Talk:List of protected areas of British Columbia

message: It tried a different style of TOC, the advantage is compact general TOC with alphabetic TOC for sections; disadvantage: the top table of contents is manual, not automatic. Revert if you think it looks bad. Qyd(talk)23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was getting used to its look ... but discovered it doesn't work properly. Clicking on any of the alphabetic TOC links under any of the section below Provincial Park (i.e. Protected Area) will bring you "up" the page to the corresponding letter under Provincial Park. Not the desired result for the action. So am reverting to the previous style. --Dogbreathcanada 06:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents 

message: I've only stubbed the Provincial Parks, Conservancies, Recreation Areas, and Heritage Parks. I've not created stub entries for the Protected Areas or the Ecological Reserves. The reason is mainly notability. Not sure if a Protected Area (or Ecological Reserve) is notable enough to merit a Wiki entry. Anyone agree/disagree? Mind you, there's enough work at the moment with the Provincial Parks alone, that we can always return to this question at a later date. --Dogbreathcanada 07:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected Areas and Ecological Reserves 

message: All of the subsidiary pages, of this page, are a waste of space on wikipedia.  I will maintain that this page may be useful and beneficial I do believe that every park DOES NOT need its own page.  There is no need to have a page for every single park that exists in BC (especially when many are insignificant), nor in any land. MBob 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. However, there are about a dozen subsidiary pages that have real legit articles, but unfortunately its very difficult to locate them now that there are stub article for hundreds. I think the stubs should be removed and only be recreated if/when someone actually intends to create an article for it. A list of actual non-stubs can be seen in this old version of the canadian provincial park article (although, even back then there were several stubs)  Kilrogg 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK at the beginning of my post I did say that ALL of the pages are a waste of space, that was a mistake.  I believe more in my second or third statement of "I do believe that every park DOES NOT need its own page.  There is no need to have a page for every single park that exists in BC."  With that being said I will redefine my opinion as this "Not every park that exists (in BC) deserves a wikipedia article about it," and I completely agree with Kilroggs comment of "I think the stubs should be removed and only be recreated if/when someone actually intends to create an article for it." MBob 05:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waste 

message: According to BCGNIS - here - there is a Sumas Mtn Provincial Park, but I can't find it on the BC Parks page; BCGNIS is usually pretty good about updating - could this have been transferred ot hte City of Abbotsford or the FVRD as is the case with other parks in various palces being transferred to a muni/rd?  Leaving it on the list for now; if someone can resolve this please amend Sumas Mountain (British Columbia) with the information.Skookum1 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sumas Mountain Provincial Park]]

message: I want to add a subsection at the bottom for former parks.  This list-article has long had explicit direction in the lede, that "Any parks that are closed are not listed."  However, it seems helpful to list former parks.  I come to this from the ongoing AFD for one article, about Kledo Creek Provincial Park, which is currently listed in this list-article.   It turns out that the park was de-commissioned in 2006, and there is not a lot of independent coverage about the park.  It would seem helpful possibly to redirect from the article name to an appropriate section here, where brief mention can be provided, rather than having a separate article about it.  Any other former parks can be listed, too.  This would avoid the list-article from being "directory-like" (wp:NOTDIRECTORY) in that the list can cover notable former parks too.  For many former parks and for many current parks, there can be just a mention here, without a link to an article, if the item is not clearly individually notable (consistent with sentiment in "Waste" talk page section above from several years ago).  Any comments?  If no comments, i'll go ahead and add sections in a few days probably.  Hope this meets with agreement, but I am afraid there's not much activity here. --doncram 20:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually i jumped ahead and just boldly added the section and changed the lede.  Happy to discuss or be reverted and discuss. --doncram 23:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  add former parks section 

message: I'm also jumping into converting the list into a table format, to add more info including coordinates, so that the list is more useful.  Starting with trying to add location (coordinates) and area of park and date established.  Is there any good list of parks elsewhere to use as a model?  Suggestions welcome. --doncram 23:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that, with the amount of parks and protected spaces listed here, that a column with pictures is appropriate. These would be more appropriate in subject articles. I would advocate for their removal here. I would also advocate for all parks, protected areas, conservancies, and eco reserves to be listed in a single table. The table can include a column to denote which category they fall under. --Natural RX 21:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the outdated nature of this article and the over-arching list purposes as per WP:LISTS, I am being bold and forging ahead. --Natural RX 16:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Table format

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of protected areas of British Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114021224/http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/andy.html to http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/andy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified