Canada: British Columbia / Geography Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This template is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

How do "regions" relate to Regional Districts? Near as I can figure the "regions" are a B.C. tourism categorization. Regional Districts are local governments. Not exactly comparable. --maclean25 06:54, 7 September 1996 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• BC Regional Index

See Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Harmonizing_province_templates. Circeus 18:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know this is a deviation from other provinces, but under the Local Governments Act, communities of over 5000 with a certain population density (can't rememember what it is now) must be incorporated as cities. The Union of BC Municipalities lists fully 46 communities incorporated as cities - from tiny Greenwood to mighty Vancouver. Meanwhile, large incorporated districts like Saanich or the District of North Vancouver, don't qualify to be on the list. Hence my change. Hope that this meets with general approval. The figures come from the 2001 census, and the "other major communities" are those communities that fill out the top 30 in the province. Fishhead64 01:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fully support the change, as it makes the template much more useful. It has been cycling back and forth as to what is included or not. If it's restricted to only cities, then some significant population centres are omitted, which diminishes the effectiveness of the list. (I don't think someone reading this template cares whether or not a place is, legally speaking, a city. They're more likely to be interested in what the larger population centres are.) Plus, the template would omit (for example) the District of North Vancouver and the Township of Langley, but include the adjacent (and significantly smaller) City of North Vancouver and City of Langley (respectively). I seem to recall an earlier argument that it was to do with matching the other provincial templates. From what I can see, the only standard with the other templates is that they're all non-standard. Some have counties, some have electoral districts, etc. Definite improvement, and the population breakdown is even better. --Ckatz 01:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are not "natural" districts but governmental-administrative ones, subject to political flexitude and boundary changes from regime to regime; not all "natural" or historical-geographic region articles are written yet, but once they are they shoudl replace the RDs here.Skookum1 04:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• What's wrong with having both? Tompw (talk) (review) 11:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, then, why not include Forest Districts, Mining Districts, Health Districts, Environment Ministry Regions etc; none of which coincide with RD boundaries/labels. And nobody says "Hi, I'm from the Cariboo Regional Disrict" or "Hi, I'm from the Regional District of Boundary Kootenay" - they say "Hi, I'm from the Cariboo" or "Hi, I'm from the Kootenays". "Subdivisions of British Columbia isn't very helpful if you don't know what/where Mount Waddington or Comox-Strathcona is; and the Northern Rockies Regional District mostly isn't in the Rockies (it's mostly the Liard Plain), and the Northern Rockies start way down by Mt Robson; similar nomenclatural shortcomings are the Stikine Region, which doesn't even include most of the Stikine Country and is, in fact, mostly the Atlin Country and Cassiar Country; and the Cariboo Regional District includes the very-distinct Chilcotin Country but doesn't include all of the traditional Cariboo, parts of which are in the Lillooet Country, parts of which are in the Thompson Country. The Fraser Valley Regional District does not include the whole Fraser Valley (meaning the Lower Fraser Valley, not as in the outsider usages that refer to Lillooet and Williams Lake as "Fraser Valley towns"), and the GVRD doesn't include all of Greater Vancouver. The only place an RD-based template has any kind of validity is on incorporated town/village/city/district articles and on their electoral areas; as the RDs are formed of reps from municipalities (usually their mayors) and the representatives from their rural Electoral Areas. They're useless to "navigate" with as nobody thinks in terms of them, and somebody from outside BC won't find them very useful, cf. Stikine Region and all those other examples again. Also GUARANTEED next time there's a change of government, or perhaps even without one often enough, the RD boundaries get moved around to keep the bureaucrats and number-crunchers happy. It's not like counties in the US or Ontario or the Maritimes; the equivalent to counties here is our "Countries", and they're the only consistent usage across time from the founding of the colonies and before; thousands of articles will have to be rejigged, without any bot-ability, if RDs are used as the main subdivision system for BC, whether as a template or in Category:Geographic regions of British Columbia. And it's inappropriate to put Mount Waddington Regional District on an article for a town or a person who existed before the MWRD came into existence; but easy enough to put Central Coast or Queen Charlotte Strait, which are the in-use "region names". Nobody other than government types and catagloguists talk in terms of RDs.Skookum1 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to disagree with Skookum1 here. Regional Districts are parallel to counties or districts in other provinces as formal, administrative subdivisions. To say that one is from the Cariboo is roughly equivalent to an Ontarian saying that he or she is from the Lakehead. It references an imprecise area. At least as one drives around the province, one knows when they're entering a new jurisdiction. As for boundary changes, I have to confess I was not aware that the boundaries routinely shifted. I've lived in four regional districts in my lifetime (Capital, Fraser-Fort George, Fraser Valley, and Greater Vancouver), and to my knowledge the boundaries have remained constant, encompassing set electoral areas.

