Talk:British Columbia/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The French name of British Columbia should not be included in the infobox since it does not have official status in the province. Having the French name in the lede should suffice. The Official Languages Act concerns only the federal government and its institutions, and does not apply to the provinces. The only officially bilingual province is New Brunswick. Furthermore, French is the 7th most common spoken language in BC behind Cantonese, Mandarin, Punjabi, German and Tagalog. [1] TrailBlzr (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Per

WP:BRD, please revert yourself now. Also, again, BC is an official subdivision of Canada, whose official languages are, last time I checked, French and English. So as a subpart of Canada, we list its name in both official languages. —Joeyconnick (talk

) 18:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

French is not an official language in BC. Every province and territory chooses its own official languages. For instance, this explains the official languages of Nunavut. Notice in this document, it lists the official languages of Canada, not BC. The fact is BC has no official language. However, as was linked to above, English is the de facto common language.

So if TrailBlzr were to self-revert, I would remove it as French is not an official language in BC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Will not self-revert. Per

federalism, provinces are not subdivisions subordinate to a higher authority like constituent countries in the UK. They exercise exclusive powers that are distinct from the federal government. One of these is the right define the status of languages in the province. In the case of British Columbia, they have no official language, but the government makes it clear that English is the dominant language: "you should be able to speak, read and write in English if you plan to live, work or study in British Columbia" per above link. TrailBlzr (talk

) 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying French is an official language of BC. The French name is listed, and has been listed for years, because BC is a part of Canada. Yes, provinces have exclusive powers, but to claim the provinces are somehow not subordinate to the nation is ludicrous, no matter what Quebec and Alberta might like to believe. They are not nations in and of themselves. In Canada, the official names of BC are "British Columbia" and "Colombie-Britannique". —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Using the "is a part of Canada" logic, every subject that "is a part of Canada" should have a French language entry in their infobox. That is not a requirement.

No is arguing that "provinces are somehow not subordinate to the nation" other than you. Each subdivision gets to choose its own official languages. BC has none and so to enforce French is inappropriate. New Brunswick is, to the best of my knowledge, the only officially bilingual province in the nation. It makes sense there. Quebec is officially French, so it makes sense there. It makes sense nowhere else. Feel free to raise this at the Canadian project though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Do not include the French translation, per

