Talk:Dawson Creek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleDawson Creek is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 12, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 27, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
August 29, 2006Featured article reviewKept
November 27, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Flag[edit]

Its flag uses a Canadian pale with its iconic Mile "0" (located in the center of the town) displayed in the centre. The yellow represents canola which turns the countryside yellow in July. The deep blue represents the nearby rivers, Kiskatinaw and Peace rivers and possibly Dawson Creek. source?

Translated to German[edit]

Hallo everybody: I translated this very fine article to German, where it is now to be seen on de:Dawson Creek. Suggestions and critics are always welcome. Thank you! 217.185.194.34 11:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC) de:Benutzer:Chigliak (talk)[reply]

  • That is great. There are many native Germans in and around Dawson Creek (German is probably the second most common language here in Dawson). Please check back in a few weeks as I will be updating the article with 2005/6 data. --maclean25 19:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you... I will do so. 217.185.194.25 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (dial-up account of de:Benutzer:Chigliak (talk)[reply]
Just happened to see this while sending/saving comments below. Wanted to add that the Cariboo, the South Cariboo in particular, is known for being heavily German more and more in recent years, andthere's other patterns to German immigration in BC, historically and today (I was raised in the Central Fraser Valley....); I'd jibed somewhere, but in seriousness, about a History of German immigration to Canada and Scandinavian, Irish, Scots, Italian and other relevant equivalents, since the huge History of Chinese immigration to Canada shouldn't be the only one. I think a title like History of German settlement in British Columbia might work better; the provincial title actually because of the important German role in the colonial era, and in the early provincial days when, though part of Confederation, European immigrants to BEC were of a difffrerent ilk than the farmer immigrants on the Prairies or the religious immigrants that came later (Mennonites, Moravians etc). I won't go on about this, just wanting to ask MacLean25 to keep handy his German-BC stats and keep an eye out for materials worth putting in that. The Germans were the third/fourth largest in the country for a long time, and were very prevalent in BC right from 1858 onwards, and in some areas still are; theres' also a whole story to pre-WWI German culture/society in BC (see Talk:Werner von Alvensleben and also the first section on my current pre-soon-to-be-archived talkpage) and a luminary cast of characters throughout, from "Dutch Bill" Dietz who found Williams Creek and so created Barkerville to the Kosters and Krugers and Richters of ranching/orcharding and poitical fame. No, I'm not German; I just think it's rich material, and an important and historic part of BC's "cultural diversity", which so manyh people think is about colour (usually their own).Skookum1 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

population 11,000?[edit]

Not notable. Especially not on the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.161.188 (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you question whether the population isn't notable, or the article itself? I'm a bit lost on what you're saying... crassic![talk] 00:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's a very old comment, and I think he/she means on the front page of Wikipedia where this might have appeared as an FA...but that kind of raw-numbers bias is tiresome and out of whack with reality in the sub-Arctic were places of this size are what is notable, given that other communities, such as there may be, are so much smaller; this is a major regional centre; the bias of an IP address located in Kingston ON against places that are "not notable" in Ontario, or the UK or US, is quite irrelevant.Skookum1 (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a troll. He's having his yuks both here and on MediaWiki. I've reported it for vandalism. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. crassic![talk] 01:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously...[edit]

This is the best we could do for "Today's Featured Article"? I've never even heard of this place :P —Moo [T • C] 01:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you are who, exactly? Never heard of you...Skookum1 (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then be thankful you've been given such a great opportunity to learn about it! Things that most people have never even heard of are the ones that make the *best* featured articles of the day, imo. --86.135.181.196 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While normally I would absolutely agree with you, I'm really not sure why this article deserves front page status. Some small town in Canada? No offense to those who live in the area, but why would an international audience care about this? I certainly wouldn't expect my dinky hometown to be a featured article, no matter how well written it may be. What's special about Dawson Creek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.158.102 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because, unlike a lot of articles, this one seems to have no errors, missing citations, etc. A lot of articles fail the criteria for becoming a FA – this one meets 'em all. If you look at the past FAs, I'm sure there's a few that you wouldn't particularly care for. crassic![talk] 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Dawson Creek, that's what's special about it! stop dissing the fact that an article about my hometown made front page. if you don't like it don't read it. But for those of us who live here, it's nice to know that someone does know our town exists and someone does know the importance of its history. -Briana

