Template talk:Canadian Rockies

message: What's the criteria for inclusion in this template?  It's obviously impractical to include every mountain and every glacier.  Is it merely a "sample", or will future inclusions have to bump off a less-notable entry for their line?  The template certainly makes the various mountain pages uglier, and I'm not sure about its usefulness in its current state.   ◉ ghoti 00:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For mountains, it's the 10 tallest plus some better known ones (popular climbes, photogenic, etc). For glaciers, ranges and parks, ski resorts, I've included all existing pages for now, but the template could certainly be more selective. Do you have any suggestions? --Qyd 04:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to suggest that major summits in the northern, but less-known regionsbeyond Robson should get in, even though they're remote and "not poplular with climbers" - Lloyd George, Ovington, Ulysses, a few others.....not that there's articles for them yet; likewise South Kananaskis Pass and North Kananaskis Pass are missing...but so are many others....Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The syntax  will now force collapsed state. --Qyd 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For some reason a lot of people think "the Rockies" end at Vancouver....Skookum1 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria? 

message: While I welcome the creation of the Canadian-format for Canadian templates, I'm uncertain that it belongs on purely geographic templates such as this one, where a more "mountainous" design would ber more appropriate; there is no WP:Mountains template design, so far as I know...  I guess what I'm saying is that simply because a template says "Canadian" in its title doesn't mean it should automatically get the neo-governmental/national maple leaf design; for pan-Canadian templates yes, but this is not pan-Canadian, it's BC and AB only and also highly iconic in its own right; almost needs a moose and a lake... I think a mountain image may be more suitable in this case.Skookum1 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiya.  Well.. stage two of this project (which I haven't posted at the noticeboard yet) would, if people agree, involve adding a second image to the right-hand side of the titlebar that pertains to the article in question. So maybe something like  for music articles, and  for law-related, and  for monarchy articles and one of  |  |  for this one.  Before I take the suggestion to the noticeboard, what would you think? Prince of Canada t | c 23:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: template design

message: As yet only communities actually in the Rockies are listed, not those adjacent to the Rockies and which consider themselves "in the Rockies" - McLeod Lake, McBride, Valemount, Golden, Invermere, Windermere etc etc....Cranbrook "belongs" in the group even though it's on the other side of the Trench; but if it's in then so should Kimberley (both are really Purcell Mountains towns).  Not srue on the Alberta side....Skookum1 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably come down to sourcing, I think.  If the articles on the towns in question have sources stating they're Rockies towns, then sure they should be included. Prince of Canada t | c 23:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my line of thinking was that they were "perimeter", i.e. with a close view of the Rockies, or at their foot like Golden or Valemount or MacLeod Lake (or is it Mackenzie I'm thinking of...I always get them confused; one is clearly on the Nechako Plateau and though with a view of the Rockies (distantly), like Prince George, too far from the Rockies for consideration; I think any of the Rocky Mountain Trench towns are definitely Rockies towns - except, technically and as noted, Cranbrook and Kimberley which are on the wrong side of the river, though overlooked by the Rockies (on the east only, across the broad Kootenay River basin - not really near the rockies, but the East Kootenay is very much part of the Rockies as a space; moreso than the Foohills; most of the additions will be BC towns because of the domiannce of the federal parks on the Alberta side of the range; it's really only the Rocky Mountain Trench towns that count, and then an issue of "how large" - Elko and Canal Flats are tiny (hm Canal Flats is incorporated though).  Field isn't much of a community or even a resort anymore (as it once was), so I'll add it as it's most assuredly in the Rockies, not at tehir foot like Mackenzie or Valemount.  So it's a matter of maps/geography ratehr than sources; on problem compliate4d the sourc es is that current town/CoC websites will use "Rockies" in the content "Kootenay Rockies" for Reveltsoke and Nelson and Rossland and so on, so it's a given also that Kimberley and Cranbrook would say that now; but historically Crnabrook at least has always called itself a Rockies town; Kimberly I've never been to, it may be tucked away or sufficiently into th Purcells that the Rockeis are not part of its "space"; I don't recall hearing it spoken of as being "in the Rockies" until this Kootenay Rockies marketing business began; "Kootenay Rockies" really, geographically, is the Kootenay Ranges of the Continental Ranges...Radium, Golden, Canal Flats, Invermere, Windermere, etc etc all belong for sure; reliance on sources alone won't work becaues of the re-branding which now takes in the Kootenays (and btw extends teh American definition of the Rockies northward into Canada)....the other isseu is size; Toad river, Muncho Lake, Holmes River and the other Robson Valley "towns"...all legit "in" the Rockies, but so tiny that....Skookum1 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your line of thinking.. my point was just that we shouldn't break WP:OR to include things in what is already a pretty large box :) Prince of Canada t | c 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: But what's original research in this case?  The Rocky Mountain Trench towns are "part of the Rockies", partly because the Trench itself is; my only issue is with size - and a caution that any cite found for Cranbrook (which would appear here and not on the tempalte of course) shoudl be picked so as ot not merely parrot the "Kootenay Rockies" line; there will be dozens of refrerences ot it as "a town in the Canadian Rockies".  It's kind of like saying Abbotsford's in the Coast Mountains just bcause they're nearby but it is in th BC idiom and will turn up also in historical sources.  All I'd noticed was that there were a number of towns missing and I was wondering if this was because of a perception that they weren't "Rockies towns".  They definitely are (McBride, Golden etc".  Nothing Original Research about it.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, it is a large template; but the Rockies are a large range, with lots of parks; be thankful there's no listings of rivers and lakes (and there's more passes out there, for sure, many significant.   and  templates might not be bad ideas though.Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in pure definition terms I was wrong; the Rocky Mountain Trench is part of the Interior System, not the Rocky Mountain System, tecbnically.....but still I think certain towns are sufficiently at the foot of the rockies to warrant inclusion; the main ones being Golden, Valemount, Tete Jaune Cache, McRride and Mackenzie; almost-towns like Toad River Hot Springs (if that's the "town" name and Muncho Lake are more like gas stations with a motel and cafe, but maybe should be included if Field is.....maybe Invermere and other towns in that area also qualify; if they're not at the foot of the adjoining Rockies then I guess not....Skookum1 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: communities