MOS:FIRST. Magnolia677 (talk

) 21:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Colombie-Britannique is not an official name of BC, as you claim. Adding it to the infobox is akin to adding Mâchoire D'orignal to the infobox at Moose Jaw. TrailBlzr (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Every other Canadian province and territory with a name that is translatable into French has the French name listed in its infobox regardless of whether French is an "official language of the province", ie. Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, Île-du-Prince-Édouard, Territoires du Nord-Ouest, etc, because Canada has a whole, is a bilingual country, a third of the population speaks French, and the names are official at a federal level. It doesn't matter whether the provinces are or are not subordinate to the Federal government, Wikipedia isn't Ottawa, it supplies information, and the established norm as far as the other articles go, any province with a name that differs in French, an official language of Canada, has the French translation in its infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.82.195 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I can understand Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba having it. I can't speak to the official language of other provinces so I can't explain why they would. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I would have a look at the |Geographical Names Board of Canada which "is comprised of members from each province and territory and various federal departments concerned" and whose role is as a "national coordinating body are the development of standard policies for the treatment of names and terminology, the promotion of the use of official names, and the encouragement of the development of international standards in cooperation with the United Nations". Further, to answer a point someone brought up about who gets to decide what the official names are: "until 1961 decisions were ultimately made in Ottawa. At that time, the responsibility for naming was transferred to the provinces". I looked at New Brunswick and there is a link to the Provincial Toponymy board, so it seems that the GNBC as an authoritive organization, draws it's information from whomever has jurisdiction, in this case the province of BC. trackratte (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I was there anyways so figured I might as well look it up. The link you folks want is |here. trackratte (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The GNBC entry for BC links to BC's own BC Geographical Names Office whose own entry is located |here, and states ""British Columbia" and the approved French form, "Colombie-Britannique", identified as names of pan-Canadian significance per Treasury Board Circular 1983-58, 23 November 1983". So, it seems to me that the offical language of a province is not entirely relevant to the discussion, but instead that Canada has an authortive database, with each jurisdiction feeding into it. In the future, these databases can be used to resolve any issue such as this (as they crop up fairly often), and further official references can be used to avoid the same issues resurfacing. Should make everyone happy I hope. trackratte (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Both official names have been included in this page's infobox since 2002, so an 18 year-long consensus standard cannot be overturned on a whim by one or two editors, particularly as such a change affects multiple other pages. Multiple attempts to 'steamroll' longstanding consensus through continued reverts on multiple pages without first gaining consensus is disruptive editing. Maybe I'm getting attached to long-standing norms since I've been editing here since 2003 and getting a bit crotchety, but there are established norms for a reason. I'd also like to point out that the lack of effort to engage in discussion is evident also by the fact I appear to be talking to myself here on the Talk while reverts continue to be made on the main page. trackratte (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering, but approved is not official. They are different terms. I'm sure there's an approved German, Japanese, Mandarin and even Tagalog version of the name, but none are official and none should be included in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I will point out that British Columbia (and indeed all provinces and territories) are subdivisions of Canada. Canada is officially bilingual, so there are "official" names for its provinces and territories in both French and English. Still not seeing what is so hard about this. If we were trying to say "Britisch-Kolumbien" should be listed because that's what the Germans call it/translate it as, then obviously that wouldn't hold water. But the Canadian federal government is bilingual, has laws and official documents that, in French, refer to the province, and the province is therein referred to as "Colombie-Britannique". You cannot get any more "official" than that. Which is no doubt why that has been the status quo for years. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I will point out that while Canada is officially bilingual, not all provinces are. In fact, one territory is trilingual with Inuktut being the official language along with, English and French being recognized. That is not the case of the province. Federal signage is mandated to be bilingual (English and French) in the province, but provincial signage is not. Federal bilingualism does not apply. The point I was making was that where there is an "approved" French version of the province's name, there is no "official" French version of it. There are likely "approved" versions of the province's name in other languages. So you can get more official than that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The Geographical Names Board of Canada is a definitive and official source, where the Government of Canada, all of the provincial, and all of the territorial governments lodge official geographical names. And the source, in the right hand column, clearly shows "official" next to both, so stating they're just "approved" and "not official" is independent synthesis and directly countered by both official and verifiable sources from the Geographical Names Board of Canada in addition to the Government of British Columbia's own official geographic names database.

In summary:

1.Trailblzr's point that BC does not have an official language is irrelevant and missing the point. Any assumption about the name of something based on an officially designated language or lack thereof is synthesis.

2. Joeyconnick's point that Canada is bilingual and therefore all names are bilingual is also irrelevant here and missing the point. Assuming that all names must be bilingual is also synthesis.

3. Walter's point that the ref(s) do not say that the names of the province are official is factually incorrect.

4. Geographical names are officially managed by the relevant authorities and lodged in an official national government database, and are designated as "official" or (I assume) other categories such as proposed or alternative. So usage here seems stupefyingly simple: look up the name on the Names Board database to see what name(s) is official, if it's listed as official then it is, if it's not then it's not. No synthesis or debate is required. Which makes this entire discussion seem a bit crazy really. trackratte (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the Geographical Names Board of Canada is a definitive source for Canada, but it has absolutely no effect on determining if there is a legal French name for the province. In summary, you've provided absolutely no facts that support that the Legislature of the province British Columbia has legally adopted a French version of its name. We have other sources that provide a French name for the province and notwithstanding the fact that Canada is official bilingual, there is no legal name for it French. Anything else is therefore anecdotal and factually incorrect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and bordering on xenophobic. Canada recognizes English and French names for every province and territory. There is absolutely no harm of including the French version of the name of this province recognized by the Government of Canada in this article, whether the province has one, none, or two official languages. Period. I'd hope those on French Wikipedia would be amenable to the inverse. Looks like they are. Hwy43 (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Bit of a red herring. No one is talking about legislation, and having a name passed in law by a legislature is not required for determining what something is called, particularly here. What is required, and under discussion, is the official name, meaning by definition the name "having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body". And as mentioned, the Board is the authority in this matter.

