Talk:Ucluelet

Broadcasting section dubious
either it's to be a separate article, or deleted entirely; it's a study document, a public report; maybe something like a community-oriented Wiki, a variant on WikiSource, for public debates and assemblage of youtube etc links as a collective effort/forum, and taht would bbe a good thing; but this is for a radio license, not an environmental or geohazard study. I'm vvery uncertain it belongs in regular wikipedia at all; and, as said, on teh other hand Wiki technology and the appropriate environment for "community wiki" (Wikimunity?) for debate/resources on public issues, that's a good thing; I'm just not sure this is encyclopedic.Skookum1 (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Segregation ended" - Ucluelet FN/Ucluelet BC
I've noticed this elsewhere, though not often; at most town/city articles there's some mention of the local First Nation. Especially, um, when the town is named for them; I was surprised not to see anything here; and in the Demographics section just something promoting retirement property, so it's pretty clear that the page has been massaged a bit; more on actual history and less current travelogue/stats, and pics, and some community (as opposed to corporate) flavour would go a long way to humanizing it; but that's true of a lot of town articles, not just in BC (but often in BC).  Anyway, I've interlinked [[Ucluelet, British Columbia and Ucluelet First Nation for the first time....quelle étrange... but this is BC, isn't it?  Anyway other editors pls watch out for such "digital segregation"; it's subtle, but it is intentional; talk about two solitudes, we've got fifty....the demoraphics section here could have something on the ethnic composition of the non-native community, the former cannery populations and so on, decline with decline of the fishery and loggging alike and so on; I don't know much about Ucluelet, just wanting this article to sound and look like something more than a village/town brochure.Skookum1 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename Page

 * The following discussion is an archived 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 move. Mind matrix  14:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename: Ucluelet, British Columbia → Ucluelet

Per WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, this article should be at the undisambiguated name. While the article could potentially be confused with the Ucluelet First Nation, a simple hat note will suffice. DigitalC (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. DigitalC (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Groan.  I thought this unique-name thing was only to be used for cities, as per my original encountering of the issue at Talk:Kamloops, and that even with cities there's some debate about using it for cities that aren't internationally all that well-known.  One of my original and admittedly heated objections was that the Kamloops change paved the way for thousands - literally thousands - of comma-less article-renamings - for extremely obscure places, and there's already lots of them and there's going to be lots more, especially once all the indigenous-name geography is put in place (and it's growing) but also because of innumerable ghost towns and the like.  So I'm abstaining - for now - but I don't think this is a good idea, and given the number of unique-identifier undismabiguatable names about there, I have reservations about the time and energy undertaken to change them all; especially because it appears to be going one locality/town at a time.  General rule of thumb I've been using for indigenous articles and fur trade-era location names is to not have British Columbia tagged on as, well, it hadn't been invented yet; or in teh cases of idnigenous villages, even modern ones, they may not see themsevles as part of British Columbia; whereas a location/town article at the same location/people does have the comma-British Colubmia.  And lastly, in this case, I also have reservations about whether or not Ucluelet's primary usage is for the town; maybe within BC, but outside it even in Canada it would be Ucluelet, B.C. to help establish where it is.  But not unimportantly, Ucluelet is also properly the ethnographic/indigenous name for the particular branch of the Nuu-chah-nulth, and plase note "Ucluelet people" and "Ucluelet tribe" are redundant because of that -et ending, which is like the -aht ending more usual among the other groups (the Makah's real name ends in -ahtx); their village has a different name entirely; the same applied to Skwxwu7mesh and Nlaka'pamux article-names - the -mesh and -mux mean "people/tribe").  So really it's a three-point disambiguation; the Ucluelet First Nation is not named after the town, the town is named after the Ucluelet.Skookum1 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, ethnographic-name issue almost resolved from my end of it - [Yu-cluth-aht]] is the indigenous-language spelling, which is the prevailing wiki paradigm for tribe names vs their anglicization (in most cases in these parts, not North America-wide) ergo Skwxwu7mesh, Wuikinuxv, Palus and Spokan - but even in Squamish's case while the redirect does go to the town article as the primary use in that spelling (the anglicized spelling, so-called as of course) the article still, so far, has the comma-British Columbia form. I suppose that's because it's a heavily disambiguated use.  So while the ethnographic issue is kinda solved for me (not quite - given appropriate dab lines, simple enough - unlike Squamish were there are several parallel usages - there's still that head-count of exactly how many places are we going to do this on, and how long is it going to take and why is it such a bother, given all the expansion and inter-integration of existing articles that's much more needed.  And as I opened with, I remember being told that this was only going to apply to cities, and the definition of official city status was trotted out; all placename articles I've been making lately, by the way, I've been placed Briitsh Columbia on, especially if they were postal offices and so on; to me the comma-format is to give a reader an immediate idea where the place is, not impose some arbitrary placename-culling guideline come up with and applied like a canon.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "to me the comma-format is to give a reader an immediate idea where the place is" - That isn't the purpose of a title though, and disagrees with WP:CANSTYLE. DigitalC (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As for "cities", again CANSTYLE says: "The terms city and neighbourhood are used for ease of reference, but the guideline is not limited to these specific types of settlements. References to city or cities should be read to include all incorporated municipalities, while references to neighbourhood(s) include all communities located within a municipality, including urban, suburban and rural settlements."". Ucluelet has been incorporated since the 50s, and a district since 1997. DigitalC (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per CANSTYLE. There's no need for unneeded qualifiers in titles, the article explains it (which is exactly where it should be). -Royalguard11 (T) 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The naming convention is crystal clear -- the move from unecessarily disambiguated titles to plain titles is appropriate for all types of settlements, not just cities.  And as for the benefits of the comma convention, disambiguation's sole purpose is to resolve conflicts between articles that qualify for the exact same title -- it is not intended to "to give a reader an immediate idea where the place is" - that is the purpose of the lead paragraph.   Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The name of the community is Ucluelet, and it happens to be in British Columbia. The latter is extraneous information in the article's title, which should be as simple as possible. WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE clearly apply here. I agree with the comments and clarifications of the other editors who support the page move. Mind  matrix  01:43, 9 July 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.

Geography vs RD cats
Hi Bearcat; added back in WEst Coast of VI cat as it's in a different hierarchy; yes, this RD is within that region but RD cats aren't the same thing as geographic-region cats and IMO should only be used for member-units of RDs, i.e. munis, electoral areas, agencies, cities/towns etc. This is a town/village article, so the RD category applies; it would not apply to the First Nations in the area (which are not members of the RD and while RD officials/maps might say otherwise, the Nuu-chah-nulth haven't signed anything saying so...nor do they get a seat on the RD board...); also geographic features like Barkley Sound belong in the geographic cat-hierarchy, not in a governance cat-hierarchy, which is what the RDs are. RDs are not the equivalent of counties in the US and Ontario, and don't go back fartehr than the 1960s or '70s.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

COI template
I added this because of the presence of User:Tourism Ucluelet, who are the tourism office for Ucluelet, as they announced on their first edit. Please read WP:COI and WP:MOS and please avoid "peacock" terms (see WP:Peacock) and remember this page is not meant to be advertising in any way (see WP:Spam), but should have an encyclopedic tone. I removed Image:ukee.jpg because it had been re-placed at an awkward position in the lede and should not be there; I had placed it in a more suitable location lower down the page; at the top it constitutes clutter.Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

the island location description
Ucluelet is on the east coast of Vancouver Island, not the west as written in the description. 162.212.236.69 (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)