I believe a template on the subdivsions of British Columbia needs to focus on what actually, legally exists in this province—not these historic, informally-defined areas, which should have a template of their own. Alex Fraser, yes, was from the Cariboo, he's also from the Cariboo Regional District (in fact, he chaired it). Kamloops is in the Thompson region, its also in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. fishhead64 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've lived in ones that have been "fixed" for a long time; but you must be younger than me because the Fraser Valley Regional District now applies to one of the places I'm from - Ruskin Dam, in Mission - but even into the 1980s that was still DARD (the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District) and so was Ruskin down the road, i.e. across the Maple Ridge boundary, which is now in the GVRD (which hasn't been fixed in size, though wherever you were remained in it). So I'm not "from" the Fraser Valley Regional District, I'm "from" the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District, in the terms you're talking; but to me I'm - if speaking in regional terms - from the Central Fraser Valley, or the Fraser Valley, or the Lower Mainland or even Greater Vancouver (though in my day that ended, eassily, at the Pitt River); similarly George Cowan an George Anthony Boomer Walkem and Billy Barker were not "from" the Cariboo Regional District, but from the Cariboo; Forbes George Vernon wasn't from North Okanagan RD or Columbia-Shuswap RD (whichever their spreads are), he was from the Okanagan (in technical terms he was from the Okanagan subdivision of the Yale Land District...or is that the Okanagan subdivisions of the Kamloops Sub-district of the Yale Land District; Ma and George Murray were from Lillooet/the Lillooet Country and Clement Francis Cornwall wasn't from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, he was from the Thompson Country (by "from" here I obviously don't mean as in Ma Murray was from Kansas, so-and-so was from Perthshire or Belfast whatever). .This is even more important for historical figures, in other words, before regional districts were created and British Columbians still referred to being in the Lillooet District or Similkameen District, which were Land/Mines Districts and a Mines District, respectively (which did have precise boundaries); prior to their creation there were no regional councils, just the Government Agent for each of their respective districts. And it's cheating (for this "argument" I mean) citing somebody who was actually on the board of one of these not-counties, that's like saying someone is "from the provincial government" (as indeed someone can be, though not usually in the desired sense). The only people I know who refer to RDs in regular parlance (who don't work for them, or for one of their component munis or some other gov/media organ) are the people who have to live under their misrule outside of municipalities, i.e. in the Electoral Areas; but there's no way one of my acquaintances from the Bridge River would say, unless being specific for electoral purposes or in explaining to you which Electoral Area he/she is in would say "I'm from the SLRD". To say that would mean that you're an official of the SLRD, an the only reason you'd be offered coffee is to get you away from the part of the property where you don't want them to see the new foundation you're pouring or a diversion ditch that hasn't been approved...in general the RDs are held in contempt by those who have the most to do with them, unless they need the RD to help them get/stop something in which case they'll kiss-up...it's not a way people refer to where they're from, and while it may be handy for governments (and encyclopedists) to parcel out these things, nobody else does. When you tell you friends where you're living, do you say "Victoria/Greater Victoria" or "the Capital Regional District"??Skookum1 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the point you make about historical figures. Clearly, it's disingenuous to say that so-and-so is from a jurisdiction that had not yet been created. For the record, I object to articles like this - an example where someone who never lived in Canada, and in fact never lived to see even the term "Canada" applied to a jurisdiction, categorised as "Canadian." It's anachronistic, which I think is your point.

Having said that, regional districts have existed for over forty years, their boundaries (now, in any event) are fairly static (and, if not, neither have been the boundaries of Canadian provinces and territories), and they are actual administrative jurisdictions, not colloquial concepts. One is capable of being from many different "places" at once.

