Talk:List of communities in British Columbia/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Redundancy with category?
Why do we have this list, when we also have Category:Communities in British Columbia? How about just making sure all these communities are properly tagged with the category? I know there are still a lot of red links, but maybe these could be created as stubs. --Aude 17:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Categories, being outside of article (main) space, ar not really part of the encyclopedia. 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Problem with definition
- For the purposes of this list, a community is defined as either an incorporated municipality (including Indian reserves), or an unincorporated settlement outside of a municipality.
Can't deal with that; there are lots of places within municipalities that are distinct localities/places, with long-standing names. Cloverdale and Newton are well-known examples in Surrey; but a place like Mission has a a variety of local placenames (Ruskin, Silverdale, Silverhill, Steelhead, Stave Falls, Stave Gardens, Ferndale, Cedar Valley, Cherry Hill, Hatzic, and more if I stopped to scratch my head a bit); ditto Maple Ridge (Hammond, Yennadon, Thornhill, Albion, Webster's Corners, Iron Mountain, Whonnock, Ruskin); Chilliwack (Greendale, Sardis, Yarrow, Rosedale, and more) and in many cases these localities are older as names than the municipalities which they were allocated to.Skookum1 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- How about we change the definition to:
- ...or an unincorporated settlement inside or outside of a municipality. Settlements inside another municipality are listed with the surrounding municipality(ies) in parentheses after the settlement name: e.g., Cloverdale (Surrey).
- -- Usgnus 03:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- ...or an unincorporated settlement inside or outside of a municipality. Settlements inside another municipality are listed with the surrounding municipality(ies) in parentheses after the settlement name: e.g., Cloverdale (Surrey).
Seems to work; two examples better (just because I'd like to see something else than Surrey). Bradner (Abbotsford) or Stave Falls (Mission) or Yennadon (Maple Ridge) maybe.Skookum1 06:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Works for me. I just happened to know off the top of my head that Cloverdale had an article. -- Usgnus 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, well, OK. It's just lately certain towns have been getting pumped by the media - Cloverdale as some sort of model ranching (!) community in the rustic Fraser Valley and other gunk like that; but pick whatever ones you like, just be creative :-) no cliches (Kitsilano, Vancouver; James Bay, Victoria; but Brocklehurst, Kamloops; Hatzic, Mission etc.). PS have a look at the BC Wikiproject draft page on user:buchanan-hermit and let me know what you think of "my" tablesSkookum1 15:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I have friends that live in Cloverdale. :-) -- Usgnus 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- It just always gets me when Global or CBC types dish it up as an archetypal small town. It hasn't been a small town since the 1960s; nice part of Surrey, OK; but it's like when something horrific happens in Abbotsford (pop.x00,000+) the burghers go "this couldn't happen in our idyllic little smalltown"; when it's really the smalltowns that have always been the s**tholes of the country (Cloverdale notwithstanding, and pls note I'm from Mission, which remains a nice place and a small town, despite the prison and the burgeoning megalopolis. Anyway, just reacting to Cloverdale-as-a-cliche. And 'cause it's already got an article, it's "lower priority" in the line of thinking I was onto, which was to try to make sure that all the little rural localities like Deroche and McConnell Creek and Iron Mountain make it into Wiki in meaningful fashion; Cloverdale, Crescent Beach and Rosedale are obvious enough, even Bradner and Huntingdon; but Annieville, Whonnock, Steelhead are "history vulnerable" (in fact, Genstar tried to wipe the name "Silverhill" off the map, and even "Silverdale" was barely present on their new plan for western Mission, covering both those areas).Skookum1 16:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
How's this:
- This is a list of communities in British Columbia, a province in Canada. For the purposes of this list, a community is defined as either an incorporated municipality (including Indian reserves), or an unincorporated settlement inside or outside of a municipality. Neighbourhoods, settlements and localities within another municipality are listed with the surrounding municipality(ies) in parentheses after the settlement name: e.g., Bradner (Abbotsford), Barnhartvale (Kamloops).