And Briana is the reason a lot of us put in work on articles that other people think are obscure or don't matter. Thank you, Briana. And you're right, your town's history is important, even if unimportant people don't think so...important locally but also as it happens important on a continental scale, though most residents of the continent don't know (and don't know much about the rest of the continent, either)Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may be right on that, but somehow I feel a featured article needs to be not only technically proficient, but also interesting to at least a decent number of people. I take your point that there have certainly been FAs before that didn't exactly pique my curiosity, but this seems different in that the only ones who would actually want to know about this town and read up on it are those that ALREADY know this town. I don't imagine many people browse Wikipedia to bone up on their random-small-town demographics.
Really, I'm not trying to be a troll or anything, and I mean no disrespect to those who obviously put effort into producing this article. Just doesn't seem to fit the bill. But, eh, I can live with it. 76.201.158.102 (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lucky for you, it's only 24 hours. :P crassic![talk] 02:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article, and is informative and interesting. No reason why it shouldn't be featured. Basser g (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great article about something real. Seriously, does anyone want more FAs about tv show characters and more pop culture references? Blueshirts (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been smaller towns on the main page: Neilston population of 5,000 - here --maclean 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that most small towns, anywhere, have a great amount of potential detail; it's one reason why I'm interested in Wikipedians for Local history See Talk:Local history...so many small places have long, complex histories, even in BC hwere few non-indigenous communities date back further than 120 years; Dawson Creek is only one of many towns, living and dead, in British Clolumbia alone that could have articles of this quality/l.ength - and/or be worth FA status either on their stylistic/formal merits or on the fasxcination of the subject; hopefully both. Dawson Creek and its neighbours FtStJohn are, also, two of the most booming places in BC right now, and something of "the new country" in the way the industrial rfrontier used to be in BC in other areas; for an area that was essentially nothing in the scheme ofthings in BC until the Alaska Highway came long, it's among hte most important areas of the province; and the main cash cow in coming years, and the economic engine of the north; Dawson Creek may be small, but it's mighty; as with other industrial smalltowns (Ocean Falls, Bralorne etc in their day). The Shishalh and Skwxwu7mesh communities are small too; but any of htem might warrant FA status some day, irrespective of their populations. Naika kwatah (Chinook for "my too bits").Skookum1 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see how anyone would question the importance of Dawson Creek. A simple look at a map and an understanding of a) northern geography, b) WWII history, c) the economy of Alaska (influenced by the highway that technically begins here) and d)access for scientists and travelers to some of the last great remaining wilderness lands in North America make the place notable far in excess of its size. But they don't seem to have taught much geography to the younger folks who tend to look at Wiki, so I guess surprise is not in order here. Sensei48 (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Dawson Creek is not very important. But that's not the point. This featured article shows everyone who's working on small town articles how it can or should be done. It will have a great effect on improving wikipedia!--24.85.68.231 (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

plus it was a great show! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.243.2 (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Count me among the Wikipedians who believe that articles like this, though perhaps somewhat dry, are the meat and potatoes of Wikipedia. We encourage FAs from all walks of article type, from Pokemons to pop stars to populated places. All of those editors that do the work deserve the recognition that comes from having an FA, and the perceived importance of the article is always going to be biased one way or another. Some people think we shouldn't have the pop culture articles on the encyclopedia at all, because it isn't serious enough. (I'm not one of them, but at least make sure it's notable!). Good work. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's almost refreshing to see the bitching at something totally not pop culture, especially video games which seem to get yelled about every single time (though I wonder how many had a quick thought it was Dawson's Creek at first). Look people. It's very VERY simple. The daily FA is not about the contents of it, it's about the quality of the ARTICLE ITSELF. We're not showing off a certain person/thing/place/concept/whatever, we're showing off that, hey, here's an example of what the best Wikipedia articles look like. It doesn't care if it's about a city of 10 or 10 million, about a movie that's a classic or that 'you' have never heard of, if it's a Baroque composer of overplayed music or a living game music composer. All of these have a place in TFA as how the VERY DEFINITION of TFA is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good point. To be honest, I simply didn't know the specific qualifications for TFA. If this is true, then I indeed stand corrected.76.201.158.102 (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put a 8=====D at the top of the page so I took the liberty of deleting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.79 (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We encourage anyone seeing vandalism to remove or repair it. Be bold! --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, but do we normally want to have the various obscenities (including this ASCII one) transplanted here? Not that I mind, it just seems that IPuser99.xxx.xxx.xx is having us on....Skookum1 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is of interest to anybody, you can find the featured article criteria hereThe discussion (in which you could have participated) whether this article meets that criteria is archived here. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to meeting the criteria for FA status: while I'm not sure about this article (it was too bring to read in its entirety), but many FA articles I have read have (minor) grammatical errors and employ a mediocre writing style. In fact, if judged by the majority of FAs I'd have to say most hardcore Wikipedians aren't very good writers (they're okay). But that's what you get when you have neophytes and novices writing articles instead of experts. Nonetheless, I appreciate the service, donate to it, and I get a kick out of FA articles about seemingly useless topics. I should add I'm an editor, writer, and former English teacher. But I'm not expert either. Arthurian Legend (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the original form of Featured Article was called Brilliant prose, for articles that were voted "well-written and complete", but that was long ago replaced by more objective standards of verifiability and citation. It is true this, combined with committee editing, does not always mean articles that flow the way that one would hope. Also, Featured Articles on the main page are always heavily edited while there, and even pretty good writing can deteriorate during that period. What usually happens is that the main editors get it in shape before it goes public, then wait until the flurry is over to begin knocking the additions into square. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is, that though the standars at WP:Featured article candidates have increased in past years, we still have lots of featured articles that were promoted when standards were less strict. Therefore, they might not be as good as the ones that are getting promoted now. But hey, this is Wikipedia, if you feel the article's prose isn't as good as it could be, hit the edit button and improve it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is at issue is not whether this is a good article, its whether it is notable enough for the main page. I suspect that there might be some FAs that have never been on the front page that might have more international and historical notability. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But "more notable" is not a criteria for TFA. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the fact that Wikipedia can cover such a small town in great detail just shows how powerfully it can harness the long tail. Plus, Dawson Creek should be notable for having the best bus station coffee in North America! --Padraic 17:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page[edit]

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.

Rename: Dawson Creek, British Columbia → Dawson Creek

Per WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, this town should have an article at the undisambiguated name (see also WP:CANCITY). An internet search which excludes various combinations of this town's name still [ produces results] exclusively related to it. The undisambiguated title redirects to this article. A hatnote, as currently exists in the article, should be used to deal with the television show Dawson's Creek. Mindmatrix 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. Mindmatrix 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. DigitalC (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per CANSTYLE. -Royalguard11(T) 00:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer not to. I've never been entirely convinced of the need to change "City, Prov" to "City" (this a hippie-federalist thing, eh?) I think of these cities in a more legal-sense: as municipalities, creations of the province. But I won't page-move war over it (This page has already gone back-and-forth once). maclean 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but Wikipedia shouldn't be used to support or discourage such legal minutiae. The city is named "Dawson Creek", and the fact that it happens to be in British Columbia shouldn't be relevant to the article's name. The city is its own entity. We can use redirects and DAB pages to take care of the niggling details. Mindmatrix 15:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per nom's search findings, naming convention and primary usage. Wikipedia's guidelines on disambiguation are not based on Canadian constitutional law. :-) Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dawson Creek is an actual creek that runs through the city, the settlement has been named for it. --Qyd (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE is that, if there is a topic which is the most common use of a term, then it alone should use that title. Etymological derivations are irrelevant to such discussions. If the waterway is at least as well-known as the city, then your point is valid, but I don't think this is the case here. Mindmatrix 15:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references to etymology in WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, so please don't make up rules just to prove a point. As for the relevance of my input, please don't be so dismissive, I'm just as entitled to have a opinion as you are. And please let's try to tie this encyclopedia to the real world, not exclusively to internet search results. Thank you. --Qyd (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qyd, you brought up the derivation of the name, and I countered that PRIMARYUSAGE trumps such derivations. I did not state or imply that etymology is a criterion in PRIMARYUSAGE. Further, I didn't dismiss your opinion. I clearly stated that your point is valid under certain circumstances (the waterway being as well-known as the city), and then made the claim that (to paraphrase my words above) I don't think it is the case that this waterway is as well-known as the city. My apologies for making my statements ambiguous, but I certainly am not dismissing your opinion. Regarding tying the article to the real world, do we have any set of sources which demonstrate that the waterway is at least as well-known as the city? Mindmatrix 13:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qyd, I have reread Mindmatrix's comments several times, and he does not appear to me to have been dismissive towards you. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a done deal, and IMO the anti-comma-province-format agenda is a wrecking crew, invoking guidelines as if they were rules....one of the problems with Wikipedia is the "levelling" of regional distinctions and regional usages in favour of "national" (homeogenizing) paramaters....especially in regards to certain other issues. In this case, fine, there's no other place in the world named "Dawson Creek", except the much more widely-known TV serial Dawson's Creek of course - but the "creek" in the name, without the comma-locator, looks to me like, according to Wiki guideilnes, an article about a creek. The title doesn't indicate anything but that. Similarly Wiliams Lake vs Williams Lake, British Columbia, also Dease Lake vs Dease Lake, British Columbia and Christina Lake vs Christina Lake, British Columbia and various others. Alexis Lake, Nimpo Lake etc. Only in Williams Lake's case is the city better-known than the puddle it's located around - in the other cases it's moot point as to which is better-known. Williams Lake as a lake won't likely have an article; the others will. The Dawson Creek that is the town's namesake also likely won't have an article. But its title says, to me, that it's an article about a creek.......Skookum1 (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, don't tar and feather other editors because they have a different opinion from you. Stating that such editors are a "wrecking crew" is essentially attacking those editors. This is at least the second time you've made such comments. Please review WP:AGF.
Second, if you believe that the plain title "Dawson Creek" is about a creek, then what do you think the article "Dawson's Creek" is about? With no a priori knowledge of the subject, wouldn't you say "a creek" to that as well. I would assume that if you were to be consistent, then you'd want that article moved to, say, Dawson's Creek (television show). There are no wiki guidelines indicating that if a title ends in "creek" or "river" that the article must be about a creek or river. (For eample, the article Florida Keys is not about keys.)
Third, we can easily point readers from "Dawson Creek" to "Dawson's Creek", and vice versa, using a hatnote, as indicated previously.
Fourth, how do you infer from this or other page move discussions that there's a homogenizing anti-provincial nationalist agenda here? My main motivation for renaming articles is simplicity and usability. If I were to use "national parameters", I would request that the article be renamed to "Dawson Creek, Canada". I am strongly opposed to that. Quit assuming you know other people's rationales and motivations. Mindmatrix 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the intent, it's about the effect. And my complaint about a "wrecking crew" is about all the energy put towards tehse largely-irrelevant article-name changes vs. other much-needed changes and revisions. And the use, again, of guidelines as if they were hard and fast rules and not eligible for revision/review. Wikipedia overall has a homogenizing effect on many things, language in particular; to me, again, I was told on the Kamloops discussion that this stripping of the comma-formats would apply only to cities. Sicne that explanation/promise it's now been brought down to other municipalities, in time it wil l be brought down to unincorporated settlements. Thousands of them, in fact (even in BC), each one need a renaming debate. Much more problematic/in need of fixing out there are name issues like Resorts of the Canadian Rockies (see its talkpage). This campaign to purge BC articles of the comma-province format seems like rearranging deck chairs. Surely there's more important work to be done?Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum, your comments are highly inappropriate. It's fine to suggest that a proposal is unnecessary, but it's not really acceptable to use insulting language to question the validity of the work of other editors, nor is it acceptable to propose that your own particular interests have more merit than the efforts of others. I would hope no one is as insulting towards your good work on Wikipedia, so you should show the same courtesy to your fellow editors. It takes a large number of editors, interested in doing a variety of tasks, to make an encyclopedia.

As for the Kamloops discussion, not that it would matter either way, but nobody in that discussion advised you that the implementation of the naming convention would only apply to cities. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually Florida Keys is about cays (or keys or quays). Point is, and I've said it before, there's no practical reason for all this page moves, while in cases like this (and many other), it makes things more confusing. --Qyd (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know it's about a cay. But Skookum1's point was that the title itself is indicative or suggestive of the subject (especially if it doesn't have a comma-separated qualifier), and I found an example using a common word whose subject had nothing to do with that common word. Another example is Jason Bay, an article about a baseball player, not a body of water known as a bay. (Compare that title to James Bay, for example.) There are many other examples like this. Mindmatrix 13:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Bay's name is not derived from a place called Jason Bay, and it's quite likely that surname also is not from the same meaning as "bay". OK Danny Ocean is not an ocean either, but again does that character's name necessarily dderive from the word "ocean"? It's this kind of nit-picking that ge3ts the sharp responses from me that you call inappropriate; myself I t hink the juggernaut of comma-=stripping is waht's inappropriate, and is "over-reach" and also highly irrelevant to making good encyclopedic content. And you just watch - someone is going to come along and add the Rivers cat an WP to Dawson Creek, plus content on the creek, same way somebody juust added the mountains cat/template to Little Mountain, Vancouver (vs Little Mountain (British Columbia), which would/should be a geographic article). I've been extricating lake-towns from their lake-articles, or vice versa, over the last while, and using hte comma-format on the towns because it just doesn't make sense to have to disambiguate a lake-name to a lake page instead of taking the title and dealing with it at face value. (which is what readers and novice editors do, right?). And don't get your nose out of joint about my tone either, it's my style; myself I find "rule-digging" to be inappropriate and both highly obsessive and somewhat passive-aggressive - "obstinacy with calm/correct language" is still obstaincy, likewise rule-obsessing. I find such behaviour to be like that, I'm not accusing you of it (though my particularities about this agenda you've condemned as "inappropriate". What I see with the nix-to-the-comma-format campaign is a lot of splitting hairs on the wrong side of applies and oranges, like comparing Dawson Creek, definitely a geographic-based name, with Jason Bay, who perhaps isn't and also there's no need for Jason Bay, Ohio. yes, there's probably a "Jason Bay" out there on smoe coastline somewhere (not BC's, I just checked) but it wouldn't be his namesake. As with Williams Lake, I'm of a mind taht these Wiki guidelines (which weren't dictated by Moses and can be changed) should be adjusted so that teh namesake feature of a name does get the a priori listing, and names derived from it get disambiguated.....I guess I just wish more editors and admins would care more about content, and expanding it, than fussing with style guidelines......Skookum1 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum1, saying "it's my style" is no excuse for violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL or other Wikipedia policies. Nor does it get you off the hook to accuse the other editors of obsessive and passive-agressive behaviour, but then to disingenuously state "I'm not accusing you of it". Focus on the substantive elements of the discussion, not what you perceive to be the shortcomings of other editors. I'm sorry, but it is very difficult to take any of your comments seriously when you keep resorting to name-calling. Please, I am asking you to try and maintain a civil tone, and to keep the discussion focused on the proposal. Thank you. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are going to hear insults even when I made a point of not making them; yes, semantics is everything (ask a lawyer or diplomat). So here's my basic position - there are SO MANY OTHER renamings in need of doing/determining that are content-related that drawn-out debates over minor-format/style issues is just pointless and also highly irritating and diverts the communal energies from more important matters. I agree with Qyd; there is no practical reason for all these page moves. And it has the effect, obviously, of creating division and discord when there are so many other things Wikipedians should be collaborating on, such as keeping an eye out for spammers, vanity edits, false history and POV/balance. There are another thousand unique-name items in British Columbia; apparently enforcing "WP:Primary Usage" is far more important than improving/expanding the content of those articles. Guidelines are things to be worked out, not ENFORCED as is the case with rules. You're treating these as rules, and again I was assured during the Kamloops debate that this would apply ONLY TO CITIES. It seems someone found a clause in another section that put the lie to that promise/claim. Dawson Creek is not widely known outside of Canada, even outside of BC (as can be seen by the "notability" discussion above) and so unlike Vancouver or Toronto, it does need disambiguation; at least according to the arguments amde in the Kamloops debate (and tehre was an issue as to how recognizable Kamloops was as a city outsdie of Canada). The idea of the no-comma-format rename, I was told (I believe by Bearcat), was for places recognizable outside Canada as being in Canada. This is certainly not hte case with Ucluelet or Dawson Creek, or (as will come the time) with Shalalth, Masset and New Denver. I say draw the line somewhere, and change the guidelines. Unless we're going to go t hrough the next five years picking apart the map of BC geo-articles one-by-one. What a bloody waste of time......Skookum1 (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems you are going to hear insults even when I made a point of not making them; yes, semantics is everything" - that's nonsense. Your original comment that inspired this part of the discussion was "the anti-comma-province-format agenda is a wrecking crew" - that seems to disparage a group of editors with whom you disagree. Your other comments (about highly obsessive and somewhat passive-aggressive behaviours) was not directed at anybody, but sure as heck implied it. I have no problem with people speaking boldly and assertively - I do the same thing. But there's a difference between debating the points of contention and making accusative or implicating statements about editors. Some of what you have to say above directly questions the editors or their motivations (eg - "agenda"), not the points under consideration. This is why you've been asked to respect WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Mindmatrix 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, to address the issues. First, my use of examples like Florida Keys and Jason Bay was exactly because you claimed that "...but the "creek" in the name, without the comma-locator, looks to me like, according to Wiki guideilnes, an article about a creek. The title doesn't indicate anything but that.". That is, you claimed that because the word creek appeared in the name, the article must be about a creek. I countered with several similar examples to disprove your point. Further, there are no Wikipedia guidelines that make such a claim (if there are, please provide a link). You then changed the argument to "I'm of a mind taht these Wiki guidelines (which weren't dictated by Moses and can be changed) should be adjusted so that teh namesake feature of a name does get the a priori listing, and names derived from it get disambiguated". However, this is neither a policy, guideline, or proposal currently (and I don't think it should be - just because some place or thing takes its name from some other place or thing does not make the latter any more significant). And when I used the term a priori, I was referring to the a priori knowledge of the subject of an article. Unless you know who Jason Bay is, you couldn't possibly assume that an article with that title is about a person, or bay, or even edifice. You'd have to read the article. The same applies to Dawson Creek. Why should your prior knowledge of the subject imply that it should be titled in any specific way.
Also, since you've now made the claim that you accepted the renaming of pages for cities (and presumably towns, since the proposal at WP:CANSTYLE was made with both of these major municipal constructs in mind), then why are you so vociferously opposed to this move? Dawson Creek is a city. Says so right in the first line of the article. It's placed in a category that makes the same point. StatsCan thinks it's a city too (see this). So is your argument that it should only apply to "widely-known" cities? If so, why? (BTW: this was also addressed when CANSTYLE was created - see point 1 under Places.) The articles about US and Canadian locations were the only ones to get this naming scheme, all other articles about cities, towns, villages and hamlets everywhere else in the world are simply titled with that placename, and disambiguated only if there are other place with that same name. "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." This is the result of comprehensive discussion between hundreds of editors to achieve consensus. And for goodness sake, quit the editorialisation - nobody is enforcing PRIMARYUSAGE; it is being cited as one supporting factor for the page move. As you say, guidelines are things to be worked out - and it is these guidelines that I now cite. The ones to which you have objections. I cite them because they concisely explain what I want to say, without having to type all that information.
BTW: nobody on Wikipedia should be making any promises about what will happen in the future. We've had many naming debates, content discussions etc. that it is impossible for any single editor to claim that circumstances won't change. And you've been here long enough to know that no single editor could make such assurances and be able to deliver on them. One final aside: I'll direct you now to a discussion I started a while ago about bulk moves of articles about Canadian places. I welcome your comments about any issues you may have, Mindmatrix 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A google search indicates that the city, not the waterway, is overwhelmingly the primary usage of the term. A hatnote would be appropriate if an article on the waterway is ever created. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dawson Creeks.
  • An article on the watercourse is very unlikely. I'm sure it was impressive in George Dawson's day, but not so much since clearing the area for farming and developing a city around it (complete with storm water sewerage). Aside from the occasional flood, last significant one was in 2000 (2001?), and a nice walking/cycling trail along parts, it isn't very remarkable. Then again I see all sorts of articles being created on odd topics. maclean 19:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that, if the waterway was important to the development of the city, an article will eventually be written about it. (The article could contain info about the things you mentioned: historical clearing for farming and development, stormwater management, the trails, ...) In any case, I don't think it would be the primary usage of the term. When people talk about "Dawson Creek", it's almost certainly the city being discussed. Mindmatrix 15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I would've oppose on renaming all Canadian cities without province names. A few years ago all of the main article titles that has a Canadian city with a province name. So, I would oppose on that. Steam5 (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Bear Mountain Ski Hill[edit]

I just created this stub, but wasn't able to find it on a satmap to give its coordinates exactly (ideally the base of the lift) or anything about its elevation or snowfall. Any Dawson Creek locals who can fix that up, please do.Skookum1 (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economy statistics are over 12 years old![edit]

It would be great if someone could please research and update the economic statistics for Dawson Creek, to more accuratly reflect the current reality there.

The existing stats are over 12 years old and have changed drastically since then.

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.185.133.5 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

accidental deletion/wiping[edit]

Pretty sure this was because my power went out just after I'd hit send; I remember it was this page was where I was when that happened; so only part of my data sent got processed.Skookum1 (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dawson Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Dawson Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dawson Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dawson Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wind chills that are warmer than the temperature[edit]

Several summer months have values for the lowest measured wind chill that are higher than the lowest measured temperature. Im going to attribute this to sparse data for summer windchills rather than assuming the climate data is corrupt. I imagine that if I went looking I could probably find dozens more examples of this just in Canada, .... if we want to point it out it would probably be best suited for the wind chill article rather than mentioning it on every city page. —Soap— 22:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA in need of review[edit]

This FA was promoted in 2006 and does not meet the current criteria. Issues:

  • lots of uncited information (full sections that lack inline citations: "Transportation and infrastructure", "Education", "Media");
  • the "Economy" section is dated, with links from 2005, 2006, 2000, 2007... Unemployment rate, poverty rate from 2001;
  • the text in the "Demographics" section does not reflect the 2011 census. It reflects the 2006 one;
  • the section on notable people should use prose instead of bulleted points;
  • It seems like Prince George—Peace River changed its name to Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies in 2015 and that still hasn't been corrected in this article.

The article needs an update to rise to current FA standards. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the principal author and FA nominator for this article. I will make some updates but it won’t be sufficient to modernize the article to the current interpretation of the FA criteria. --maclean (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so. I left the note above as part of WP:URFA/2020, that is an effort to identify older FAs that need review. This is one of such articles (it was last reviewed in 2006, and is a bit out of date). Since this is an article on a small(er) town, with no contentious issues that I can spot, and without the problems of articles on bigger towns (that get bloated easily), I think it would be possible to bring the article to a "satisfactory" level by URFA/2020 standards, mostly by updating the demographics/economy sections and providing inline citations where appropriate. If you could make those updates, I believe the article would be in a better shape to avoid WP:FAR. The goal is to alert interested editors to update these older FAs but the resulting article does not have to be perfect (or pass FAC nowadays). RetiredDuke (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dawson_Creek&oldid=1213226034"