message: As per my changes, teh Muskwa and Hart Ranges are the other two main groupings of the Rockies; combined they constitute teh Northern Rockies (which kinda needs its own article, or section somewhere), though the Hart doesn't exactly coincide with the usual definition of (southern half of) the Northern Rockies, which is reckoned from Mt Ovington northwards; areas such as t he McGregor Plateau and the BC Foothills are often addressed as "Rockies" also (by locals (not they belong here, "just saying")....Now, the main listing of Canadian Rockies ranges on that article or maybe List of ranges of the Canadian Rockies doesn't reflect official geographic definitions, though it seems to draw on various other resources/analyses; I can't remember teh whole breakdown, as it's very complicated, but within the Continental Ranges are three main systems - Kootenay, Park, and Front, the Front Ranges extending into Montana (i.e. the Clark Range by that point) - an;d while teh Kootenay has only a few subdivisions and is very small, by comparison, the Park Ranges have various groupings and ranges within those groupings; the breakdown is in S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia, which is the basis of the BCGNIS and other geobases and, if the range listings were visible to non-members on Bivouac, it is or was built into the range hierarchy there....I don't think http://www.peakbagger.com has it structured right, but I've never poked around their Rockies section...the Hart Ranges have a number of named subranges, some quite small - more ridges - while there are almost no named subranges of the Muskwa Ranges, which lie north of Lake Williston.  But just wondering if this structure can be shown in the template design; similarly for "Communities in the BC Rockies" and "Communities in the Alberta Rockes" if not by those titles, likewise with National/BC/Alberta Parks, i.e. some geographic arrangement on the template; or is alphabetical block-grouping like it is now the best way to go, or governred by a guideiine?Skookum1 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: arrangement of ranges

message: OK, think I've got them all right now; there's still Toad River Hot sprignsand Prophet River Hot Springs and one or two otthers; those simply along Highway 16 or Higway whate-veri-itis in the East kootenay that are waysides and such I'm leaving off. Now, is there any way to extendd "the mondrian efect" around the new box;header, so it's thse same background and lineation/graphic?  or somehow otherwise to harmonize it, if only matching the background colour.?Skookum1 (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed the design at WT:CANADA; the design met with no disputes (until today, by Mzajac, heh). The red outline versus grey box is to differentiate; would be more difficult to read if groupnames and subgroups were formatted identically.  Standard navbox formatting also notes a difference, though through the use of different colours rather than outline/background. Prince of Canada t | c 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sort done, design issue now

message: There are numerous ranges not listed in the template as yet; because there are - and will be - so many, it may be best to break them down in sections:
*Northern Rockies
**Muskwa Ranges
**Hart Ranges
*Continental Ranges
**Park Ranges, etc.
I'm not in the mood right now, but .....Skookum1 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Breakdown by range grouping