Talk:Coquitlam

message: They are all of the Town Centre area - could some be added of the old part of town (I grew up knowing of it as Central Coquitlam, though I know now with the town centre that causes confusion - Austin Heights, Como Lake, Harbour Chines, Mundy Park, etc.) and Maillardville. It's a good chunk of the city, and not represented at all, the Town Centre new buildings are part, but only part, of the Coquitlam story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.44.98.34 (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article does contain photos of Minnekhada and the Chimo Aquatic Centre, neither of which are in the Town Centre area. When the weather turns nicer, I'll get something from Maillardville and perhaps Como Lake, and I'll be putting up something from the renovated Sports Centre when it's completed. But neither Austin Heights nor Mundy Park, while significant parts of the city, make for particularly notable photos. That's the nature of how city articles tend to work; they show the City Hall or other notable civic buildings. Check out the large articles for Vancouver, Calgary, or Edmonton: nearly every photo is of their downtown areas, sports venues, and so forth. This article one of only 57 places in all of North America that is rated as a Good Article, and I'd hate to lose that because we added non-notable photos of suburban houses, strip malls, and a park that is nearly all trees.  Greg Salter (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Why are people vandaliszing this article with a stinky fish (slime) quote? Coquitlam was named for the word in the coast salish language. after the latest vandal rv, i googled coquitalm and could find no other meanings than : little pink fish. If there is another meaning quote the proof here, or it will be a vandal rv. Moreover, this is an article on the CITY coquitlam, not the WORD. Coquitlam was named for the coast salish word. therefore if someone does find an alternative meaning for the word, that should go under a seperate article: Coquitlam.- Diskadia 22:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. I've seen many books and heard many people say it's smelly fish slime. You have to remember Google searches the most popular webpages first because of it's Pagerank system. One thing's for sure: We'd all like to think that the city means a little pink fish rather than having teenagers drive in yelling about slime Spyco 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chuck Strahl, author of the "Greater Vancouver Book", says that Coquitlam stems from the Halkomelem word meaning 'stinking of fish slime' and attributes the following quote to B.C.-place-name experts Helen B. and G.P.V. Akrigg.  "During a great winter famine,the Coquitlam people sold themselves into slavery to the more numerous and prosperous Kwantlen nation. The new slaves, while butchering large quantities of salmon for their masters, got covered with fish slime - hence the name."  Apparently, that quote is from the Akrigg's book "British Columbia Place Names", though I haven't double checked Chuck's research. --Echinda 23:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who Chuck Strahl is, but if you go to The Greater Vancouver Book by Chuck Davis and click on the Coquitlam link, it says: "The name Coquitlam comes from the Salish word kwayhquitlum, referring to a small salmon, vital to the existence of the Coast Salish, the area’s first inhabitants." Yet if you go to "Place Names of the Lower Mainland", it does mention the stinky fish story. Because of this, I don't know how much of a reference The Greater Vancouver Book can be with these conflicting stories that don't reference each other. Therefore, I'm removing stinky fish from the article, and going with the reference from the actual Kwayhquitlum First Nation's web page, until anyone can provide a better, more-solid reference.Greg Salter (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went to the Akrigg book and confirmed that "stinking of fish slime" is the meaning they give.  Here is the quote: "Coquitlam, ... from the Halkomelem word meaning 'stinking of fish slime.' During a great winter famine,the Coquitlam people sold themselves into slavery to the more numerous and prosperous Kwantlen nation (whose name means tireless runners). The Coquitlams, while butchering large quantities of salmon for their masters, got covered with fish slime - hence the name." G. P. V. Akrigg and Helen B. Akrigg "British Columbia Place Names" (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997, 3rd Ed.) at p. 53.  I haven't updated the article because of the controversy, but would suggest that since this is a fairly authoritative source perhaps the alternate meanings should both be given.  Here is a link to the Google Books copy.  Akrigg Page 53  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.204.232 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  But again, the Akrigg reference is the ONLY reference to this, which conflicts with the others, including that given by the Kwayhquitlum First Nation itself. I think it is reasonable to expect an independent corroborating reference before throwing information in the article which conflicts with those people who actually speak the language.  Greg Salter (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the name "Coquitlam"