Close. Note changes; "settlement" has various connotations, useful in the rural munis, less useful in suburbs.Skookum1 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- That works for me. You can change the page, or I'll do it later. -- Usgnus 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Table header proposal
Because of the redundancy between lists and categories noted above by Aude in the section I've just given a title to ("Redundancy with category?"), I'm proposing a conversion to a table-format list to make this page more useful, instead of just a raw alphabetical listing; a similar principle is at play in List of First Nations governments in British Columbia, List of ghost towns in British Columbia, List of crossings of the Fraser River, etc. Please view in edit for comments on fields.Skookum1 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts? Adjustments to titles?Skookum1 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Heck, if someone else can figure out what's wrong with the table format, pls do. It seems to be right including blank rows, but the Abbotsford line won't display until the population field. Anyone care to take a shot at making it work?Skookum1 23:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, sorry. See Category:Communities in British Columbia and look over the subcats; there are places that are within municipalities that aren't unincorporated, and there are some that are FN reserves as well as being either unincorporated or incorporated. I think the intro lines to Category:Cities in British Columbia and the equivlent towns and villages cats explain that; the point is that there are many placenames that aren't "any of the above" and/or are "part of the above". That's why that set of headers/columns.Skookum1 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think there could be some more clarity given as to whether a community should be listed under the status column as "within" or in the "sub-communities". One might choose to list Aldergrove as a subcommunity instead of 'within', for example (or I suppose we're cross-referencing them in both, perhaps??).. ie: Aldergrove would also appear as a sub-community of Langley? If so then it does make sense, although some may not like the duplication, it may be necessary in places, for clarity.--Keefer4 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, the duplication has to exist; no redundancy/exclusivity is implied. Note I changed "within" for syntax/lexical reasons to "part of" or whatever it is now. The point, again, is that some communities are part of two munis - not many maybe, granted. Ruskin will have its own entry because it's a community; but it's part of both Mission and Maple Ridge; it happens to have subcommunities within it but none worth documenting separately (as yet) and if I scratched my head some I could come up with other non-municipal places, inside or outside of municipalities, which have subcommunities also. If there's no "Part of" field then when Ruskin comes along, how does it get indicated - it's not unincorporated, and is part of two incorporations? Hatzic, also part of Mission, bridges the Electoral Area to its east. That there are Indian reserves at both locations doesn't mean they should get the FN categories; the "reserves" in the cats are, or should be, only inhabited ones unless otherwise notable; actually at Hatzic the old OMI lands are now separately administered, but are not a reserve, of the Sto:lo. Back to the subcommunities - these are not neighbourhoods, which have their own cats; they may be neighbourhoods, but if they're a formally-organized neighbourhood of Vancouver etc. then the neighbourhood cat should probably pre-empt the "communities within" catSkookum1 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's looking good. Hypothetically, if one was to eventually write articles on historic communities or neighbourhoods (but not necessarily ghost towns) (ie: Eburne or Colebrook), I'm wondering where such places might fit into the scheme of things... Vancouver has its own history cat., but most cities/areas don't although eventually they might. Some might argue they wouldn't deserve their own articles, but being markedly different and important communities in the past makes them notable enough imo. Just a thought.--Keefer4 02:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's also living towns that are still ghost towns - Lillooet, Greenwood (district and city respectively). Stuff like Eburne, Hastings (New Brighton) and such are communities within municipalities; was Eburne ever a "town", though?....hmmmm; it's a submerged placename that the city hasn't conferred official status on (part of Marpole, right?) and parallels exists throughout hte valley, e.g. Hammond - although again, not exactly a ghost town. I'll take a break and think about this while at the gym.Skookum1 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eburne actually wasn't part of an incorporated area until 18 years after it was first settled by old Harry and his family and was in fact just good old District Lot 318 until absorbed by South Van. Certainly couldn't have been classed as a town at any point, regardless. But I guess that's superfluous to the conundrum of places like this--Keefer4 04:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's also living towns that are still ghost towns - Lillooet, Greenwood (district and city respectively). Stuff like Eburne, Hastings (New Brighton) and such are communities within municipalities; was Eburne ever a "town", though?....hmmmm; it's a submerged placename that the city hasn't conferred official status on (part of Marpole, right?) and parallels exists throughout hte valley, e.g. Hammond - although again, not exactly a ghost town. I'll take a break and think about this while at the gym.Skookum1 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's looking good. Hypothetically, if one was to eventually write articles on historic communities or neighbourhoods (but not necessarily ghost towns) (ie: Eburne or Colebrook), I'm wondering where such places might fit into the scheme of things... Vancouver has its own history cat., but most cities/areas don't although eventually they might. Some might argue they wouldn't deserve their own articles, but being markedly different and important communities in the past makes them notable enough imo. Just a thought.--Keefer4 02:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Types of communities
