of it somewhere, maybe loaded it into Bivouac at some point (can't see now as I'm no longer a member) but I don't think it's public domain anyway; public education use was OK'd so scans of images from Holland's book are probably fair game, if you can find a copy.Skookum1 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't seem to find too much info about the Level Mountain Range, even its last eruption is unknown.[12] S. Holland seems to simply name it "Level Mountain". Is the Spatsizi Plateau also volcanic? (it's at the Spectrum Range) Speaking of volcanic mountain ranges and plateaus, do you know if Anahim Peak and Mount MacKenzie are part of the Rainbow Range? Black Tusk 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's officially gazetted as Meszah Peak; the plateau surrounding is the Level Mountain "Range". Can't remember the passage in Holland, I'm in Nova Scotia at present and won't easily find a copy to explain. Yes, the Spatsizi is volcanic, kinda obvious; the way to tell the Rainbow Range is the listing in bivouac.com, if you're a member that is; the boundaries in there are/were precise; I don't think Anahim Peak is, though, I'd have to check and I don't belong to bivouac anymore....otherwise source it off the Land and Data Resources Warehouse Catalogue/BC Basemap at wherever maps.gov.bc.ca redirects to now.Skookum1 18:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Anahim Peak appears to be in the Rainbow Range [13]. I know Level Mountain is officially gazetted as Meszah Peak, but on bivouac.com it says: The "Level Mountain Range" is the name of the surrounding area, and in S. Holland is simply named as "Level Mountain", an area "almost circular and about 20 miles in diameter" around Meszah. I'm pretty sure on the Global Volcanism Program site they're talking about the range, because they list Meszah Peak is a subfeature. Black Tusk 19:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's in Bivouac that way, provided that the admin there hasn't revised the region-boundaries, it's correct - I was senior geographer there and remember sourcing the boundaries as indicated on BC Basemap, which I've now re-found as http://webmaps.gov.bc.ca/imfx/imf.jsp?site=imapbc which you can use to plunk around with once you learn how; range names are given in a certain way at certain scales, although it's too complicated to begin to explain that right now. Bivouac uses BC Trim and BC Gov geographic designations as standards; there are others, potentially, and some casual or counter-informed publications, such as tourism bumpf or enviro-bumpf, may get names and boundaries wrong (long discussion); so BCGov was used as the "source".

