Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Canada

message: Is there any interest in forming a wikiproject focused on Canadian geography? The subject seems vast and interesting. There are currently a lot of wikipedia pages about rivers, mountains, lakes, islands, etc, that could benefit from attention conferred by a wikiproject. --Qyd (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the page because so many articles on Canadian landforms are untagged.  I'm going to ask a bot operator to put the  tag on them, but I probably won't spend a huge amount of time with the project after that.  However, I guarantee that this will interest someone eventually.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will AWB-add the banner on some pages (I'll only tag pages that already have a class rating, so that no un-assessed articles are added to WPCANADA). --Qyd (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the reluctance people have to add many unassessed articles to the project.  The way I see it, it's better to have them tagged and unassessed than to have them hidden somewhere out there in wikipedia's depths.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it that if there's a lot of articles in an unassessed category, editors will not even start the assessment. If there's just a few, chances are higher that they eventually get assessed. --Qyd (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fire up?

message: Is it possible to find some more sources of information on this topic Seton Portage Historic Provincial Park and Stony Lake (Manitoba)?  It is tagged with a notability tag, and there are currently 31 articles in the scope of wikiproject Canada which are tagged with notability concerns, so I am contacting anyone to see if the quantity of notability concern articles can be reduced, and quality increased.  For more help see this note or the article talk page for a current discussion.  Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll come up with some more info on the Seton Lake park - I'm from there, long ago, and have been meaning to write Dozier's Way, which was the horsedrawn wooden railway ("BC's first railway") connecting the two lakes of the portage...it's a dowdy little park, mostly a gravel lot next to the tracks with an old caboose; but it's the only heritage commemoration in that area, which was vital to the Douglas Road, the first major publicly-funded route into the Interior.Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Notability|Notability]]

message: I just queried User:Darwinek as to why he'd put :Category:Buildings and structures in British Columbia on Nechako Reservoir; see his replies on my talkpage; I told him on his I would bring it here for discussion.  To me, a dam, a powerhouse, a diversion tunnel - those are structures; a reservoir is man-made but being aqueous isn't a structure.  I think the answer's obvious, just wanting corroboration before removing the cat; there'd be too many reservoirs, just in BC, in teh B&S cat if that were the case.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reservoirs as structures?

message: I've worked on a lot of articles about navigable waterways between landforms (strait, channel, passage, sound, firth).  Currently, there is no Infobox for this geo feature. I asked about it awhile ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography#Infobox for straits?, without response.  Any comment here? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda like it, but it would be a complex infobox; some sounds are actually fjords, or networks of them; the Strait of Georgia of course also is the Gulf of Georgia, or rather part of it to be more precise; Queen Charlotte Strait is pretty much a sound, the Dixon Entrance is both a strait and a sound...we also have some instances of "canal" (Portland Canal and Hood Canal) in this region, and iolets - mostly really fjords, like teh "canals", out the ying-yang.Skookum1 (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for [[straits]]? 

message: This is a new article, self-nom for Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on May 27.  Any improvement (e.g. map, photo, etc.), especially during the 5 day DYK? article review period, is appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Clarence Islands]] 

message: This Ministry of Tourism region showed up in :Category:Regions of Canada and is inappropriate as a title, except as a redirect to existing geographic articles; see reasons on the �AFd template/talkpage..Skookum1 (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless a :Category:British Columbia Ministry of Tourism marketing regions is a worthwhile undertaking ;-| Skookum1 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD: [[Vancouver, Coast & Mountains]]

message: Can we get some major improvements for this subject? There's more than a 100 stub and start class articles and a few needing approvements for GA and FA. Yes I understand lots of people don't know there's volcanoes in Canada but that dosen't matter. If there's never going to be volcanological improvements, what I can say is this project is missing tons of infomation and improvments. Volcanism is a major part of Canada's landscape. The Canadian Shield includes over 150 volcanic belts that range from 600 to 2800 million years old. Many of Canada's major ore deposits are associated with Precambrian volcanoes. For example, see Flin Flon greenstone belt. The Sturgeon Lake Caldera in Ontario is one of the world's best preserved mineralized Neoarchean caldera complexes, which is some 2.7 billion years old. Pillow lavas in the Northwest Territories are about 2600 million years old signify that great oceanic volcanoes existed during the early stages of the Earth's crust. Some of the most ancient geological remnants of basaltic lava plains lie in the Canadian Shield. Eruption of plateau lavas near the Coppermine River southwest of Coronation Gulf in the Arctic, built an extensive volcanic plateau about 1200 million years ago with an area of about 170,000 km² (65,000 sq mi) representing a volume of lavas of at least 500,000 cu km (120,000 cu mi). In eastern Canada, the Bay of Fundy is a failed rift valley that produced flood basalts and thus most of the floor is volcanic. Canada was formed by volcanism and thus it's a major subject of this project. For other examples, see the Coast Range Episode, the Omineca Episode, Geology of BC, and of coarse the Cascade Episode. Canada continues to be volcanically active. --Black Tusk (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Volcanism

