Talk:Kelowna/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Images: Licensing Issues?

This page has a number of images used ([1] [2] [3] [4]) which claim to be GFDL, but don't specify a source. I have doubts that they are actually licensed GFDL. See also User_talk:Matthew_Samuel_Spurrell.

- Bradenm 04:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

New, and not sure what to do

I love Wikipedia! I live in Kelowna (BC), and discovered the entry in Wikipedia, and I am quite happy with it. It has an incomplete link for the 2003 fire, though. I have the information, but not the discernment on what to post. Can I leave the info here, and hope that someone who knows what information is useful will take it over? ^_^

Here is what I have:

http://www.dotcommediainc.com/slideshow/mixed/index.php3

http://castanet.firewatch.net/

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/protect/reports/2003Review/Okanagan_Fire_Review_K50628.pdf

http://www.highwaylodge.com/fire.htm

so - a lot of links and info. Hoping someone will take it on. Thanks!

(cross-posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous))

Done: There is now a fire article. - Bradenm 04:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Replaced Werner Schmidt with Ron Cannan to reflect the elections that happened on 23 Jan 2006. - Doctor

New Images: Licensing Issues?

This page has a number of images used ([5] [6] [7] [8]) which claim to be GFDL, but don't specify a source. I have doubts that they are actually licensed GFDL. See also User_talk:Matthew_Samuel_Spurrell.

- Bradenm 04:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

New, and not sure what to do

I love Wikipedia! I live in Kelowna (BC), and discovered the entry in Wikipedia, and I am quite happy with it. It has an incomplete link for the 2003 fire, though. I have the information, but not the discernment on what to post. Can I leave the info here, and hope that someone who knows what information is useful will take it over? ^_^

Here is what I have:

http://www.dotcommediainc.com/slideshow/mixed/index.php3

http://castanet.firewatch.net/

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/protect/reports/2003Review/Okanagan_Fire_Review_K50628.pdf

http://www.highwaylodge.com/fire.htm

so - a lot of links and info. Hoping someone will take it on. Thanks!

(cross-posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous))

Done: There is now a fire article. - Bradenm 04:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Replaced Werner Schmidt with Ron Cannan to reflect the elections that happened on 23 Jan 2006. - Doctor

Tables

I just replaced the ethnic origins .PNG with a wikitable. Feel free to revert or improve on it as I'm not certain I like the end result any better than having that large .PNG embedded in the middle of the article. --Stéphane Charette 07:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Kelowna, British Columbia → Kelowna

The Canadian geographic naming conventions permit an article to be moved to the undisambiguated title if the city has a unique name or is the most significant use of its name internationally. The title Kelowna exists as a redirect to this article, and as the name derives from a BC First Nations word (for the record, it would be better to link to the specific First Nation from which the name actually derives, rather than just saying "native"...but I digress), it's not likely to be repeated elsewhere in the world. Accordingly, this article is a candidate for a page move to the plain title Kelowna. Any discussion? Bearcat 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, for reasons given. Kelowna already redirects here. For the same reason that Lethbridge, Gatineau, Saskatoon, etc. got moved to undisambiguated titles, so should this one. Skeezix1000 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We should continue to move Canadian cities to the new convention, so Support. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose no real advantage in moving it. Imagine looking for canadian settlements in categories such as Category:Settlements established in 1818 or Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Spanish), etc. It's actually much harder to find an article if the province is not in the title. --Qyd 12:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That argument made no sense whatsoever. And this fits with our convention which has been established with precedents (Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Edmonton, ect) that happened within the last year. And nobody actually comes to Wikipedia to looks up articles by categories. The category system has become really overused, and more of a statistical thing than anything else. And the Canadian ones will stick out because the Americans are too stubborn to change their convention, so their's will always be city, state. -Royalguard11(T·R!)

Could you please point me to the naming convention discussion (can't find it right now)? As I remember, even in the lukewarm support that it got (the second time around), the naming convention mentioned as exceptions to the "Settlement, Province" name only important cities that don't have ambiguous names. Furthermore, I fail to see any advantage in moving the pages (double standards are certainly not an advantage), and the proposal only says that a move may be permitted, without giving a reason. And thanks for allowing me to have an opinion in this regard. PS there's more to the world than US and Canada. --Qyd 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That discussion was to change the existing Canadian naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), which includes conventions for most countries and regions in the world. Skeezix1000 12:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The convention was implemented de facto because we moved several articles (from Edmonton to Flin Flon) last summer. So it became the convention because of implementation as opposed to huge discussion (which is probably the best way to implement policy, otherwise you just argue for months on end). Because the cities exist at Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, Flin Flon ect, they have become the standard. You could ask for a move back, but if they stay then the new convention is just upheld (which is probable). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The convention pre-existed those moves last year (and flowed from a desire to disassociate articles like Toronto and Montreal, which were already undisambiguated, from the quagmire that was/is the debate over the U.S. naming convention). But you're right -- the convention was first truly implemented last year when articles such as Calgary and Gatineau were moved. Skeezix1000 17:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't even get us started about the US city convention (or rather Religious Decree). Tell them everything doesn't have to follow the convention to the letter and you see heads explode (just look at Boston). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That the categorization system can't display more details than article names is a software issue, which can hopefully be changed in the future. This article makes more intuitive sense as Kelowna. –Pomte 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The move was proposed nine months ago, and there remains only one opposing comment. Since the proposal is unlikely to generate much additional discussion at this point, I am being bold and proceeding with the move. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Volcanoes