Hi Skookum1, do you know if Mount Edziza is on the Spatsizi Plateau? I'm trying to find out if the Mount Edziza Plateau is the same thing since I can't seem to find too much about the Mount Edziza Plateau ether. Also, would you consider Mount Meager to be sacred? Black Tusk 09:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Spatsizi Plateau is not the same thing; and IIRC the Edziza Plateau may have a different official name, I'll have to look it up sometime but I've forgotten, if so, for now. And about Meager being sacred .... sigh. It's such a cheap word nowadays, like "ancient". Debased. Yes, the St'at'imc/Lil'wat regard everything to be sacred, all the plants, all the mountains, the sky, all the animals. So of course to them it's sacred. Is it sacred to you? To your neighbour? What's "sacred" (Socrates would have a field day with it, cf. one attack-diatribe on "piety"). For me, of course it's sacred, it's a frigging volcano, a fire giant and not a completely sleepy one either, and I'm of the tribe of trolls and mountain giants. I've spent nights in the hot pools on Meager Creek, and marvelled at the crazy spires all over it and its subpeaks. Yeah, it's sacred to some. But "sacred" isn't a tangible, certainly not in Wikipedia, unless citable. Easy enough to say "it is sacred to the Lil'wat people" but it's largely meaningless unless accompanied by any myths about it, if they've been published and aren't private. If it's separate from their Deluge-story I'm not sure, it might be connected, but the Deluge as recounted in versions I've seen seems more about rain, not a lahar-type devastation. BTW you do know about Dimlahamid/Temlahan and the Medeek re the Gitxsan's history, don't you?Skookum1 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to know if Mount Meager's sacred because I know the Meager Creek Hot Springs have a First Nations-lore component and Mount Meager's not far away from them and it's a major volcano. I never herd of Dimlahamid/Temlahan.
BTW the few isolated volcanic centers northwest of Mount Meager you were talking about a few months ago (i.e. Silverthrone and Franklin) are originally part of the Pemberton Volcanic Belt, but it's usually merged with the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (not sure about the Bridge River Cones though). They may also be the product of Cascadia subduction, but geologic investigations have been very limited in this remote region. About 5-7 million years ago, the northern end of the Juan de Fuca Plate broke off along the Nootka Fault to form the Explorer Plate, and there is no definitive consensus among geologists on the relation of the volcanoes north of that fault to the rest of the Cascade Arc. When the Cascade Volcanic Arc resumed 4-5 million years ago after reorganization of the Explorer Plate, there were some apparent changes along the northern end. Where the northern end of the arc originally extended due north from the modern-day location of Glacier Peak - into the Chilliwack Batholith and the Pemberton Volcanic Belt, it now headed northwest into the Mount Baker - Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. This apparently reflects a steepening of the subduction zone on the northern end of the Juan de Fuca Plate. At the same time, the Juan de Fuca Plate assumed a more easterly-directed sense of motion relative to the continent. The volcanics on northern Vancouver Island are part of the Alert Bay Volcanic Belt.
Is Mount Callaghan a volcano? Is there a volcanic plug on Boss Mountain in the Wells Gray-Clearwater Volcanic Field? I'm trying to find out if Spanish Bonk is a satellite vent of Boss Mountain. Black Tusk 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything at all about the Wells Gray volcanoes except that they're there; never been in that area. Callaghan is a volcano; not as recently as others in the immediate vicinity; IIRC there's a volcanic table or cone in the uppermost Soo Valley, just north of Callghan; I'd venture if you dug around under the Pemberton Icecap (or have a look once it melts away someday) and likewise the Lillooet Icefield and Compton Neve, that there's more volcanoes underneath the ice in that area, likewise Homathko (if it's not already volcanic/caldera in nature - ?). Icefield volcanoes are very scary, given the scale of the icecap involved; witness Vatnajokull in Iceland 1890s vs Meager/Plinth 2350BP; if a similar subglacial volcano were to emerge under any of the major coastal icecaps the scale and multidirectionality of the lahars would put the pale to anything Rainier might dish out...Skookum1 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think Meager's quite a dangerous volcano even without volcanic activity. Landslides have dumped clay and rock several meters deep into the Pemberton Valley at least three times during the last 7300 years. Researchers warn the volcano could release another massive debris flow over inhabited areas anytime without warning. It is built of unstable volcanic rubble and will erupt again.
Recent drilling into the Pemberton Valley bottom encountered remains of a debris flow that had travelled 50 km from Mount Meager shortly before it erupted 2350 years ago. About 1,000,000,000 m³ of rock and sand slurry spanned the width of the valley.
Two earlier debris flows, around 4450 and 7300 years ago, sent rubble at least 32 km from the mountain, the oldest incident depositing an eight-meter-thick layer of material. There is no sign of volcanic eruptions associated with these events. The area’s high rainfall alone is enough to trigger failures of this magnitude.
Lately, Meager has shed smaller landslides about every ten years, including one in 1975 that killed four geologists near Meager Creek. Logging, mining, tourism and backcountry recreation on surrounding slopes and valleys are vulnerable to the mountain’s exceptional geomorphic activity. The probability of Mount Meager covering settled parts of the Pemberton Valley in a debris flow is estimated at about one in 2400 years. Black Tusk 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the Tahltan Highland the offical name for the Edziza Plateau? Black Tusk 04:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No, according to Jordan's classification, it's only a part of the Tahltan Highland, which extends northwest beyond the Stikine up the Tahltan basin; it's the common upland between the main Coast Mountains and the Interior Mountains, here broken up by small plateaus like the Kawdy. At some point it conjuncts the Tagish Highland, and fronts on the Teslin basin at its northern extremity; I've forgotten the details. You should really read S. Holland, as I've said before; but remember these are geographic - and not geologic - frames of reference/definitions. Geologists would classify the terrain in question entirely differently. IIRC Holland had some vagueness about whether or not some considered the Tahltan Highland to extend south of the Stikine; as it is it spans the Tahltan River also. As re the Edziza Plateau (if that's its proper name) it's just that it's a named subset of the Tahltan Highland, just as the Omineca Mountains area subset of the Interior Mountains; and not much else of the Tahltan Highland is sub-named. As with the Quesnel or Okanagan Highland (there's a vagueness about whether they're part of the Cariboo/Thompson Plateau or the Cariboos/Monashees) the general assumption is that the Tahltan Highlands "belong" to the Coast Mountain, but Holland isn't clear in any of these cases; that the mountains in the angle of the Stikine and Iskut he classifies as part of the Coast Mountains would seem to indicate the adjoining plateaux are also; but the Rainbow Range, on the other hand, despite being near-Coastal, is part of (in his system) the Chilcotin/Interior Plateau.... I suggest you join http://bivouac.com as the range/plateau definitions in there are all derived from Holland (not the regions, though, which are prominence-defined). Skookum1 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, are most of the plateau names on bivouac.com offical? If they are, Edziza Plateau is probably the offical name. On bivouac.com it says: Vintage Govt Aerial of Spectrum Range (Edziza Plateau/Tahltan Highland) [14] It's probably called the "Mount Edziza Plateau" because the plateau is part of Mount Edziza. Black Tusk 19:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

