Talk:British Columbia

Mistake Under Geography

"Seventy-five percent of the province is mountainous (more than 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) above sea level); 60% is forested; and only about 5% is arable.|

--Frankjohnli (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

HOw is that a mistake? it's true that only about 5% is arable....though that definition of "Mountainous" may not stand a test elevation-wise (some areas 1000m plus are plateau, for example).Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

They're saying that these percentages actually overlap. You can have mountainous regions that are forested, and mountainous regions with little pockets of arable land in the valleys, foothills, etc. So there is no mistake. MrMonday1 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Arctic outflow conditions" and other weather issues

I changed this phrase to refer to "arctic air masses" as such conditions are not always outflow winds but rather stable continental air masses which hold over the coast, deflecting the oceanic air masses. And NB "outflow winds" is a local usage which would need explaining, i.e. the descent of the plateau air masses via the inlets/river canyons through the Coast Mountains...the Alaskan term for these is williwaw but an archaic BC usage is a Squamish (wind), though that was really only used in the past for winds coming out of Howe Sound, as the name would suggest. Outflow winds might exist as an article, I"m not sure, but if not perhaps it should be written; it may apply in WA and OR, too I'm not sure. Also the rains are not just North Pacific cyclones, but often "Pineapple expresses" aka the Coastal Chinook, which are big streams of warm subtropical wet air coming from the direction of Hawaii, i.e. rather htan out of the Gulf of Alaska or other parts of the North Pacific.Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in BC govt websites should be a digital version of a climate map for the province; maybe in the Ministry of Forests, I think.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Outflow wind sounds like the Mistral when it comes from the north-west and also the Santa Ana winds. That last article calls it a "drainage wind" and links to Katabatic wind which looks like the correct technical term. So maybe Outflow wind should be a redirect to katabatic wind? Franamax (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox heading

The infobox heading should be restricted to the province's official language, which is English. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to prove your claim. Daicaregos (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's there in the infobox - official language is English. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

See here - [www.welcomebc.ca/wbc/immigration/choose/people/language.page], shows tha 83% are English. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That web address page does say "Eighty-three per cent of British Columbians speak English. English is the main language of communication in British Columbia ...". However, it does not support your claim that the province's official language is English. The only reference to official languages is: "Canada has two official languages: French and English. While most people in British Columbia speak English, there is also a Francophone community here, and many services-includingCitizenship and Immigration-are available in French."
Yes, it does say the official language is English in the infobox. However, it is unreferenced, and Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself. Please provide a link to a reliable source to verify your claim. Daicaregos (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

English/French is the official language of Canada, that's federal. Since BC doesn't have a provincal official language (which an apparent lack of source prooves), then the English only version is required as this is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So is your claim that the province's official language is English false? I assume you weren't aware of that when you made the claim. Daicaregos (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, I was mislead by the infobox's official languages section. A de-facto note, shouldn've been applied there. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Was that the extent of your research before making your bold claim? Given that the province lacks its own official language (if that is the case), is there any reason that the de-facto status of languages would be anything other than the the federal position? Daicaregos (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Federal position should not reflect that of the province. If that were the case then should the national anthem be included in every province article? After all, if the provinces don't have an anthem should the federal or national anthem then be the default position on these articles? Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that English and French should be noted as official languages. Daicaregos (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the French version of BC should be deleted from the Infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