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: Not quite ready to launch it yet; here is a sandbox; I want to add heights where available, latlong, region, associated towns/features etc.  Just a heads-up, maybe there's others could be included as I've added some of my own; ones with "falls", "waterfall" or "cascade" after them are nearly all in BCGNIS; ones without arej ust ones I know of; I've also included things like Waterfalls Creek and Waterfall Inlet for obvious reasons.....also please see Talk:Shannon Falls Provincial Park about the problems of using BC Parks info, which is waht got me started with this list; I don't buy it that Shannon's the third-highest in the province, which is what BC Parks says....bunk, there's higher waterfalls within the Squamish area, just unnamed.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Atlas of Canada sums up the problem with heights.  As well there are waterfalls with a series of drops but still within one named waterfall which has a combined height of all drops.   Without infringing upon NPOV, it can be worded in the article ...that Parks Canada states that Shannon Falls....and then see if another source has a statement about Shannon falls or which falls may be the third highest of BC...and then which are measured and which are not measured and how this measurement came to be.  SriMesh | talk 04:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A new article List of waterfalls in Canada has some comments on the talk page.  From this list it looks like James Bruce Falls a  horsetail waterfall is number 1 for height, Alfred Creek Falls, another horsetail waterfall would come in second at  and finally Deserted River Falls an unknown type of waterfall would rank third at . Shannon Falls has a height of   and Takakkaw Falls, Della Falls Flood Falls, Francis Falls, Gold Creek Falls, Helmet Falls, Harmony Falls, Hunlen Falls, Icecap Falls, Kingcome Valley Falls, Kiwi Falls, Michael Falls, Moresby Falls, Petain Creek Falls, Place Creek Falls, Swiftcurrent Falls all have been listed as having a height of over 337 metres.   SriMesh | talk 04:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, also...looking at the Atlas of Canada list and all the 20m and less falls in the more easterly provionces, sure as shootin' there's bigger falls out there in BC, including among hte many actually named ones; which though they're in BCGNIS aren't measured or indexed as such anyway.  Crown Lake Falls, Bullmoose Mine Falls etc....and tehre are creeks on canyonsides that are virtually one endless waterfall, amny with hgue drops; none measured, few named...so i think the intro should stupilate that the listing is only of waterfalls that are named and have been measured.....Bridal Veil is puny compared to the rain-season cataracts in teh Flood-Laidloaw-to-Yale area, many of which are there year-round just not visible or "out in the open" as Bridal Veil is; ditto with Shannon Falls and innumerable cataracts and cascades scattered throug the Coast Mountains.  Many on creeks with no names ,as well as having no names thesmelves.  Too remote, the country too hard to access, too deep.  Also the Atlas of Canada lists only t here reversing falls in Canada; actually that's what a skokoumchuck is, i.e. a saltwater skokoumchuck, at least he big kind like the famous one if not just a bad set of eddies; also Deception Pass at Whidbey Island, same deal as any of those the Atlas of Canada lists.  Anybody who's a hiker and has the right survey instruments might want to make a project of spending a lifetime getting around the backcountry of BC plotting and measuring all teh waterfalls; there's hundreds....thousands...and even that seems likea conservative esetimate....Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of waterfalls in British Columbia]]

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Geography of Canada 

message: Can someone please check the comment on this page, Talk:British Columbia Coast.  IMHO, a whole section should be re-written or put into wikiquotes.  Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:British Columbia Coast]]

message: Can someone add any images to Fjords of Canada.  Some may be relevant from List of waterfalls in Canada if the waterfall cascades down into the valley of the fjord.  Check out the talk page of more items to help out with to fill out the article Fjords of Canada if you are familiar with the fjords of BC, Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador or Quebec.  SriMesh | talk 03:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fjords of Canada]]

message: Western Pacific Cordillera was renamed from a US only title, and Pacific Cordillera was prodded because the editor said the US based article was the same topic, instead of merging the articles. I've deprodded it, because the newly renamed article is US centric, so the Canadian centric article shouldn't be deleted until the US article is no longer a US article. I have problems with the title "Western Pacific Cordillera", since this Cordillera is on the edge of the Eastern Pacific, not the Western Pacific, which would be Japan. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pacific Cordillera]] & [[Western Pacific Cordillera]]