Is there a particular source that you take in consideration for the "Status" column? City, town, village are types of incorporation, and frames for administration (mayor, council) (see BC Government act. District municipalities are forms of regional administration. Statcan lists also CSD's, census subdivisions. Other forms of administration are indian reserves (but they don't fall under the autority of the provincial administration). Hamlets are not incorporated, they are usually "designated places", still foloowing some rules. Civic Net has a list of incorporated places. Some references would be needed here. --Qyd 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's exactly what that column is for, i.e. City, Town, Village status; exceptions are the Township of Langley and the Corporation of Delta. CSDs won't work for rural communities, by the way, because they're often quite vast and include several communities, although specifics of details within Electoral Area censuses sometimes stipulate which communities have how many (not all are like that). My Ruskin figure is an estimate, based on coming from there and knowing how many people in this area, that area, that area, that area, and that area (Ruskin has about five, well six, neighbourhoods within itself...). But for the rest "Unincorporated" can do, but that implies a second status firled for company town and ghost town can be submerged/omitted entirely (unless still a living town, like Yale) or First Nations communities, and all three might apply (as with Ocean Falls).Skookum1 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can't fathom the concept of sourcing list material. If it's an article already, it should be verifiable-- or it shouldn't be an article. The "status" column should be verifiable and sourced through the article of the community itself, no? I can see the point though vis-a-vis designating something as a "town within a municipality," which I think is poor use of the term "town". But things like rural community of Ruskin are on maps past and present and in common usage, so referring to them as rural communities shouldn't require any sort of special citation beyond what would conceivably be found within their articles.--Keefer4 03:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually on the external link on the Ruskin page just added by TheMightyQuill there's this quote:"Residents call the entire area between Whonnock Creek and the Stave River “Ruskin,” regardless of municipal boundaries."Skookum1 07:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know about the "town" conundrum; note that I used small-t town in that instance.Skookum1 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- And I'm just trying to follow the language of the categorization/names used in Category:Communities in British Columbia.Skookum1 04:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's the further distinction between a rural area, like Mt Lehman or Bradner, and an actual, though unincorporated, town like Atlin or Boston Bar or Spences Bridge. What to do? I dunno - it's predicated by the BC govt's choice of definition for "Town"; again small-t seems to be the solution, not a happy one, but at least a solution.Skookum1 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Always a step ahead :>)--Keefer4 04:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- And I'm just trying to follow the language of the categorization/names used in Category:Communities in British Columbia.Skookum1 04:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can't fathom the concept of sourcing list material. If it's an article already, it should be verifiable-- or it shouldn't be an article. The "status" column should be verifiable and sourced through the article of the community itself, no? I can see the point though vis-a-vis designating something as a "town within a municipality," which I think is poor use of the term "town". But things like rural community of Ruskin are on maps past and present and in common usage, so referring to them as rural communities shouldn't require any sort of special citation beyond what would conceivably be found within their articles.--Keefer4 03:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's exactly what that column is for, i.e. City, Town, Village status; exceptions are the Township of Langley and the Corporation of Delta. CSDs won't work for rural communities, by the way, because they're often quite vast and include several communities, although specifics of details within Electoral Area censuses sometimes stipulate which communities have how many (not all are like that). My Ruskin figure is an estimate, based on coming from there and knowing how many people in this area, that area, that area, that area, and that area (Ruskin has about five, well six, neighbourhoods within itself...). But for the rest "Unincorporated" can do, but that implies a second status firled for company town and ghost town can be submerged/omitted entirely (unless still a living town, like Yale) or First Nations communities, and all three might apply (as with Ocean Falls).Skookum1 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