The point is, regardless of one's particular POV concerning regional districts, they are legal jurisdictions, thus appropriate to a template that contains legal jurisdictions. My suggestion is that you create a separate template, something like Category:Geographic regions of British Columbia. It may be entirely appropriate to say Billy Barker is a person from the Cariboo; as it is so say that Bill Bennett is from the Central Okanagan Regional District. fishhead64 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC) from the GVRD ;)Reply[reply]

Well, from the Central Okanagan certainly, and also the member for Central Okanagan (electoral district), but otherwise he's from Kelowna, period. Someone who might say "I'm in [the] CORD" would be most likely from an unincorporated area, i.e. Electoral Area; I don't think anybody would say "I'm from the Central Okanagan Regional District" (unless they worked for the RD), but rather "I'm from the (Central) Okanagan". Note that I changed that cat name you cited as it already exists with small-r "regions", which is where I placed all the new "Country" cats and also made subcats for Regional Districts and whatever RD cats there are; as per Keefer4's suggestion somewhere I've also created separate subcats for Regional Districts of the Coast/Interior; there's only a handful that are both - the SLRD and KSRD come to mind, might be one other but I don't think so; thought of subcatting the Coast RD cat to "RDs on Vancouver Island" and "RDs in the Lower Mainland" (even if there's only two.....at present); "RDs on the Central Coast" would include Mt Waddington as well as Central Coast, so again only two; the Interior is the big-population one for that of course; what I mean here is that grouping RDs under the bigger meta-regions helps, although the bulk of the "Countries" tend to be combined in RDs (e.g. Chilcotin Country and part of Nechako Country are in the Cariboo RD - but not in the Cariboo per se).Skookum1 21:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tweaked that cat name again, missed geographical vs geographic; I guess what you meant was ((Geographic regions of British Columbia))....Keef and I and others (?) have debated what to call them, though - Historical districts/region of British Columbia? Traditional regions of British Columbia? Because they're as much cultural regions as they are geographic ones....Skookum1 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, aside from such fabricated region-names as the Regional District of Mount Waddington ("Hi, I'm from Mount Waddington!") we have the problems of the Stikine Region and Northern Rockies Regional Districts; the Stikine Country/District is mostly in the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District, the Northern Rocky Mountains are 80% outside the Northern Rockies Regional District, which itself is 85% muskeg-prairie. The traditional boundaries/regions may be informal and a bit loose (as with Cariboo which can include Clearwater and Kamloops over to Ashcroft and (wildly, to me) Lytton, but of course when you hit Clinton on Hwy 97 it says "Gateway to the Cariboo"....which for Lillooeters was always an odd boast because in the original meaning Lillooet was the southern nub of the Cariboo, not Clinton. Similarly the Boundary Country is "older" than the Okanagan or Kootenay (in organizational terms, i.e. as a Mining District and settled before both) but it's lumped in with either one now because it's been "gerrymandered" into larger jurisdictions; likewise the Similkameen,because of Okanagan-Similkameen, some people think is in the Okanagan. But the thing is that, little vagaries like this aside, there's no mistaking that Keremeos is in the Similkameen, or that 100 Mile House is in the Cariboo, or Mission is in the (Central or Lower) Fraser Valley; somebody who is from Hanceville or Anahim Lake isn't from the Cariboo, they're from the Chilcotin (even though those towns are in the Cariboo Regional District, and also the federal Cariboo riding; as was for a long time Whistler, in fact...) that there are overlaps is incidental; this is how people think/speak and classify the province in daily speech/use. And again, especially since the RDs are not the only subdivisions of government here - Health Districts, MoE and MoF and GEMS regions, tourism marketing regions ("Cariboo Coast Chilcotin" an that silly and ironic "Rainbow Country" for Chilliwack/Rosedale - but again those are terms nobody outside the groups who coined or are working under them use....). The Comox Valley is a region; the Comox-Strathcona Regional District is an admininstrative organism; it's not a useful subdivision or identifier.....and there are other options if subgovernmental districts are to be used - paramount above all the Land Districts, which though subdividable (as I've discovered, thinking they'd been fixed in colonial times) but don't get moved around like chessmen on the Board each time there's a change in the Municipal Affairs portfolio/policy.Skookum1 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider this: when this current bunch either gets voted out or is forced to resign or however they're going to meet their political-mortal end (as all regimes do, eventually) and the RDs are shuffled......how many thousands of BC articles and the associated categories are going to have to be fixed/realigned/reassed. It won't be something you can do bot-omatically, either. I'm trying to establish a subdivisions system that won't change with whims of government or over time; which is why I prefer the historical regions, which though overlapping and sometimes vague have remained in steady use for in some cases over 150 years (a slight few had existed as names before, e.g. Cowichan Valley) and can't be fiddled with by governments; they're such powerful names that they get used in RD names, e.g. Columbia-Shuswap or Boundary Kootenay (which for some weird reason doesn't use a hyphen....) and so on.....but they're the actual name, and don't derive from the RD, but the other way around. And then, again, there's those problems with Northern Rockies RD and the Stikine Region - which aren't "the Northern Rockies" or "the Stikine".Skookum1 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is that RDs are administrative subdivisions - they're legal jurisdictions like municipalities. Land districts exist for the purpose of crown lands management. As for shifting boundaries, municipal boundaries shift all the time. What do you think editors did with historical figures when the boundaries of Toronto, Halifax, or Montreal - or, for that matter, Vancouver - changed during or after their lifetimes? It really is not a question of historical figures, it's a question about what is appropriate to a template dealing with legal subdivisions, not colloquial regionalisms. It is ill-suited to the actual jurisdictional realities of the province. fishhead64 20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to the rest, see my response two up. fishhead64 20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Had a look at Samuel Vetch, too, and I see their template makes the same mistake as used to apply to ((tl:Lieutenant-Governors of British Columbia)) by including Colonial Governors (who had their own Lieutenant-Govs); and I completely agree about mislabelling someone Canadian who, like Gov. Douglas, whose lifespan and public role had little to do with Canada, even moreso guys like Blanshard from before there was even the term "British Columbia". Canadian national chauvinism is rife on matters like this; "but it's Canada" now just doesn't wash for me; also see Talk:John McLoughlin about whether or not he is belongs in "People from Canada" and what-not; what do we do about his son David McLoughlin (no article yet), who was born in what was a British jurisdiction (though not formally territory....unless he was born in Rupert's Land rather than the Columbia District, I'm not sure...); events and people in the former Columbia District should, by rights, be part of the History of Canada/BC as well, etc. There are better examples; these just popped to mind because of the Canadian-or-not-Canadian and the meaning of "Canada" in his time span on the McLoughlin talkpage already linked; the Lakehead/Fort William was formally part of the Colony of Canada/Upper Canada (whiehever), but "Canada" as a geographic region was on the other side of Lake Superior and someone from Fort William at the time wouldn't have considered it be "Canada", except in a political sense.Skookum1 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weighing my voice in: For the purposes of this template I think RDs are appropriate. RDs are federations of municipalities so if there are going to be two sets of listings I like having both RDs and municipalities. I have no objection to adding another listing or another template with some other thematical/regional breakdown(s). Yes, things will change (not anytime soon though) and someone clever will make the changes (don't worry about it). The new 'historical' regions are intuitive and will make fine categories. The Stikine Region probably shouldn't be in the list of Regional Districts.

