Talk:List of provincial parks of British Columbia Northern Interior

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reverted flags on List of provincial parks of British Columbia Northern Interior[edit]

@Braveheart:. In regards to your reversion of my Page Curation flags - Whilst I am happy to assume good faith the issue was that the page has no references cited at all, not that it is not linked anywhere. These are two different issues. Wikidata links do not count as references because Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the content of the linked pages does not count towards the content of this List - equally for the pages which are redlinked and do not link to anywhere else, these are unsubstantiated claims on the page. Whilst I am tempted to re-flag with this issue, I will instead add in a 'citation needed' flags on the lead section to show that there is very definitely a claim here that needs a reliable source. Zakhx150 (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zakhx150: So just to be clear - what is in contention here? Are you seriously doubting that these parks exist? Is the BC parks page two clicks too far away to confirm the information shown here? I'm a bit perplexed at this level of bureaucracy directed at a simple list. Braveheart (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Braveheart: That the things actually existing does not absolve them of the benefits of references for unsubstantiated claims. Let's clarify: My specific issue at this point can be resolved with one or more in line citations in the lead section. The 2nd and 3rd sentences are unreferenced at this point and would benefit from a reliable secondary source. Zakhx150 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have bigger problems than "unsubstantiated claims" that are verifiable with two clicks. Maybe someone else is interested in solving your problems with this list. Braveheart (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]