More like because Edziza is located on the plateau; whichever. That particular caption was taken straight from Holland (I scanned it) so somewhere in his text there must be a definition of Edziza Plateau which is part of the Tahltan Highland; I think it's all of the Tahltan Highland that's south of the Stikine; the Spatsizi Plateau IIRC is not considered part of the Tahltan Highland but is part of the Interior Mountains complex. Been a while. On Bivouac peak pages, there will be a name-status tag, unofficial, official, whatever else; be very wary of anything that says anything but "official", as the person running the site has a bad habit of making up names spuriously. In the cases of the ranges/plateaux and suchlike, they're all "official", or almost all....Skookum1 17:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mount Edziza comprises the Edziza Plateau. It's large shield volcano like the Ilgachuz, Itcha, Rainbow, Level Mountain, etc. Do you know if all the shield volcanoes in the Anahim Volcanic Belt include obsidian? (I trying the add more human history about the ranges.) I know the Ilgachuz Range was a source of obsidian for the South Carrier and Chilcotin natives, but not sure about the Itcha and Rainbow Ranges. Black Tusk 17:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No, Mountain Edziza is PART of the Edziza Plateau; there are other summits on it AFAIK. Obisidian is I think common in that area, on some locations anyway. But Black Tusk - you're much more the volcano person than I am. I'm not a vulcanologist or geologist or anthropologist; I suggest you just read, read, read and research this stuff. I'm really NOT the person to ask.Skookum1 17:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I know you're not the person to ask, but I'm asking you because I can't seem to find that much about those things on the internet, and I don't live anywhere near there. The Edziza Plateau is part of Mount Edziza because it was mostly formed by that volcano. The other summits on the plateau are just satellite cones (i.e. Eve Cone, Armadillo Peak, Williams Cone, Sidas Cone, Coffee Crater, etc.). The plateau is one whole volcanic complex that has been an area of active volcanism in the past 7-10 million years, most recently active about 1,350 years ago. See here and here for example. Black Tusk 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Geobox 2

Hello, this message is sent to you because you've shown some interest in the Geobox templates in past. There is now a new version (aka Geobox 2) which supersedes all older Geoboxes (aka Geobox 1). The major difference is there are no feature specific templates (Settlement, River, Mountain range etc.) but just one master template which can handle all type of data. There are a couple of new features and many new fields making the template much more versatile so now it can be used for virtually any geography related feature without the need to create a specific template.

The switch to Geoboxes 2.0 is highly recommended as the new template has a much more effective code, which renders faster than the old one (with much smaller pre-expand size, it can be one third to one fourth of the pre-expand size of Geoboxes 1). To convert aa page from Geobox 1 to Geobox 2, there are two ways:

  • By changing the template header: 
    {{Geobox Settlement
    becomes 
    {{Geobox|Settlement
    Although some field names have been changed in order to be unified, the old names are accepted too. For any settlement Geobox use {{Geobox|Settlement and set the settlement type (city, borough, town, village) in category field. Calling e.g. {{Geobox|City will work as well but it's not the recommended way (from technical reasons).
  • By a semi-automated tool which reorders the field names in the Geobox 2 style and also renames the few changed field names.