message: Self evident. He has his own entry. He should merely be recorded as coming from here. As Woody Allen is listed as coming from New York.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you rephrase? I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.  Greg Salter (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathew Good and his Band Should be Under Another Entry 

message: In referencing WP:DATERET, the article has since 2009 been using DMY. Looking at the article prior to my edit on 26 March 2015, the article used predominantly DMY, particularly in the reference section. In looking back at the article in January 2009, the same DMY format still exists providing the basis for the continuation of DMY. Mkdwtalk 18:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMY 

message: According to this site
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/coquitlam/historic?month=11&year=2016
the November record high was broken last year. I'm not sure if I should add it to the climate section. Does anyone know if it's reliable? Socialistboyy (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s very much reliable 103.41.36.179 (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this site reliable? 

message: It was broken in July 2009, but I'm not sure how to add another reference. Sorry.
http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_data/almanac_e.html?txtStationName=glenayre&searchMethod=contains&month=7&day=29&timeframe=4&period=30&startRow=1&StationID=834&month=7&day=29# Alex of Canada (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In this situation it would be best to not use that data. Sometimes temperature data for certain days doesn't get vetted properly and thus doesn't get used for official purposes, like for declaring a new record. They passed over including this temperature in the 1981-2010 dataset and it wouldn't have been accidental. Air.light (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, sorry for a late reply. What reason would there be for them not to include it, if not a mistake? If the temperature reading is inaccurate, why would they keep it there? Alex of Canada (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For them to not include that supposed record in the 1981–2010 dataset it may be because on that day the recording came, it wasn't verified by a human or there was some doubt about whether the recording was accurate. As for why they would keep it in the daily archive for that day, I don't know why they would keep it there. What I do know is that I have found a number of obvious errors over time in various Environment Canada climate charts. It could very well have to do with budget cuts and a lack of government funding. We should definitely defer to their judgement in this situation here in regards to this record in question. Air.light (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

text: The standard protocol for these discussions is to just leave them as they are. They will eventually be archived by a bot. If anyone has a similar question in the future, they will be able to see what was discussed here. Air.light (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, sorry for bringing this back up, but I've seen other wikipedia pages do this, so would it really be a crime to edit the Coquitlam article? I know this is personal research, but I've seen it be 33 just this month. Alex of Canada (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than lower our standards here we should fix those other pages up. If you contact Environment Canada and have them review and agree that their 1981–2010 climate normals are in fact incorrect and have them update the normals or you find a reliable secondary source then I will agree to the change. Air.light (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pages for Vancouver and Toronto have extra sources from individual days, and those pages get more traffic. If they are a bad thing they'd get noticed there first. Edit: The only reason that record isn't added is because the averages probably ended before that temperature was recorded. Alex of Canada (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The core of my concern here is that the averages (normals period) ended after the temperature was recorded, not before. The averages go to 2010 and this record you would like to have added in is from 2009. The Vancouver and Toronto pages have extra sources added for records that came after the normals period, as in since 2010. If you have a special example I would be happy to see it. Air.light (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

text:  I know it says it's until 2010 but I believe they end during or at the end of 2007. Go to "station / element metadata" Extreme maximum and extreme minimum goes from 1970 to 2007. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good point. It's fine with me if you want to go ahead with this. Air.light (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright. I'm sorry if I sounded rude ever. Have a nice day. Alex of Canada (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record high from climate station. 

message: Do we really want this section in the article? Sure, that month feels significant to us who live in the lower mainland and on the BC coast but the event happened almost 10 years ago and to an outsider, our primary audience, I don’t think it’s really all that worthy of mentioning here. Yes, it’s at the outer limits of what can be experienced here for weather but it comes across to me as a way that locals brag about the weather they experience. What do you think? Air.light (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2008 extreme weather section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: You added back to the article that Coquitlam is situated on the "traditional, ancestral and unceded territory" of a local Indigenous tribe.  What is the difference between "traditional" and "ancestral", and could you please define "unceded" (in the context of this article)?  Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See below; we edit conflicted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local indigenous tribe