Where and what are names of the volcanoes in the Kelowna area? On the map here there are indeed volcanoes in the area that are Pleistocene age. Black Tusk 03:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Was it indeed "First settled by missionaries " if its name derives from a native word? Might there not have been some indigenous people there before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrvnk (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Demographia Stats

I have some concern regarding the use of Demographia statistics on housing affordability within the article. After going through the Demographia article I noted a very strong pro-development bias. Although some of the statistical data provided by Demographia may be valid the affordability index may thus be subject to a systemic bias created to enforce policy reccommendations put forward in the report. As this is the case I question whether the statistical data drawn from this source is, in fact, impartial. If affordability statistics need be included I would suggest the removal of the Demographia index statistics in favor of primary source data from Statistics Canada. Simonm223 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic origin

The etnic origin table seems weird... First of all I didn't find the figures in the referenced source, then the addition of the percentages is more than 240% (but that's possible if we consider that people are from several origins) and third what is the meaning of "Canadian origin", does it mean that the other people (i.e. more than 85%) are all born outside Canada ??? - Arct (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Born in Kelowna

I think that it should be noted that Josh Gorges was actually born in Kelowna, not that he just resides there.James (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tables

I just replaced the ethnic origins .PNG with a wikitable. Feel free to revert or improve on it as I'm not certain I like the end result any better than having that large .PNG embedded in the middle of the article. --Stéphane Charette 07:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Volcanoes

Where and what are names of the volcanoes in the Kelowna area? On the map here there are indeed volcanoes in the area that are Pleistocene age. Black Tusk 03:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Was it indeed "First settled by missionaries " if its name derives from a native word? Might there not have been some indigenous people there before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrvnk (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Kelowna, British Columbia → Kelowna

The Canadian geographic naming conventions permit an article to be moved to the undisambiguated title if the city has a unique name or is the most significant use of its name internationally. The title Kelowna exists as a redirect to this article, and as the name derives from a BC First Nations word (for the record, it would be better to link to the specific First Nation from which the name actually derives, rather than just saying "native"...but I digress), it's not likely to be repeated elsewhere in the world. Accordingly, this article is a candidate for a page move to the plain title Kelowna. Any discussion? Bearcat 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, for reasons given. Kelowna already redirects here. For the same reason that Lethbridge, Gatineau, Saskatoon, etc. got moved to undisambiguated titles, so should this one. Skeezix1000 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We should continue to move Canadian cities to the new convention, so Support. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose no real advantage in moving it. Imagine looking for canadian settlements in categories such as Category:Settlements established in 1818 or Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Spanish), etc. It's actually much harder to find an article if the province is not in the title. --Qyd 12:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That argument made no sense whatsoever. And this fits with our convention which has been established with precedents (Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Edmonton, ect) that happened within the last year. And nobody actually comes to Wikipedia to looks up articles by categories. The category system has become really overused, and more of a statistical thing than anything else. And the Canadian ones will stick out because the Americans are too stubborn to change their convention, so their's will always be city, state. -Royalguard11(T·R!)