message: I've initiated a move request for Western Pacific Cordillera, because this name does not appear to have ever been used to refer to what is usually called the Western Cordillera or Pacific Cordillera, and the scope of the article is more than just the western part of the Pacific Cordillera. Please leave your opinions at Talk:Western Pacific Cordillera 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Pacific Cordillera

message: The Mount Royal article was moved around via cut-and-paste moving, and then it was corrrected via histmerging, so now we've ended up with the original Mount Royal article situated at Mount Royal, Montreal, and the Mount Royal (disambiguation) article sitting at Mount Royal. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being discussed at Talk:Mount Royal as it has appeared at WP:RM ; note virtually no articles link to Mount Royal, Montreal, and virtually everything linking to Mount Royal mean the one in Montreal. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mount Royal

message: Does anyone know the name of the area of sea in Nunavut, Canada, () roughly surrounded by: King Christian Island and Ellef Ringnes Island (to the north); Cornwall Island and Devon Island (to the east); Bathurst Island and Helena Island (to the south); and the Findlay Group (to the west)?  I can't find what it's called anywhere - the usually excellent Atlas of Canada draws a blank.  It could be unnamed of course, but that would surprise me - it's huge!
Similarly, in the Northwest Territories, the sea () surrounded by: Mackenzie King Island (to the north); Hazen Strait (to the east); Hecla and Griper Bay (to the south); and Emerald Isle (to the west) is also unnamed.Can anyone help?
Bazonka (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see you already tried the Atlas of Canada....maybe the International Hydrography Association (International Association of Hydrographers??) has a resource....I've posted a query at Talk:Continental Divide of the Americas where thee was a related discussion a while ago, maybe somebody there saw something on this area during their research..Skookum1 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Skookum1.  Actually I also posted this query on WikiProject Arctic.  I was advised to email Geonames, and I received a response saying that the seas are indeed unnamed. Bazonka (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnamed Arctic seas? 

message: I just added a whole slew of items sourced from Canada GeoNames to these pages; there are so many in some provinces -  Nova Scotia and Ontario in particular - that I have no way of knowing which are notable, and which are maybe just isolated ponds; if notable, I have no idea how to dab them except maybe by county name....in Alberta, two Bear Rivers are in the same area (the Peace Country) while another is tributary to the Peace River, but farther north.  Anyway, if anybody's in the mood.....lots of stubs and dab-decisions to make.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bear River]] and [[Bear Lake]]

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: Please see User_talk:KenWalker#Category:Clayoquot_Sound_region_or_.3F.3F.Skookum1 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:West Coast of Vancouver Island]] subcats et al.

message: Lachine Canal is currently rated as "Low" importance. This seems odd to me, as it represents the industrial heartland of 19th century Canada. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment of Lachine Canal

message: :Image:Maritimes.png has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Maritimes.png

message: This article was recently split from Gatineau Park so that that latter article would not become overloaded with the political story of the park instead of a physical description of it. I just wanted to point out the article's existence and invite editors on this project to participate in making the article more complete and keeping it balanced. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Politics of Gatineau Park]]

message: I would like advice/help in assessing what is going on on the Politics of Gatineau Park/Gatineau Park files. I had been blocked from editing for 24 hours because I broke the 3R rule. However, the reason I broke it was that two editors (Ahunt and M.nelson) were changing my contributions and edits, in a manner I feel to be arbitrary. Although it is clear that I broke the letter of the 3R rule, I feel these two editors have violated its spirit, by together reversing my work. Their changes do not affect the neutrality of the article. They have changed simple wording, and have removed a quote attributed to a reliable source.
Moreover, they claim I am in a conflict of interest because of my link to the "Gatineau Park Protection Committee." However, this is only an informal, on-paper group with no funding, no web site, no "personal" interest in the matter--in the sense that we are not in it for ourselves. Our interest is purely public, historical and factual. We have tried to provide all references requested.We consider ourselves to be experts on this issue, and as the COI Wiki rules say, "experts on trees are not discouraged from contributing to articles on trees," or some such formula.
Anyhow, any advice, help you might provide in defending/commenting this article, and/or the edits for which I had been "benched" would be appreciated.--Stoneacres (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reinforcing my request above for more editors to help out working on this article. The more people working on an article the better it gets! I hope some editors from this project will join us in working on Politics of Gatineau Park. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Need Help on Gatineau Park articles]]