And I know Bralorne's redlinked; I'll do it when I come home tonight, hopefully; it was one of the first articles I should have written, two years ago...finally got my source book back (Lewis Green's The Great Years: Gold Mining in the Bridge River Valley, which I highly recommend.Skookum1 04:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I meant a source for all communities, not for every particular one. I doubt a community can be incorporated as a town and be a first nation reserve at the same time, the legal notions are not compatible. What I'm looking for is a source for this type of classification. I know there are exceptions (like unofficial placenames), but some official source would clear up eventual confusions and mistakes. --Qyd 04:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Capilano Indian Reserve is IN the District of North Vancouver, and part of it is in the District of West Vancouver; lots of urban reserves - Burrard, Musqueam, Coquitlam, Katzie, Kwantlen, Matsqui and so many more - are inside municipalities legally - the OMI lands in Mission, now governed by the Sto:lo as Toti:lthet Centre educational centre and formerly St. Mary's Residential School, althoug again that's not a reserve, not an IR anyway. But Such reserves are in a different loop than those outside, i.e. they are both IRs as well as in municipalities. Might not happen in Alberta, but it happens in BC a lot. And in cases like Lillooet, where the "white" town (and it's not) is encircled by three reserves, which collectively outnumber it population wise, and it's also the HQ for the tribal council, how can it NOT be a "First Nations community" at the same time as being a District Municipality? I think the problem is partly the title of Category:First Nations reserves in British Columbia, which would better be Category:First Nations communities in British Columbia. The reasons for this are many, but it's because Camchin and Xwemelcht'sen, though mirrored by reserves and band governments, exist independently and pre-existed the reserves comprising them; and within some reserves there are several communities - Mt Currie has Xitolacw, for instance, and while most of Seton Portage is reserve - with the two placenames of Nkiat and Slosh - it wouldn't do to put "First Nations reserve" on Nkiat or Slosh unless the article was "Slosh Indian Reserve No. 1". or "Nkiat Indian Reserve No. 2"; and each community is more than one such reserve/land allocation, and all are governed collectively by the band council based in Shalalth, five miles away, which itself has its own subcommunities. So "communities" is a much more operable word IMO than "reserves" anyway. But yes, there are cases where something is a town or city or unincorporated settlement and it's also the name of the reserve community/communities there, at least as they appear on the map (Alexis Creek is home to three bands, for instance).Skookum1 07:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think an 'Unincorporated' status would take care of that. It basically couldn't be argued at all. Heck, it's on the highway signs for many of the places that will eventually be on this list (which I guess comes from some type of source). As for towns within cities, many municipalities have officially designated town centres within their borders, as in Surrey. With this in mind, I'm not quite sure which areas need sourcing for their "status" classification. I guess Ruskin does come to mind, despite what I said above... vis a vis official classification, although "official" shouldn't be the only one considered. Between historic texts, statistics and maps and just the plain fact that it is there, I think a modicum of good faith is called for in these rare situations.--Keefer4 04:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- For anyone who might be interested (I just had to find out...not in specific response to anything here) the Ministry of Transportation's definition of an unincorporated community warranting a highway sign is: "The I-19 (unincorporated sign) may be used for unincorporated communities that have at least a post office and several resident families and two commercial establishments providing fuel and food. The Regional District must approve the name of the unincorporated community."-- From page 153 of this official pdf document. There is also a blurb in the Municipal Act about unincorporated communities, which I'm gonna have a gander at.--Keefer4 05:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Couldn't find a thing in the Local Gov. Act but as per the 1991 Place Name Master File of the Geography Division, Statistics Canada (Subsection 3.2.7 Unincorporated Place (UP) Population and Dwelling Counts) the definition of an unincorporated settlement for Census purposes: "An unincorporated place, as defined by the census, is a cluster of five or more occupied dwellings situated in a rural area. Unincorporated places must also be known locally by a specific name but have no local government or legal boundaries." So it looks like Unincorporated settlement or unincorporated would be an acceptable 'status' designation for the purposes of this list. Coincidentally, it found 915 Unincorporated places linked to census enumeration areas in BC, back then.--Keefer4 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. All very interesting, and I had no idea that "unincorporated communities" or "unincorporated settlements" were legal definitions. Makes me wonder what to do with things like "notable whistlestops" - someone, maybe you, asked me to expound on No. 10 Downing Street, which is in the Birkenhead River valley between Mt Currie and Pemberton. I think it was a post office; it, plus every place where the BC tracks cross the road between Squamish and D'Arcy there's a placename; Green River, Soo Valley, Gates, Birken, Poole Creek, Spetch, Devine, D'Arcy, all appear on old BC government highway maps (the kind given out to tourists) and along Anderson and Seton Lake there were another six or seven placenames (McGillivray Falls and Ponderosa and Marne continue to exist...). But of them all, only D'Arcy and Birken are post offices....now, granted somewhere like Nemaia Valley (if the article is there it might be spelled Nemiah Valley) has at least a school, and at least five houses; and part of it is reserve, as with so many other places in such areas like Alexis Creek and Anahim Lake, which are hybrid reserve-nonreserve communities, as so many others. So a third status for things outside the unincorporated settlements/communities bottom rung of the status ladder is needed. See repy to Qyd above about "FN reserves" vs. "FN communities".Skookum1 07:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ya it was me who was curious about 10 Downing Street. I still happen to think that there's a lot of Common Law involved in defining an incoporated settlement, as the MoT and StatsCan definitions differ, and I can't find any others (although they may be out