There are several unresolved issues at the Geobox talk page, please add your comments and of course any other ideas you might come with as well as bug reports. – Caroig (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

British Columbia Treaty Process

I did start the BC Treaty Process, but what is there (I wrote) is only out of spite and humor. I have been collecting research and hope to do a indepth article on the Treaty Process in light of recent developments with it, and a more informed source of information then the BC Treaty Commission, or the First Nation Summit is with their biased ways (Not that I'm against bias, I just think all biases should be accounted for.) Anyways, I could use some suggestions on naming conventions for articles like this. BC Treaty Process, BC Treaty, British Columbia Treaty Commission, British Columbia Treaty Process, British Columbia Treaties. I also plan to expand land claims and History of land claims in British Columbia to connect with all of these. There is also the mater of Aboriginal title, and Aboriginal rights, plus others all inter-related and connected to each other some way of form. Respond here and I'll see that you responded. Thanks! OldManRivers (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This I'll post in two parts as my library time is about to run out, so there'll be a little auto-sig before I can continue....immediate reaction is that the BCTC (British Columbia Treaty Commission) is a separate article because it is an organizational body. Similarly the Treaty Process as currently manifested is a separate thing from the treaty (or rather, lack of treaty) situation and its history; "British Columbia Treaties" as a title implies a listing of the existing treaties, ie. List of British Columbia treaties or List of First Nations treaties in British Columbia (since there are so few, not a long page). List of British Columbia First Nations opting out of the treaty process would be, as you know, even lengthier than one for List of British Columbia First Nations in the treaty process ;-0. Summarizing: the Commission is a separate article because it's a body, the treaty process as currently defined has its own specific history (and so should be a separate though not unrelated article) independent of the history of Land claims in British Columbia, which seems a necessary subarticle off Land claims because the situation in BC is so different from elsewhere; History of land claims issues in British Columbia is even more specific I guess. Skookum1 (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Got in there before the autosigbot ;-\ So anyway, bear in mind the distinctions between subject matter as implied by titles; one cohesive core article, however titled, with the specific organizational/process-cum-era (eg. pre-VanderZalm/Harcourt vs post, or as "revived" under the neoGrits; each one seems a bit different although the institutional body dates to vanderZalm's regime doesn't it? - prior to that was the regium nullius (void of rule, i.e. legitimacy) and the bluffing from the Trutch-onwards-to-the-Bennetts era, where the BC gov had a "don't look, don't see, don't talk, don't tell, let the feds handle it" thing going on....Sorry I haven't been more cogent/cohesive. I suggest you take this by User:KenWalker and post something on the BC project page, and maybe on the Can project page; thing with that one is, other than someone knowing wiki naming/content conventions, the Can project like the indigenous one covers territory where the claims/treaty experience has been very different, as well as the particular political/institutional landscape being different as a result (eg. the existence of the BCTC). Passing the buck a bit, but just trying to remind of the distinctions that particular title wordings have re contents, and that certain titles are necessarily content-specific, i.e. they can be about only one thing, albeit in the context of the larger topic it's involved in, as with the BCTC vs the treaty/claims process/history overall.Skookum1 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
No, thanks for all your help and suggestions. I knew I would take it to someone and probably some projects, I was just unsure which you would recommend. Very few understand the BC Treaty Process (Indigenous and Settler alike) so I figure wikipedia can be a good tool for that (Riiiiiiight?). Anyways, I imagine most of the writing will be done by me, with a lot of copyediting and POV checking by others on what contributions I make (Which, I'm okay with. As long as it's with reason and justifiable, right?) Thanks for the help. I'll start working on this right away and hopefully have a stub next week. OldManRivers (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Andy Paull Created

Just thought I would let you know. Have a look and see if there is anything worth checking. OldManRivers (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Language seems fine, other than that the alternate/anglicized names for Sta7mes and Esla7han should be included (Stawamus and Mission Creek?? - Eslahan shows up in older docs and news articles btw. Allied Tribes of British Columbia, Assembly of First Nations and other orgs mentioned should be redlinked and stubbed, and if there's an article on the Anti-Potlatch law(s) - which as I remember it was the law making it illegal for FN fundraising/political activity in the 20s, although there were anti-potlatch laws before that; no doubt it has a formal name and is a significatn enough piece of legislation it should (eventually) have an article; so redlink it too, maybe.Skookum1 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research

I just sent you an e-mail about an interview for my thesis. Let me know if you're be interested in participating, because I'd love to talk with you about your experiences on Wikipedia!

Jkomoros (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)