message: to my surprise this came up as a redlink when I employed it earlier on List of physiogeographic regions of British Columbia....I realize Natural Resources Canada has a page, but the GSC only happens to be under their umbrella; what its original ministry-assignment was I wouldn't know.  Also Dominion Land Surveyor is a title that needs an article - and a category for individauls who were DLS's.Skookum1 (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it is really that notable? I googled Geophysical Survey of Canada and it came up with only 17 results . BT (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You musta typed it wrong; I got 444,000.  Consider that a good number of BCGNIS entries use the term, and MINFILE pages and who knows what else of that kind, plus academic papers, it can't be 17....Skookum1 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: that's weird...the only difference I can see is that I put a space (accidentally) after the first quotation mark; must operate as a wild card, such that occurrences within sentences instead of at the start of the sentence all show up.  anyway rest assured, BT, I wouldn't have raised it idly, it's defnitely notable.  Not sure how a google search will turn out For Domioion Land Surveyor; I'm mostly interested in official/historical persons who had that title/career, which was a distinguished and kinda scary one (e.g. Frank Swannell); not just a paper pusher.  A powerful job in the old days too, deciding where property lines would go etc...anyway lemme google that and see what comes up, but for now I'm going to bed (1am Halifax time).Skookum1 (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a stub for the GSC anyway. The accidental space you added to show 444,000 results is wrong. There is definately less than 100 links in total from pages one to three on that link. It must be some kind of glitch. BT (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: funny, I got 445,000 on the statistical result this morning, but only two pages.  There must be some kind of glitch in google, as I know from experience that scores of BCGNIS pages mention the GSC, even if only in titles of maps but often in historical references; and similar MINFILE and YUKON MINFILE use it often....I wonder why google doesn't pick all those entries up?  There's also scads of research papers that cite them.....weird.Skookum1 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW new articles created for the Slide Mountain, Cassiar, Cache Creek, Yukon-Tanana terranes. I had to create articles for the Cache Creek, Yukon-Tanana and Cassiar terranes to make them blue links because they will be mentioned when I recreate the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province page. BT (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Geophysical Survey of Canada]] page needed

message: Someone just created Muskwa-Kechika Management Area which I tidied up a bit, including removing the parks category and amending some content, as it was written as though it was a park; it's also included now on  in the parks section, which I don't think is quite right.  It's the result of the Mackenzie Land and Resource Management Plan, which is one of many LRMPs and SRMPs (Strategic Resource Management Plans, which are First Nations-related) as listed on Land and and Coastal Marine Plans in BC.......some of them are oddlly titled, e.g. "Cassiar Stikine-Iskut doesn't actually include any of the Cassiar Country except for Dease Lake and is mostly only the Stikine River basin (and not quite all of it either, e.g. Tahltan and Chutine basins are not included) and their map shows some parks as if they were only "recreation areas" (which isn't what BC Parks says).  These are only one of the many political/management subdivision systems of British Columbia; the linked pages nonetheless include much information that can be used to enrich existing aritlces.Skookum1 (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Muskwa-Kechika Management Area]] & LRMPs & SRMPs etc

message: Just did a major expand and rewrite for this article. Some of the sentenses still need references though like in the "Human history" section, which likely needs to be expanded or added with the rest of the text and two references still need to be filled out. Further work will continue. BT (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province]] 

message: I started List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border of today, but only a very small start, it will eventually be huge; see Talk:List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border for to-dos and instructions on how to expand it....too big a job for one person.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New list of BC-AB border peaks

message: In the course of finishing up the List of peaks on the British Columbia-Alberta border, I followed a lot of the resulting bluelinks, some of them I added a "(Canada)" dab too, others existed but many were written Alberta-only; I amended their text, but those that have maps have Alberta-only maps; this is inappropriate for peaks also in BC.  What's needed is a pushpin-friendly terrain map of the Rockies, either Googlemap-satellite or one of the other landform series like that used on e.g. Bendor Range (which isn't pushpin-friendly, but the Googlemaps I think are...).  Geographic maps should be used for geographic features; it really doesn't matter which BC regional district or Alberta improvement district they're in...it does matter where in the landscape they are....see Talk:Trapper Peak (Canada).Skookum1 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first noticed the map issue I thought of using the map on the Canadian Rockies article for such mountains. But I could not get it to work. BT (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why jurisdictional maps don't work for geographic items

message: This article, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for deletion. Members of the project and other interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification of [[WP:AFD]] nomination [[Politics of Gatineau Park]]