P.S. While we are at it (a) I object to the term "Large suburban communities", these are municipalies in their own right. (b) I would like to see more regional representation. They are currently listed by population (because it's convenient, I guess). Can we get a second row of "Other major centres" and add Prince Rupert, Williams Lake, Squamish, Whistler, and maybe even Dawson Creek? --maclean 02:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I especially agree with your last bit because the template otherewise focuses on the Lower Mainland-South Island almost entirely because of the population imbalance between the outer regions and the metros; might be good to have Coast/Interior breakdowns/sections in the template so important regional centres aren't missed out on; the "capitals" of each of the main historical districts should all be listed for sure, i.e. Revelstoke for the Columbia Country, Fort St. John for the Peace, and so on; at least the major-major traditional regions anyway, e.g. Salmon Arm for the Shuswap. As for the RD-based template I'm all OK for a template that would appear only on articles that directly have to do with RDs - the component municipalities, regional parks, electoral areas, RD-based orgs and so on. Doesn't work with First Nations (Reserves are outside RDs because they're outside the Municipal Act) or Provincial Parks (which are not governed/regionalized by RDs, but by MoE Parks regions). So I'd say use the "Country"-based template/subdivisions for everything else, and confine/breakaway the RD template so it's only on RD-related pages. Very pointedly, any town or person from the era before the legislation establishing Regional Districts (post-WWII sometime, during WAC's tenure I think) is entirely anachronistic and just doesn't wash; of course my main interests are historical articles, and FN a4rticles, and that's why I find it inappropriate, and also jarring; and I can guarantee you the Squamish Nation doesn't consider itself "in" the GVRD, likewise the Lillooet Tribal Council would sneer if we put Category:Squamish-Lillooet Regional District on their page.....And you're more optimistic about the lifespan of the current government than I am.....Skookum1 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think the two-template, two-category approach works best: This template and a new one Template:Geographical regions of British Columbia. First Nations reserves may indeed sneer at being categorised as existing withon certain RDs, but, in fact, they do - whether they like it or not. And I'm not entirely sure they care that much.

