User talk:Buchanan-Hermit/WikiProject-Sandbox

Proposed Category: Chinook Jargon placenames
Just stopped by Skookumchuck, British Columbia and rewrote it a bit. I have a good idea exactly how many Chinook Jargon placenames there are - hundreds, and significant places/things it the dozens, which are likely to be articles sooner or later. I've always wanted to do a Chinook toponymy...maybe this is the right venue for it, and a usefully expandable one too; at the very least a List of Chinook Jargon placenames would be a worthy page, I think.....Skookum1 08:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A list seems more appropriate than a Category, should be a sort of daughter article to the Chinook Jargon article? heqs 08:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The above was copied here from my entry of it at Talk:Chinook Jargon; I was going to start expanding the Categories section of the draft WikiProject-Sandbox page overleaf and while looking at Skookumchuck, British Columbia, which I rewrote some, it occurred to me that this was very much a BC category, although also involving OR, WA, YT, AK and a bit of AB and MT. Also, I just created Tulameen, British Columbia, which needs some editing but also falls in the Unincorporated settlements category, which is a subcat of Communities in British Columbia, as is Ghost towns of British Columbia.......thing is many ghost towns are effectively still alive, just mucho dwindled, like Gold Bridge or Yale and, in the case of the Tulameen area, Coalmont; or, say, Spences Bridge. Wondering how to combine/revise those categories, or how to define ghost towns without excluding them from unincorporated settlements. Lardeau, Sandon, Greenwood, Midway/Eholt and a lot more come to mind (there's 1500 ghost towns in BC, at least, by the way, and not all of them are empty/vanished - as is Granite Creek, near Coalmont....Tashme, the infamous Japanese internment camp ust east of Hope, is vanished and theoretically a ghost town, also.....hmmmmm......thoughts?Skookum1 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed terrain/range location map standard
I'm no great graphics person, but I "ran" with the maps from British Columbia and made a stab at a location map for Lillooet Ranges as a sample standard; I know the ranges well, as some of you probably know already, and for most of the big ones this map will do just fine; for tiny ones like the Tochquonyalla it might be better to use a closer-up view (Tochquonyalla doesn't have an article yet, but once someone writes a full article on the Kemano power project/diversions it'll be named in it. Not that all named ranges have to have articles, but many of the smaller ones do and will....anyway let me know what you think and if you'd rather see better graphics and can do it yourself, or know or can nominate someone to do so, feel free.  The original is the same file name less " _Lillooetranges.* "Skookum1 07:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Added a bunch more images this morning, as they were fun to whip up over breakfast/coffee. Camelsfoot, Cariboos, Shulaps, Garibaldi/Chilcotin/Pacific/Kitimat Ranges, Canadian Cascades (at bottom of talk page as no place in main article yet), Marble Range, Clear Range; have to study Monashees boundary re Okanagan Highland and Shuswap Highland, which both need to be created, before doing those; and should have a map including WA/ID/MT to do Selkirks and Columbias properly.Skookum1 17:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Land Districts discussion
Ref FYI User talk:CJLippert

Coordination with the Vancouver project
Seeing as how this hasn't gone "live" yet, I'd like to open discussion on the idea of establishing a strong link between, and coordination with, the Vancouver Wikiproject. Why? Because I think it's important to have a unified "look and feel" to all BC-related pages. The major focus of this effort would be to adopt a common set of templates, categories, naming conventions, and other technical aspects. As for content, each project could still find it's own way, although there should be an understanding in place to ensure that there is no duplication of coverage. (In an ideal world, of course, I would suggest that Vancouver should actually be a "sub-project" under the BC banner. That would make for a more logical progression when, perhaps, other regions around the province decide to organize and focus on their areas. However, given how well-established the Vancouver project is, subordinating it at this point might prove difficult.) How to manage this, is, of course, a tricky question. While Vancouver predates BC, it would still make sense to "transfer" the technical aspects of the Vancouver project to the BC project, and then establish a joint sub-page for all discussions of technical aspects. Anyways, what do you think? --Ckatz chat spy  08:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Make Vancouver a subproject. --Usgnus 15:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconed Selmo

Task list
As this proposed project is provincial in scope, which may mean more articles on certain topice, I think there are some topics that should be added to the "task list". This would include "Organizations", "Government and Politics", and "Corporations", among others. "Transportation" might be suitable as well. I also think "City Services" ought to be removed. I suspect it's there because this is modelled on the Vancouver wikiproject. Maybe "Infrastructure" might be a more suitable name to replace "City Services". Agent 86 01:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Participants
While it's very pretty to look at, I suggest simplifying the "Participants" section of the page (perhaps along the same lines as the Vancouver project). The KISS principle should apply - I don't think we need to make people faff about with colours and table formatting just to add their signature. Agent 86 01:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
Should we use this image: in one of the templates? Or is the combination of colors and shape just too much? --Qyd 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)