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: I got tired of seeing mountain location maps showing regional district boundaries, a vice which has spread to fr-wiki and de-wiki and farther; so I went and created  for use with mountains, lakes, provincial parks, Indian Reserves, bumps on a log - anything that's not to do with municipalities or regional district governance (which can keep .  I've made the change on only a few mountain articles so far because I"m working on a REAL slow connection, and also because it's incredibly laborious to do manually.  So if one of you out there is a botmaster and knows your way around wikibots, please help out and globally apply the change to all contents of :Category:Mountains of British Columbia and, if you'd also oblige, :Category:Lakes of British Columbia etc etc.....myself I'm going to try to figure out how to create the necessary interwiki maps, as it's those that twigged me off - people in foreign countries should not be given the impression that the regional district boundaries are the framework for how people in BC describe their locations/geography...more and more I see pages on the web which use this style of description, but it's because they have learned the idea from Wikipedia (I'm not speaking of wikipedia clones like wapedia or information.com but they're part of the problem).  Wikipedia is supposed to reflect usage paradigms, not invent them; misinterpreting and relaying false information about political goegraphy is, to me, definitely "not on"....but because this mis-usage has been so widely applied the sheer number of articles is daunting, "botification" is needed to make the change.....takers?Skookum1 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New location map for BC - need botmaster pls

message: further to previous, and other discussions where I raised this issue, I've made changes to the Bute Inlet article where the usual blurb about which regional district it's in gave undue weight to the on-the-ground reality of regional districts.  Instead of ONLY mentioning the RD, either in text or in infoboxes, the OTHER more important political subivisions of BC should be given, namely the Land District, the Forest District/Region, the Ministry of Environment Region and, in the case of communities, the Health Region and County (which is for courts) should also be added, PLUS (for geographic items, not non-native communities, necessarily), which First Nation territory/land claim.  See Bute_Inlet#Political_geography for an example; I've added Land District fields to some infoboxes elsewhere, and there should also be Forest District/Region and MoE Region and other fields. there are also Development Regions of British Columbia, which need an article/articles, as does the system of Mining Districts/Divisions.  THERE HAS BEEN TOO MUCH WEIGHT PLACED ON REGIONAL DISTRICTS and this is being replicated in other-language wikis and, as a result of this incorrect classification being concocted by some earlier wikipedian, throughout the internet.  BC is simply NOT governed by regional district, unless only building and sewage permits are meant by "governed".  It would help if other editors would become mindful of this and familiar with the other land-divisions and make sure these are reflected in articles and, for applicable items, categories.  Even in regional planning, especially outside of urban/metropolitan areas, regional districts are "beggars at the table" and only "stakeholders" in planning decisions, which are devolved Regional Management Planning Boards/Areas and, where First Nations are more directly involved, Special Regional Management Planning Boards/Units.  To date, only teh Muskwa-Kechika Management Planning Area has an article; most of it is in the Peace River Regional District but similarly the PRRD has next-to-nil power over most of what goes on in the M-K, and has no real relevance over places like Fort Ware or the Kemess Mine, which are respectively under native governance and the Mines Department of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.Skookum1 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if more articles about land districts were created. If such articles and categories were made, they could be used to replace the RD articles and cats on geography/geology articles. I have only created Range 3 Coast Land District and Category:Range 3 Coast Land District because I was working on the Milbanke Sound Group article when I was thinking about creating such pages. BT (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a map of the Development Regions, which you'll note are made up of combinations of regional districts (and, to note further, which use the correct name of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and not the neo-branding "Metro Vancouver" which should be "struck down" in its obsessive use; trendy it may be, but it's not correct).  On the left side of that page are various offerings which look very useful, but note especially this page on "Mapping and Geography".  Not clear if Crown Copyright applies to the maps available; probably so, but given teh publicly-owned nature of Crown Copyright I think somewhere along the line Wikipedia has to address "fair use" for them.....note also this list of inhabited Indian Reserves "translated" to Development Region, Health Region/Authority, School District and Census Divisions/Subdivisions (and note that regional districts are not used for classifying these....)Skookum1 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Balancing undue weight on RDs in BC

message: Is there some way to create a reference template like done for Bivouac, BCGNIS or GVP? Such a template would be less hard on the database of lengthy articles and less technical than the typical cite web template. I have information about 77 kilobytes long almost ready to be posted on the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt article, so a GSC template for volcano and other geologic stuff found on the GSC website would be helpful. BT (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GSC template

message: asked me to post a notice here describing how to specify province-names in a .  There are many possible solutions.  Because of how region codes are generated for coordinates, I recommend using either:
 |state_type=Province|state=
or
 |region_type=Province|region=
For a good example, see Salmo River.  The _type parameters are documented at Template:Geobox/legend#Field_behavior.  I hope this information is helpful to someone here.  Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: how to specify provinces in Geobox