there). It's kind of like common law marriage-- there is no one definition in Canada, it just depends what arm of which level of government you're dealing with. There are many layers.. that much is certain-- esp concerning communities which overlap onto reserves and places like Sun Rivers, British Columbia which I found a pickle to categorize. --Keefer4 07:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- But is that a community of First Nations people? Sounds more like a golf resort attached to Sun Peaks; staffed by FN maybe, but....Should Park Royal have the FN Reserves cat, since it's on the Capilano Indian Reserve, for instance? This is one of the many reasons I think Category:First Nations communities in British Columbia would be a lot more workable than the one we have now.Skookum1 07:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Also that new development out on the Dollarton Highway falls in the same category of non-FN communities on reserves. There are many others.Skookum1 08:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I got the impression it definitely wasn't, hence the difficulty in categorizing. You're right, there should be a new cat. --Keefer4 08:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Last thoughts on this before bed: one categorization system that's nicely terse is the labels attache to placenames via BC Basemap at http://maps.gov.bc.ca. I know some come up, for instance, as "locality" when not "unincorporated xxx".Skookum1 08:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Replaced: Tete Jaune → Tête Jaune
I won't reverse this for now, but I disapprove. Tete Jaune Cache does not have the circumflex in its common English usage, as for example found in BC government documents and maps. I'll notify Indefatigable about the issue, but I'd like input from other BC editors or contributors to this page about the use of diacriticals; we do it for native-language names/articles; this is one of the few French-origin placenames in BC that requires a diacritical, but I don't recall ever seeing it.Skookum1 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it was a francophone community I'd definitely keep the circumflex, but to my knowledge, it isn't. Then again, its article references a book which uses the accent... I'm not sure, and it's not really important anyway. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well in terms of encyclopedic standard; Wiki uses accents on Montreal and Cheticamp although we don't generally bother in English (unless p.c. English); to me the re-addition of the French circumflex is an affectation. As for Francois Lake, bear in mind it was originally Lac des francais, so "francois" isn't right either (and neither spelling as rendered has the cedilla, come to think of itg...).Skookum1 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- When I edit, I usually use Natural Resources Canada's database as a spelling standard for place names. However, now that I have re-read Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide#French names, I see this is not always appropriate: "the current practice is to reflect actual English usage". So I won't oppose a revert if the circumflexless version is clearly more common. Indefatigable (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see the Geonames database uses the circumflex; so does, as it turns out, the provincial Land and Data Warehousee Resource Catalogue at http://www.maps.gov.bc.ca, which mirrors the provincial gazette (or so I was told by its administrators). But a generla google search for Tete Jaune-relat4eed articles turns up a bunch, including BC government ones, that don't use it. It might be official I wouldn't know; but common usage is without. Ultimately a picture of the post office sign there might resolve it I suppose.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone with the circumflex/cedilla/accent versions where they occur in BCGNIS, which is the case with Tete Jaune Cache and Francois Lake and there's others out there no doubt. I draw the line at special characters used in indigenous languages, e.g. a different apostrophe than normal, which is cumbersome to use (in 'Namgis for instance it turns up). Allowances have been made for FN names of various kinds like Sto:lo and Skwxwu7mesh (see what's on those titles when those redirects are followed) although I "don't like it" because they're not recognizable characters to average readers, and they're hard to use (a pain in the ass on category names!), and quite often don't mean the same thing from language to language (/t'/ means something different in St'at'imcets than it does in Nlaka'pamux, for instance).Skookum1 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see the Geonames database uses the circumflex; so does, as it turns out, the provincial Land and Data Warehousee Resource Catalogue at http://www.maps.gov.bc.ca, which mirrors the provincial gazette (or so I was told by its administrators). But a generla google search for Tete Jaune-relat4eed articles turns up a bunch, including BC government ones, that don't use it. It might be official I wouldn't know; but common usage is without. Ultimately a picture of the post office sign there might resolve it I suppose.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- When I edit, I usually use Natural Resources Canada's database as a spelling standard for place names. However, now that I have re-read Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide#French names, I see this is not always appropriate: "the current practice is to reflect actual English usage". So I won't oppose a revert if the circumflexless version is clearly more common. Indefatigable (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well in terms of encyclopedic standard; Wiki uses accents on Montreal and Cheticamp although we don't generally bother in English (unless p.c. English); to me the re-addition of the French circumflex is an affectation. As for Francois Lake, bear in mind it was originally Lac des francais, so "francois" isn't right either (and neither spelling as rendered has the cedilla, come to think of itg...).Skookum1 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Split article?
