Talk:British Columbia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Link to article on electric vehicles

@Joeyconnick: Recently, I added a "see also" link to

WP:UNDUE. I don't think this is undue, especially for B.C., where 17.5% of new cars sold are electric (the highest of any Canadian province or U.S. state). Numberguy6 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, you are clearly very engaged with that particular topic based on your edit history, but that doesn't make the topic, which is fairly narrow, worthy of inclusion in every transportation-related section of, or page for, every city/province/state/etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All standalone articles for "Transportation in [state/province]" have a link to "Plug-in electric vehicles in ___" under See also. Since not all states/provinces have standalone "Transportation" articles, I decided to add see-also links under the sections in the main articles. Numberguy6 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If all of them do, which I question, I would posit that that's because you've added most of them, and very recently, in an almost bot-like manner, so we are getting really close to
WP:UNDUE issues. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Additionally those articles don't actually seem to be about plug in electric vehicles, but rather government policy and access to charging stations, so their titles seem wrong. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed these on my watchlist, and I agree that they are UNDUE. If a state or province article discusses EVs, then a link to the relevant article is certainly worthwhile. But dropping them in with zero context isn't. Particularly silly are the ones that are like "such and such province has 10 EVs", which openly show why they don't merit linking from the state/province articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d agree with the other editors that it doesn’t seem due for a section hatnote. Any number of “X transportation in X State” articles could fit there. It would be better to have a single sentence in the section, cited to a reliable secondary source, with an in-text wikilink to the plug-in article. The same would go for the other articles you’ve added the hatnote to. Politanvm talk 20:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not appropriate for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC.
WP:RFCBEFORE has not been observed - continue to discuss by all means, just not with a {{rfc}} tag at the top. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The consensus appears to be in favor of not including hatnotes. I will begin removing them from all articles where I have added them. Numberguy6 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

updating population estimates

Hey Svlrn, please remember when you make an update, you also need to provide an updated reference for the change. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B.C. Liberal Party now called "United Party"

See BC United. The Government and politics section needs to be revised. Will-o-the-west (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

columbia is Latin American state????

hello page owner Lectitude (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]