message: This article had the grey-outline highways map for its location map, and had ballparked latlongs taken from GoogleEarth; I tried to substitute :File:Canada British Columbia (no subdivisions) location map.svg but something in the way the fields were used in Infobox Settlement is screwing it up - compare these versions.  The infobox as configured uses "|image_dot_map =" while other boxes use "|pushpin_map =".  The result is, so far, no map, and the dot still shows, but over the top of text fields.... I don't know enough about how these work to want to fiddle with it further, can someone please fix it?  The GoogleEarth estimated coords are also unofficial; there's another set in the  template which are from BCGNIS; the active editor on this page, Saarjola, tried to delete that and the cats/stubs/refs today, will refer them to WP:MOS (from what I can tell they're a local in that area).Skookum1 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The locator map looks fine now. The coordinates have excessive (15 cm) precision, but seem approximately correct. The population should be measured in individuals, not households. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Location map problem with [[Stanley, British Columbia]]

message: Hello I am Moxy and i make portals. Recently there has been a change to the Template talk:WikiProject Canada, this has made me aware that you guys do not have a portal. Was thinking of making a portal  for you guys if you think its something appropriate to have. And if you would like one ...what would be the main articles you would like to see appear in it.. For an example of what i do see --> Portal:Ottawa...pls let me know if you would like one!!!..Moxy (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello

message: Hello guys..lets see if we can get  you some more editors...I have made you a portal -->Portal:Geography of Canada
It has been added to the main :Template:WikiProject Canada and Portal:Canada/Related portals  as see below </br>
Pls place the portal template   ,,were you think is best in articles ...i will do a few aswell
)

........All the best Moxy (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New Portal

message: I have started a discussion for changing CGNDB into a redirect here.  I will do my best to inform everyone who might be interested without violating WP:CANVASS.  Thanks for your input in this matter. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: CGNDB

message: There is an on going debate between a group of editors on Osoyoos, British Columbia.  One editor believes it should be classified as a desert, while others disagree. Please see the page history to see what's going back and forth and read the debate on the talk page [] --CutOffTies (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute on [[Osoyoos, British Columbia]] 

message: Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone.  Articles were selected based on their assessed  importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Geography of Canada articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details.  You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010.  As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide.  Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback! 
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography of Canada articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release 

message: The article Nyan Wheti has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
:A search for references found only mirrors, fails WP:N and WP:V
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist.  The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Nyan Wheti]]

message: Just a week ago, I decided that this article can feature all of Canada's 144 census metropolitan areas (CMA) and census agglomerations (CA). For some reason that is unknown to me, this list only included the top 100, as well as the articles for List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population and List of the 100 largest urban areas in Canada by population. Since there are only 144 CMAs and CAs in Canada, I thought might as well include all of them in List of metropolitan areas in Canada, formerly known as List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada. I thought everyone would be alright with me doing so, but User:UrbanNerd didn't agree. I didn't want to re-undo his revert since I don't know if he knows about WP:3R or not. He wants a discussion about this, so here it is. Should we include all 144, or just list the top 100 like the other lists? --K.Annoyomous (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this posted here when an attempt at a discussion on this already has been initiated here? A discussion should take place in one location, not two. I encourage those interested in commenting on this topic to do so on the article's talk page to keep it all together. Hwy43 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Hwy43, this may not be the place to discuss this. But as mentioned on the articles talk page not every CA has a metropolitan area, that is why I reverted your bold edit. A city of 15,000 may not have a metropolitan area, so including it in an article of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada‎ by population makes absolutely no sense. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of metropolitan areas in Canada]] 

message: I'm trying to create the infobox for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fanshawe Pioneer Village in London, Ontario but am having problems finding suitable images/maps.  gives the entire province - a bit too large - but the only other "location map" templates for Ontario give just-Ottawa or just-Toronto. I can't find one to cover Southern Ontario or the Ontario Highway 401 corridor without including the entire province. I'm also having little luck finding free images of the Pioneer Village itself with a suitable licence, there are plenty on Flickr but now I see the few that were CC are now CC-NC-SA-BY or have been just plain copyrighted. Basically I'd like to put an  like the one on Black Creek Village Toronto on this page (I have no tie to either of these places but have visited both, Black Creek in 1987 and Fanshawe in 2003, so can say they are very similar in nature and importance). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanshawe Pioneer Village 

message: Please  see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages.Moxy (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages

message: I've just discovered Whitewater recreation in British Columbia which has undertaken from its inception to divide recreation areas in BC by the Ministry of Tourism's subdivisions; I've wondered about this with ski resorts, and also re mountain range and mountain discussions and the general subject of the :Category:Geographic regions of British Columbia and other matters.  The tendency in the past to think that regional districts were the way to go doesn't wash on many topics; especially because RDs don't have charge over Lands & Forests, MoE regions, and MoT regions and Health Regions and more......in the case of recreation and tourism articles, there's already a few articles and categories of their own.  There's some other discussions around that I'll link here in a bit, I'm just moving hotels this morning....BC has many political-jurisdiction subdivisions; I'd created the Geographic regions category and accompanying articles in their longstanding historic context; some RDs combine two or more of these regions, sometimes dividing a single region between two or three RDs, adding in adjoining areas that aren't part of the same region; same is done with electoral districts.  the Columbia-Shuswap RD is essentially the Shuswap Country and the Columbia Country (which includes the Columbia Valley, which is also part of the historical East Kootenay area, for example; the Okanagan RDs add in the Monashees, Boundary and Similkameen regions, which are culturally/historically distinct; so while there is some historic basis to the RDs they don't coalesce as regions; so my issue and it's a complicaed one is should Parks articles be classified by MoE regions (which govern them) or by BC Tourism regions (which are different, but Tourism BC has no direct jurisdiction over provincial parks).  Food for thought, and it's a very BC issue; no other province has such distinct areas nor such a complicated overlapping of different subjurisdictions; in the case of mountains I've been leaning towards dividing them by mountain range and in separate cats by geographic regions......RDs are deliberately politically weak in the provincial scheme of things, and that's one reason all these othre layers of government don't use the same regions; they don't have to, and have independent histories of their own stretching far  back long before the creation of RDs in the late '60s....Forest regions and districts in particular.....more laterSkookum1 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdividing BC by different types of region/jurisdiction? 

message: Would someone else please deal with this for me please?  Note my reasons why I shouldn't in that post.  See my edit comments and the reply here and also the intervening edit comment.  Creating stubs is more productive and less passing-the-buck-to-someone-else than simply dropping templates and running....All six Pyramid Mountain articles need to be at least stubbed, I fixed the dab on what had been Pyramid Mountain (volcano) which is the wrong dab to use (ranges or regions is the preferred, or state/province).  I have to avoid another round of wiki-addiction, it has been disastrous for my health and livelihood in recent times.  I am returning to British Columbia from Thailand but it is to seek medical attention, not to "do" Wikipedia for BC again.Skookum1 (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  dropping templates vs starting stubs (at least) 

message: Three very short new articles that would benefit from a once over by anyone interested:
*Kauerdluksoak Bay
*Napartok Bay
*Saglek Bay
-Arb. (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated Saglek Bay with coords and cites from CGNDB to replace the non-viable wikimapia citation, and the consultant's report from SFU; the other two are not in CGNDB at all; for Napartok there is only Napartok Island.Skookum1 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three bays 

message: There's 59 in total so lots to go, but I just spent some time doing expansions re their boundaries and what's in them; started with the Cassiar Land District because of a PRIMARYTOPIC issue on the Cassiar disambiguation page, then update Osoyoos Division Yale Land District (still needs precise boundary description, what's there right now is just a rough outline), New Westminster Land District, which is the one that Vancouver's in.  Check out the citation I used for the boundary description (as the Lands Act that established these is not to my knowledge on-line anywhere), which is a pretty nifty tool that also can show you park, IR, RD boundaries and more.Skookum1 (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC Land District articles expansions. 

message: One of the "support" voters for the CfD which attempted to delete or merge all subcats in :Category:Rivers of British Columbia by region, who also joined the nom there in challenging all all British Columbia region titles/articles, has demanded cites as somehow mandatory for BC regions, claiming there has to be a citation for diffusing categories; I have yet to get an answer for any such guideline or policy and had intended on starting a discussion myself.  Input from people actually familiar with BC's geography and regions is needed.  
*NB in areas of the province that are barely populated I'd begun using major mountain range-groupings like :Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges and :Category:Rivers of the Omineca Mountains in lieu of the usual and conventional subdivisions of the province i.e. Vancouver Island, Lower Mainland, Okanagan, Cariboo etc.  The Rocky Mountains and Pacific/Kitimat Ranges are regions in their own right; there are parts of them where, respectively, East Kootenay or North/Central Coast or Chilcotin and Nechako Country do not readily apply.  Such category challenges being made on the basis of unspecified guidelines as if they were rules and an ignorance of BC's geography are, to me, a nuisance and a waste of time.  But since the discussion has been launched, I am announcing it here, since the creator/perpetrator of that discussion did not see fit to.Skookum1 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing for "[official] set of regions" demanded for [[:Category:Rivers of British Columbia by region]] 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: I happened to find a few things linked through the main BC Names/GeoBC page last night, where sizes of water basins, lengths of streams, elevation data for lakes and streams, flow rates etc can all be found/cited; I haven't explored these fully, just dropping the links for others to have as a resource when working on lake/river articles:
*Freshwater Atlas main page
*Using the Freshwater Atlas (FWA) Data
*Accessing Freshwater Atlas (FWA) Data
*National Hydro Network
*Geospatial Reference - useful for more than hydrography
*Parcel Fabric & Registry Services this contains links to the Online Cadastre I used to cite Land Districts of British Columbia and materials linked through here will provide shape files for those charting rivers, municipal, IR and park boundaries and more.Skookum1 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrography resources for BC 