Second, the convention of including the official names in the infobox has existed here, unbroken from what I can see, for 18 years straight. I fail to see any compelling reason to change this extremely long standing standard, and quite a few to keep it, chiefly that it is verifiable one of two official names designated by both the Federal and Provincial governments for the purpose. Focusing on legislation is missing the point once again.

I mean, this is mind-boggingly simple, the sources cannot be more explicit or clearly laid out. It is the definitive source and shows two names with the words official beside them. trackratte (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to play the legislation card, simply look at the French version of the Canadian Constitution. It translates British Columbia to Columbia-Britannique. It does not retain its English name. There is no legislation more official than our country's constitution. Hwy43 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not xenophobic in any such way. While the government of Canada is officially bilingual as a legal body, individual provinces are not. Some have elected to be so, others are uni-lingual, and Nunavut is tri-lingual. It's nice that the French project officially recognizes the native name of the province. There is no legal French name for the province. If there is, I'll be glad to see the legislation that shows it.

Yes, I am talking about legal name as that's where this started. You may not be talking about it, but that's clearly the problem. Anything short of a legal name is

WP:OR

and should be ignored. I mean, this is mind-boggingly simple: the sources are not legal names. There is no legal source.

There is no question that BC is part of Canada, but clearly neither of you understands federal-provincial boundaries of jurisdiction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding carrying on ad nauseum, there is quite clearly no consensus to dispense with the current status quo of having official names noted within provincial infoboxes.

1. The threshold of consensus here is very high in that the current standard applicable here has been in place for at least 18 years, which as Wkp was started 19 years ago, is quite nearly as long-standing a consensus as one can get here.

2. There are official and verifiable sources referenced supporting the status quo.

3. By my account, there are two advocating to dispense with the extremely long standing standard, and three against, making it overwhelmingly clear that there is simply no consensus to change the enduring status quo. trackratte (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't arguing for a change in the silent consensus of years, but you still have no clue about the facts of the actual issue. There are absolutely no sources to support it as an official name. In fact, BC has no legally official language. By my count, you don't know much and you're grasping at straws looking for anything to support a commonly known French spelling of the name. They're all moot as BC has no official language. The French version is not an AlternateName, it's a French version of the name. There is no documentation at {{Infobox province or territory of Canada}} but it's amockery of the template to include the French name here, particularly since it is not an official name for the province. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

See Justice Canada for using names in legislation here, "However, there are well-established policies and practices governing the writing of geographical names in federal documents, and it is only logical that federal legislation abide by them...TB Circular 1983-58 identified the CPCGN, known today as the Geographical Names Board of Canada (GNBC), as the body responsible for authorizing the geographical names to be used on federal maps...Today, the GNBC and the Bureau, along with the Gazetteer of Canada, are the most authoritative sources of information on the writing and translation of Canadian geographical names...Canadian Geographical Names Data Base: This is the national and most authoritative repository of official Canadian geographical names, including those authorized by the provinces and territories".

And here you can see the Government of British Columbia entry for "Colombie-Britannique" which states "Status: Official" and "'British Columbia' and the approved French form, 'Colombie-Britannique'...source: correspondence to/from BC's Chief Geographer or BC Geographical Names Office".

In British Columbia's GEOGRAPHICAL NAMING PRINCIPLES, POLICY AND PROCEDURES, it states that "The Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is responsible for naming geographical features in British Columbia. The Minister delegates this responsibility to the Geographical Names Office. Reference Land Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 245; Order in Council 652, 2010; Privy Council Order 1969-1458; Privy Council Order 1990-549 and Privy Council Order 2000- 283....The Geographical Names Board of Canada (formerly known as the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names) is the coordinating body for provincial and territorial geographical names authorities in Canada. As a member of this committee, British Columbia endorses the geographical naming principles and procedures established by the committee".