This template breaks down administrative subdivisions of BC - geographical regions don't have "capitals." British Columbia has census divisions, and my understanding of the original idea behind the reworking of the template last summer was that we were strictly going to include incorporated communities according to size. Before the most recent reworking, the municipalities were lined as follows: Communities over 100,000; 75,000—100,000; 50,000—75,000, Other major communities (see here). I still think that works better rather than this arbitrary division between "suburbs" and "urban centres" (what makes Abbotsford an "urban centre" and Burnaby a "suburb"?). fishhead64 05:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, sorry, Fishhead, from what I understand of the legal technicalities, Indian Reserves are NOT in the RDs, but enclaves within them mandated under different legislation; which is why munis and the the Reserves alongside them partly have such legal-technical difficulties coordinating things even if they want to cooperate (which most of the time they don't, of course....). I'll check on the technicalities but Indian Reserves are not within the jurisdiction of RDs; that's the problem; likewise with federal and even provincial parks. As with my removal of Category:Squamish-Lillooet Regional District from Stawamus Chief and its replacement by Category:Sea to Sky Country now, the RD templates and cats should only be used for member municipalities, component Electoral Areas (capitalized always, as with Regional District), Regional Parks, and other things connected with RD governance; geographic features should be in geographical, not administrative-region categories; I'll finish the remaining historical region cats and subcats and main article stubs for them tonight I guess, and build the template ((Geographic regions of British Columbia)) (not "-ical" so as to harmonize with Category:Geographic regions of British Columbia, which will go on geographic features, unincorporated communities, Indian Reserves, and other features which are not "creatures of the Municipal Act" and/or the enabling legislation for RDs; and very importantly use of RD categories on articles concerning things/people from before RDs were created is a no-go and highly anachronistic; articles on the defunct RDs are still pending of course.Skookum1 05:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NB it's "this technical" - if there's a Stawamus Chief Regional Park or RD-defined trail, then IT goes in the SlRD category; but the Chief itself goes in the Sea to Sky geographic cat.Skookum1 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And just to add that "Geographic regions of British Columbia" I'll stick with but as Keef and I and others have discusse (inside Wikipedia and out), they're not just geographic regions, but somethign like cultural regions as well; "historical regions" is maybe a misnomer, also "traditional regions", though to me those are more reflective of the desired meaning; proper "Geographic regions" are the Coast/Island, Coast Mountains, Interior Plateau etc. The "Country" regions (not all "Countries" like Category:Robson Valley or Category:Lower Mainland) are human-perceptions/inventions, not "geographic" except in terms of human geography and historical geography; I suppose ((Historical geographic regions of British Columbia)) might be too cumbersom - ?? - and while ((Historical regions of British Columbia)) is to me more accurate, might be misleading; mind you I think ((Subdivisions of British Columbia)) is also misleading and should more properly be ((Subdivisions of British Columbia as defined by the Municipalities Act)); it's not as if RDs were the only kind of official subdivision......Skookum1 06:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i.e. please tell me which one you like (everybody).Skookum1 06:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll suggest also that ((Subdivisions of British Columbia)) be renamed to ((Municipalities and Regional Districts of British Columbia)), which is more specific and steps around the issue of Moe Regions, Health Board Districts etc.; the Subdivisions template can list the "other" templates, the new Muni/RD one I just proposed, the geographic/historical one, plus any other subdivisions that present themslves (bioregions, "proper" geographic regions, MoE regions etc.).Skookum1 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just created ((Historical geographic regions of British Columbia)) as I feel that ((Geographic regions of British Columbia)) should be for "proper" geographic regions - the plateau/mountain range divisions, the "geographic provinces"; ((Bioregions of British Columbia)) also seems to be in the offing; and also ((Geological provinces of British Columbia)) and the like; all could have a ref in the bottom for ((Subdivisions of British Columbia)), which should IMO be converted into a template listing the different kinds of subdivisions/templates; where we'd put it I have no idea but such a listing would fit the title much better than only having major municipalities and RDs on-board. I didn't know enough about the Island to region-name some of it - thought of Clayoquot/Kyuqout/Quatsino/Nootka Sounds, and so on; not sure what to call Jordan River-Port Renfrew, or the Nanoose area (Greater Ladysmith? - I'm fuzzy - what's Nanoose close to; and re Malahat I've heard also as Malahat Country but don't dare define it; also within Greater Victoria there's Saanich Peninsula etc......so tweak away, and add or alphabetize anything I've missed; as in the edit