Could you please point me to the naming convention discussion (can't find it right now)? As I remember, even in the lukewarm support that it got (the second time around), the naming convention mentioned as exceptions to the "Settlement, Province" name only important cities that don't have ambiguous names. Furthermore, I fail to see any advantage in moving the pages (double standards are certainly not an advantage), and the proposal only says that a move may be permitted, without giving a reason. And thanks for allowing me to have an opinion in this regard. PS there's more to the world than US and Canada. --Qyd 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That discussion was to change the existing Canadian naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), which includes conventions for most countries and regions in the world. Skeezix1000 12:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The convention was implemented de facto because we moved several articles (from Edmonton to Flin Flon) last summer. So it became the convention because of implementation as opposed to huge discussion (which is probably the best way to implement policy, otherwise you just argue for months on end). Because the cities exist at Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, Flin Flon ect, they have become the standard. You could ask for a move back, but if they stay then the new convention is just upheld (which is probable). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The convention pre-existed those moves last year (and flowed from a desire to disassociate articles like Toronto and Montreal, which were already undisambiguated, from the quagmire that was/is the debate over the U.S. naming convention). But you're right -- the convention was first truly implemented last year when articles such as Calgary and Gatineau were moved. Skeezix1000 17:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't even get us started about the US city convention (or rather Religious Decree). Tell them everything doesn't have to follow the convention to the letter and you see heads explode (just look at Boston). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That the categorization system can't display more details than article names is a software issue, which can hopefully be changed in the future. This article makes more intuitive sense as Kelowna. –Pomte 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The move was proposed nine months ago, and there remains only one opposing comment. Since the proposal is unlikely to generate much additional discussion at this point, I am being bold and proceeding with the move. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Demographia Stats

I have some concern regarding the use of Demographia statistics on housing affordability within the article. After going through the Demographia article I noted a very strong pro-development bias. Although some of the statistical data provided by Demographia may be valid the affordability index may thus be subject to a systemic bias created to enforce policy reccommendations put forward in the report. As this is the case I question whether the statistical data drawn from this source is, in fact, impartial. If affordability statistics need be included I would suggest the removal of the Demographia index statistics in favor of primary source data from Statistics Canada. Simonm223 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the most recent edition of the study, the Demographia paper simply employs the "Median Multiple" (median house price divided by gross annual median household income) to rate housing affordability. In a certain sense, there is no bias, since the rating of a city is simply the product of a straightforward mathematical calculation. If you want to argue whether or not the "median multiple" technique is a valid way of describing affordability, that is probably a discussion for a different article. Perhaps the text should be reworded to reflect the method of calculation of the statistic. In the mean time, I have updated the reference with the latest study, including changing Kelowna's ranking and removing the reference to "in the world" (since the study only touches on 272 markets in 6 countries). --anon 2010-02-04

Born in Kelowna

I think that it should be noted that Josh Gorges was actually born in Kelowna, not that he just resides there.James (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that 2009 West Kelowna Fires, a page I've found on PROD patrol, be merged into this page instead of being deleted. What does everybody think of it? --I dream of horses (T) @ 22:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that none of the fires in question were in Kelowna itself, if that information doesn't belong on a separate page, it should probably be put in with West Kelowna. Just my two cents. Vortigern (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic origin

The etnic origin table seems weird... First of all I didn't find the figures in the referenced source, then the addition of the percentages is more than 240% (but that's possible if we consider that people are from several origins) and third what is the meaning of "Canadian origin", does it mean that the other people (i.e. more than 85%) are all born outside Canada ??? - Arct (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is someone talking care of the misleading table in Ethic? At least the title of the percentage column should tell the base = percentage of what.

--154.5.64.176 (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Climate Zone

Hi there... I'm a meteorologist in Kelowna and BsK as it originally was listed is the most descriptive term for the climate of Kelowna (definitely not humid continental - the climate north of Vernon towards Salmon Arm). Sticking with the hard lines of this system of classification system is not realistic for most of the lower elevations of the city because the airport at Kelowna is not representative of the city as a whole. Look at the EC Climate Data Online for the station at Burnett Nursery (older station closer to the lake) and the numbers crunch much closer to the BsK. The flora also more like one would expect in BsK. Also for at least six months of the year Kelowna is not humid (hottest six months). Kelowna is certainly a varied city with perhaps more than one classification due to altitude and aspect with BsK the dominant zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.76.91 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Crunching the climograph numbers yields the conclusion that Kelowna is Dfb (Warm Summer Continental), not Bsk (Cold Steppe).

7.7 (av. temp) x 20= 154 + 140= 294mm threshold for steppe. (Koppen Formula). Kelowna has 380mm. I can find no figures at [9] to suggest that Kelowna is Bsk, there is no justification.

I will change this.24.108.58.134 (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this: even if Kelowna just barely "officially" qualifies, it is most definitely NOT a humid continental climate in practice. The Environment Canada weather station is unfortunately located quite a bit to the north of the city is on higher land. This actually makes quite a significant difference between conditions at the airport, and those downtown - especially factoring in the urban island heat effect and the general trend toward drought over the past decade or more. Kelowna proper gets about 12 inches of rain per year, and widely varying amounts of snow (but never usually much more than 3 inches in water content). At the very least, this should be more clearly specified in the article - anyone wanting information on Kelowna will be quite surprised should they ever actually move or visit and experience dramatically different climatic conditions than they expected.

Bomb319 (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)