I suppose this is an outgrowth of structural observations on the Outline of BC sandbox, but this page would seem to be more useful if either separate sections are made for cities, districts, towns, villages vs unincorporated settlements and localities; either that or split them all into separate articles. Municipalities have different kinds of status, and even localities have varying hierarhical classification in BCGNIS, e.g. Indian village, locality, landing, post office, community. Also List of Indian Reserves in Canada#Indian Reserves in British Columbia has some overlap with this list, but it's not a precise overlap because e.g. Alkali Lake, British Columbia isn't just the Alkali Lake Indian Reserve (one of dozens and dozens of examples); and some reserves have more than one settlement in them, and some whiel on IR land are not FN communities but subdivisions/private proejcts (including Park Royal, and parts of West Kelowna/West Bank and the Burrard and Musqueam Reserves - and the Tsawwassen Reserve too...if not a split or subsectioning, then maybe this could be a sortable table so, if someone wanted only to view villages or cities, they could sort for it.Skookum1 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
List of Communities or List of municipalities
I just found this nice article of all the municipalities of BC but not the the neighbourhoods only the municipality the table has the Regional District population type of municipality e.g. city or district surface area within municipal boundaries I think there is no reason to have this article because part of it is about municipalities and they others are about detached communities from like Aldergrove and neighbourhoods. I feel that these neighbourhoods or communities are important they should be on their municipality's article. RebaFan1996 (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- See previous section about splitting the article, or having a separate series of lists, i.e. List of district municipalities in British Columbia, List of cities in British Columbia etc. I disagree that neighbourhoods and localities should not be considered important enough to be anywhere but on the target municipalities' pages; many such as Agassiz have unique identities of their own, and the same goes for smaller places like Steelhead in Mission or Ruskin in Maple Ridge or Cloverdale in Surrey, Aldergrove in Langley, Steveston in Richmond, Sardis and Rosedale in Chilliwack etc etc. Many were at one time separate municipalities, or had identities distinct within their municipalities. This is a general list and can include unincorporated places alongside municipalities, so there's no reason to exclude neighbourhoods within municipalities which are equivalent in scale/important to the unincorporated places; this list can also include Indian Reserve communities and historical Indian villages (and ghost towns) which a "municipalities" titled one could not. This list could be made a lot more useful by having it tableized like List of ghost towns in British Columbia so that each item can have a column as to its location - latlong, which region it's in, and which regional district, and what its status is (village/town/city etc and also in the case of unincorporated ones there's terms like "landing" and "locality" in BCGNIS listings). But it's a lot of work, even with the page as large as it already is and it's not complete. Also per Wiki standard the title should be, anyway, List of settlements in British Columbia. Also rather than separate "List of cities in BC", "List of Villages in BC" (the capitalization is important to distinguish incorporated Villages from Indian villages, which is a BCGNIS designation though mostly for historical items only), "list of uninocrorpoated settlements in British Columbia" they could all just be sections here; unless somebody goes to the effort of making the whole thing table-ized so the village/town/muni distinctions can be made. It's a lot of work....(I know becaues I made the ghost towns and List of historical ships in British Columbia pages etc.).Skookum1 (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Birmingham
this was a real estate townsite/speculation on the GNR (CN) line west of Prince George; never came to much, though there's some in various books on ghost towns in BC; like other such places, they didn't exist long enough to get into CGNDB...."settlement" might be too kind a word, though.Skookum1 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Moved back to List of communities in British Columbia
I tried moving this article back to List of communities in British Columbia to trigger a proposed move discussion due to the proposed name already being a redirect. To my surprise, it moved it over the redirect rather than my expectation of it telling me that I'd have to go through the proposed move process. Apparently WP now allows you to move articles back over redirects.
Anyways, I've done some research, and it appears the term "communities" is used over the term "settlements" in BC by both the Ministry of Communities and BCGNIS, now GeoBC (search for an known unincorporated place, just as Yahk, and see it is referred to as a "community"). Also, the equivalent lists for the 12 other provinces and territories in Canada use the "List of communities in X" convention, and the associated Canadian WikiProject is Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities. The term "settlements" may be the convention (not sure about standard) outside of Canada, but not within Canada.
As I was expecting this to trigger a requirement to go through the proposed move process, I have no opposition to initiating a proposed move discussion by other means if this has happened to ruffle some feathers. Hwy43 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)