comment on the first draft I don't know how to format this particular navbox, or would have broken up Island/Mainland/Central-North Coast, and Central/Northern/Southern Interior - although as per a new discussion on my talkpage with CindyBo it's hard to define Central vs Northern and Central vs Southern; I've put the Skeena and Sea to Sky cats only in the Coast section, though they "could" be in both, likewise the Nass; and still not sure what Stewart, BC belongs in.....some are near-irrelevant maybe like Liard Country, although that is a term that gets used.Skookum1 06:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for doing this. I agree with everything you say here (!). I'll move this template accordingly. fishhead64 14:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template has been moved twice in the last few months, and now there's a number of doube redirects. This prevents the template from being displayed, see Maple Ridge, British Columbia , Regional District of Comox-Strathcona, British Columbia, etc (all transclusions (and direct links) from the old template). --Qyd 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the links in the other provincial templates, so now there's less than 100 pages left where ((BritishColumbia)) has to be replaced/updated. Either that, or moving the template back to ((Subdivisions of British Columbia)). --Qyd 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind, fixed with redirect bypass, thanks Gpvos. --Qyd 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't noticed this template in a while, noticed the way the communities section is broiken down. RD Electoral Areas are scarcely communities, though often scanning several within a wide-ranging boundary;they're also redundant as a section here because RDs themselves are listed separately. What I'm weighing in on, though, is the inclusion of the ghost towns here, also the First Nations; granted, there is no separate List of unincorporated settlements in British Columbia or List of First Nations communities in British Columbia but these should be the terms of reference; the ghost towns are not all relevant as habited, or even ever habited; and the link to the First Nations directly isn't quite right, as even within a given reserve there can be more than one community potentially listed; in general b3ecause many aboriginal communities are also non-aboriginal, and many incorporated settltements are heavily aboriginal either from flanking major reserves or even without them, I'm not sure tehre's a point in trying to list aboriginal communities separately; the rough equivlanet ot actual First Nations if the RDs, though not in a protocolic sense. Anyway the sections here jump over towns and villages to go straight from municipalities to FNs and ghost towns; this isn't right. Don't have time to tweak it, had dropped by here to leave a note before proceeding to Talk:List of regions of Canada where some tweaking on the BC section is needed.Skookum1 (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electoral areas are not listed at all in this template. Regional Municipalities are, and they are important, as they are a form of government (municipal incorporation). First Nations in British Columbia and List of ghost towns in British Columbia are both linked here. It would be a stretch to make a group with all first nations (how many are there in BC, 500?). As far as ghost towns go, most pages are still missing.--Qyd (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, retract, read your comment more carefully, you are right, will move the electoral district to the subdivisions list. --Qyd (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the legal status of this communities, and how are they different from any other unincorporated settlement? It is not explained in List of communities in British Columbia. --Qyd (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally speaking, there is no legal status... Oyama et al exist as discrete electoral wards and may or may not appear in the Lake Country District Municipality letters patent, but I imagine the majority see no mention in the consolidated statutes. In that respect, yes, they're like an unincorporated community, in there isn't a municipal corporation with their name but they do nonetheless exist in terms of Wikipedia articles. They aren't strictly speaking unincorporated though, as they fall within a municipality. The Tom (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The parallel would seem to be Clayburn and Bradner and Matsqui and Clearbrook and Huntingdon and so on within the City of Abbotsford, or Stave Falls and Steelhead and Silverdale, Silverhill, Cedar Valley, Hatzic and Ferndale and various others within the District of Mission; the distinction is that Oyama and its other Lake Country siblings (what a dumb name for a municipality....how realty-promo flavoured...) used to be incorporated separately (or not?). Matsqui of course was incorporated separately, although Matsqui Village was not within the District of Matsqui (a big distinction)Skookum1 (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Skookum, if you want, you could do subgroups for "interior" and "lower mainland." It might be easier to understand than various regions within brackets. Not a necessity, just a suggestion. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

|group12 = List of Geological Regions
|list12  = 
*[[Cache Creek Terrane]]
))

|group13 = List of Ecological Regions
|list13  = 
*[[Vancouver Island]]
))

Eyreland (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]