At least try to make a case for your POV.
A case can be made for the Federal position being the default, de facto position: For example, as far as I know, there is no official provincial position as to which side of the road people should drive. Consequently, with no official British Columbia position, the default, de facto position in British Columbia is the Federal position; i.e. to drive on the right. Daicaregos (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you're wrong; look up the BC Motor Vehicle Act and know that it's in all provincial driving exams (important when you consider the number of people from drive-on-the-left countries who have moved here).Skookum1 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The British Columbia Act and the subsequent British Columbia Constitution Act, I think it's called, which are federal legislations mandating BC as a province, may state that English is the operating/DBA language of the province, but I don't think there are any provincial statutes mandating an official language-of-state. it may be that the Office of the Speaker proscribes the language to be used in the House; but other languages are not unknown - a recent controversy over Jenny Kwan making an address in Chinese proved controversial, but I think the upshot was that there is no official language, otehr than the de facto status of English, not even in the House. Certainly the BC government does not publish, other than in federal-related documentation, anything in French (IRs in BCGNIS have two listings, one in French, one in English, but that's because they're also federally-registered names). Daicaregos, it may help you to understand this is a thorny issue in BC, and the use of Colombie-britannique is always controversial (it's also in etymological error, as BC is named indirectly for the Columbia River by way of the Columbia District, and the French names of both use :Columbia", not "Colombie", which refers to Colombia in South America...also in French it's typically in lower-case, not caps, though apparently there's a wikia Wiki convention about that...the usual French abbreviation in French is "le c.-b." or similar)...I have to reboot, more later.Skookum1 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Since there's no official language, the infobox heading should be in only English (as this is Eng Wikipedia). GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a reliable source, that English/French are the official languages. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting for Skookum1 to resume, as s/he seems to know what s/he's talking about. Daicaregos (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If he can provide a English/French reliable source? then we'd also have to add French to the Offical languages section' of the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's something interesting, the BC Government official website [1], doesn't say there's an official language. Furthermore, it says the 2nd most commonly used langauge (in BC) are Cantanese & Mondrin to be precise. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you always trying to eradicate anything that isn't 100% english. Just because something isn't english doesn't mean it doesn't belong. French is still an official language for the country, so the names of its provinces exist in both english and french officially. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the article Canada though. Are you suggesting we put English in Quebec's official langues section of its infobox? There's only 1 province with English/French as its provincial official langauge - that's New Brunswick. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the header of the infobox, not in the official languages section. The province itself has two official names. One in french and one in english. -DJSasso (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not have an official language. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. Officially the province has two names. It would be incorrect to only state one of them. -DJSasso (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. We're talking about BC, not Canada. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Guess who approved the names of the provinces? Canada. Guess who enacts all laws in english and french? Canada. As provinces of Canada, every province has two names. Whether or not they have two languages is another matter. Which is why the infobox for Quebec even though it only has English as a provincial language has both English and French versions in its infobox. If it didn't then we would have to only list the French version. -DJSasso (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that infobox criteria suggestion. Quebec has English as this is the English language Wikipedia. Percentage wise, 8 of the provinces & 2 of the territories have an overwhelming majority of English usage. This should be reflected in the infobox headings. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If the province has two official names, both should be in the infobox heading. We've been through this before. Franamax (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘But it doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict reply to Franamax: yeah, but to unsatisfactory conclusion; it has an official name at the federal level, though how enshrined that "official-ness" is remains to be seen; it could just be convention, a result of translating of legislation etc. There's no where taht says "the official languages of British Columbia are French and English" AND there's nowhere, to my knowledge, that says "the official language of British Columbia is English", i.e. no statutory official-ness. As on my talkpage in response to GoodDay, I'll get in touch with teh Office of teh Speaker and/or the Provincial Secretary about this for clarification purposes. Language is a hot political issue in BC, or can be; using French on such a page IS controversial, despite federalists sentiments taht French is official because Canada is officially bilingual. French was never debated as an official language here, though German, Gaelic and Chinook Jargon were, and there've been proposals to amek Chinese an official language to make those new immigrants feel more at home; but French has never been on teh agenda. And it was here, I think Vander Zalm, maybe Rafe Mair, where a cabinet minister complained about having to read French on cereal boxes....Skookum1 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize that the wiki-standard for provinces with translatable names (Alberta, Yukon, Ontario etc don't translate;have alternate forms) is to have the French name included; but unlike BC, all of those (the NWT, NL, NB and NS) all have official-French status in their constitutional statutes).Skookum1 (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What's that mean? GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It means that those other provinces/territories have good reason to have a French name as a second-name....I just called the Office of the Speaker, where the reception lady was very nice and heard me out and transferred me to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, where I explained the situation and asked could somebody direct me to any legislation or maybe hansard debates concerning official language use. It was made clear to me, by the Clerk's office, that in the House, English is the language of debate; use of other languages, such as Kwan's address in Cantonese to visiting HK businessmen, requires prior approval partly so they can arrange for translators. I won't have any reply until after the holiday......but it may boil down, wiki-wise, to not mattering if BC has any official language or not; the federal standard/mandate may well prevail; though it really does look, frankly, like an oddity from the BC perspective to use the French. Also for any legislative or statutory detail, I was advised that the Clerks of the Legislative Library have huge memories and can provide answers to lots of things beyond this.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the 'Canadian Government says so' criteria for these 13 infobox headings (provincial & territorial). But if that's the criteria we're gonna go with? there's addition to be made at Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario & Yukon. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was going to suggest, by reverse compromise, that the "French form" of each of those names be put in the alternate name field, even though they're orthographically the same (but they're not phonetically, for sure); with "Fr:" prefacing each. I've never clearly understood why the French insisted on a French form for a non-English name, i.e. Nova Scotia (which is in Latin), but logic and politics are generally mutually exclusive.Skookum1 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever ya'll think best. I'm pooped out & disillusioned aswell, over the infobox heading 'here' & at the NFD, PEI, NS, NWT & NUN infobox headings. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think sensitivity to "local" issues should be a primary criterion here, it's an encyclopedia article - though the popular reaction to bilingualism is perhaps worthy of note in the article or sub-article. But leaving aside the fact that the francophone population was present pretty much from first European contact, the issue is that provinces have a subsidiary position to the federal government. It's an uneasy position built from lots of acts of Privy Council and Parliament, but the feds do have some say. For instance, I believe the Constitution Act has both English- and French-language versions, of equal standing. So there are two official names for the provinces. Where both names are equal, no "alternate" is needed. Within Canada, the overarching jurisdiction, there may be two different official names for the province. It doesn't matter whether the language used in the Legislature is one or the other or both, that comes under Robert's Rules of Order. We should show the official names recognized by the senior legislation, I don't see how that could be promoting a "French agenda". Franamax (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the Demographics section

Under Demographics- Ethnic groups, there is a table showing the ethnic groups, origin and percent of population. It shows that English and Scottish are the largest populations. Then, further down the list, it says British. This makes absolutely no sense, not to mention that it says the British population is much smaller than the English or Scottish populations. It says that the English and Scottish percentage of the populations are 29.6% and 20.3%, respectively, also with a percentage showing the Welsh population. It then says the British population makes up 1.8% of the province. I propose this be changed by taking out the British piece and leaving the English and Scottish percentages. MrMonday1 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree this is misleading in the way its presented - > Ethnic origins, 2006 counts for British Columbia. Moxy (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's like "African n.i.e." and others with that - not indicated as to which kind of British, that's the difference; and it's not like totally all of Scottish, Irish, Welsh, English, Cornish and n.i.e. are going to give a proper total, as many of those might be counted in both. Misleading yes but not for us to interpret.Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually your right its nicely explained below..sorry Moxy (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that part of the paragraph underneath the table should be moved up over it, or even an asterisk should be put next to 'British' so that people don't misread it like I did. That's a funky little quirk about that table and I think a note like something above would help. MrMonday1 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

diminishment

This word isn't in English and doesn't translate the motto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

culture of british columbia?

There's no section on the culture of British Columbia in this article. Joey11123 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)