message: Just made some items re Decker (disambiguation) and have let Decker Mountain and its glacier go as red links for now.....I'm wondering if it's more suitable to redirect them to the Spearhead Range, where items about them can be added rather than bother with separate stubs....or redirect them to Whistler Blackcomb as part of the ski-area terrain.  Similarly Oboe, Piccolo and Flute re Whistler, and various other peaks on the Blackcomb massif, like Trorey treated the same way as Decker?Skookum1 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  peaks in ski areas 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: I have nominated Banff National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR 

message: You are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Redundancy model. Hwy43 (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC pointer re: [[WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes]] 

message: Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more.  Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
*Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice to participants at this page about adminship 

message: Hi! I am trying to improve the article for Toronto. I'd like to add more citations to the topography section of the article. Do you happen to know where I could find some information to back up the facts in the section? Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topography of Toronto 

message: A discussion on the primary topic of Ghost Lake has opened at Talk:Ghost Lake (Alberta)#Requested move 26 September 2017. 117Avenue (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost Lake 

message: :Category:Nottaway Hydrological System, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Nottaway Hydrological System]] has been nominated for discussion

message: It seems rather odd that a WikiProject for geography of Canada includes geology in its scope. While it is true that the two sciences are related, geology is not necessarily a subtopic of geography. I explain below:
*Geology by definition is the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed and the physical, chemical and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.
*Geography by definition is the science dealing with the areal differentiation of the earth's surface, as shown in the character, arrangement and interrelations over the world of such elements as climate, elevation, soil, vegetation, population, land use, industries or states and of the unit areas formed by the complex of these individual elements.
I propose we remove geology from the scope of this WikiProject for the above reasons. Volcanoguy 08:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template .
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass.  Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
=== Background ===
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    07:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    07:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: FYI, a proposal has emerged at Talk:List of municipalities in Manitoba about merging List of cities in Manitoba, List of towns in Manitoba, List of villages in Manitoba, and List of rural municipalities in Manitoba into List of municipalities in Manitoba. You are invited to provide your comments on that discussion here. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Manitoba community lists proposed for merger 

message: Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 Bot Beta 

message: See proposal at Talk:Rural municipality#Requested move 29 June 2019 Hwy43 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move of [[Rural municipality]] 

message: See discussion at Talk:County of Minburn No. 27#Requested move 30 July 2019, referring to the past discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alberta/Archive 5#Proposed move of rural and specialized municipality articles. Hwy43 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move of [[County of Minburn No. 27]] 

message: If anyone has their hands on some official documentation, the exact official provincial/Canadian/IHO definitions of Lake Melville, Hamilton Inlet, and Groswater Bay need to be added to their pages for greater clarity about what is subsumed by what. The unofficial sources are all over the place. — LlywelynII 19:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Groswater Bay]]

message: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages...--Moxy 🍁 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages 

message: Please review and provide your comments at:
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 28#Category:Indian government districts in British Columbia; and
*Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 28#Category:Naskapi village municipalities in Quebec.
Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfDs of [[:Category:Indian government districts in British Columbia]] and [[:Category:Naskapi village municipalities in Quebec]] 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: Hello. I would like to improve this stub about Dubawnt River but I can't fill the template. Am I asking in the right place? Thank you. SenoritaGomez (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubawnt River 

message: A review needs to be performed on Haida people. There are issues to include a 2007 "More citations needed" tag and this is not in line with the criteria (especially #1).  Otr500 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: I have nominated Dawson Creek for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawson Creek FAR 

message: St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment of [[St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador]] 

message: Hello,Please note that St. Lawrence River, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! 
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! 

message: Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blaze Island.  There is an additional Blaze island near the US-Canada border, on Canada's side. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Blaze Island]]