So yes, the Government of British Columbia has designated Columbie-Britannique as an officially approved form as clearly referenced here (so you cannot say there are no sources), and this authority is legally held by the Minister and is rooted in law (as can be seen in the quoted source just above), and further the "names authority" repository is the Canadian Geographical Names Data Base (as can be seen sources just above once again). trackratte (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The government of British Columbia is the legislative body and it has passed no legislation to the effect. A branch of the government has stated this is an acceptable French term to use to describe the province. As I've stated, they likely have translations for most other languages on the planet.

You clearly have no understanding of the legal system and what I'm discussing. I'm moving on as you don't understand and I doubt you will in a reasonable amount of time. In short, Canada is officially bilingual, but this is not binding on any province and BC has no legally binding French name. Anyone who tries to convince you that there is a nexus between the federal languages act and provincial naming is either confused, lying or selling you falsehood out of whole cloth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A lot of ad hominem and attacking of strawmen. The legal system has nothing to do with the infobox, I never said that bilingualism is binding on a province, and I never said there was nexus between the federal languages act and provincial naming (in fact I've never mentioned a Federal statute at all). Perhaps take the time to read what I'm saying and actually look at the references.

What I did cite, however, is British Columbia law immediately above. So you have the BC Land Act which states in Chapter 245 "The minister is responsible for geographical names in British Columbia, so this is legislated in BC statute law. As you can see above, the "Minister delegates this responsibility to the Geographical Names Office" (of British Columbia), and whose database and decisions I've linked above. So, yes, the BC "legislative body" has indeed passed legislation to that effect. The BC Geo Names Office is the legal authority for names in BC, and they list two official titles, all of which is verifiable fact.

As an aside, the Geographical Names Board of Canada in which all the Provinces' legal naming authorities coordinate and synchronize with, is also a legally established body in law constituted by Order-in-Council 2000-283. trackratte (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There's inconsistency across all the provinces & territories infoboxes, concerning this matter. Some using the French version, while others not. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

All of the provinces have all official spellings (plus some non-official maybe, I haven't looked up to see provinces showing aboriginal spellings). Obviously provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec only have one as it's the same in both languages. trackratte (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We should use only the english names in all these articles, as this is the English language Wikipedia. Quite certain, the english names aren't used in the French language Wikipedia, concerning the Canadian provinces & territories. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That proposal would affect 1000s of Canadian topic pages and will have to be brought up somewhere like the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board and be treated in a formal manner, as something like you are proposing is way beyond the scope of this Talk page and this limited audience.

The French language version of this article has both official English and French spellings and this has been the case since the article was first created in 2003, so has had the official English title literally since its inception. The same longstanding consensus exists on the French versions of all the Province pages as the English versions. trackratte (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What ever ya'll decide. I hope it bring consistency to these articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The only consistency is that the province's legal name in English should be displayed as this is the English project. If there is an official alternative name, it too should be listed. If there is nothing in legislation, leave it out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at the Prince Edward Island infobox, which has 3 language versions. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I get it. Other stuff exists. That doesn't make it correct. I don't know if any of those are legally official languages of the province, but if they are, then excellent. if not, they should be removed as unnecessary decoration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I would discuss PEI at the PEI talk page, but PEI legally has two official titles only, which is to say the third language version isn't official or recognised by the competent legal authority. However, there is no rule that names included within the article lede sentence or infobox have to be legally recognized or official. So, I would look at how long the third language title has been included (i.e. there is a significant difference if an Anon added it yesterday, vice it having been there for the past 10+ years). Also keep in mind that I believe a few provinces and territories use aboriginal titles and I think Nova Scotia has/had gaelic. So a consensus has to be arrived at for all of the provincial/territorial infoboxes so that a common standard can apply (obviously with deviations possible for good reason and with consensus). trackratte (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Trackratte, if I am reading the room correctly, this discussion is now over. It is time to move on. Hwy43 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Trackratte, no, the page you linked to is a federal website, and they are legally bilingual. Why can't you understand the difference between a federa-provincial division of responsibility. In PEI, all of the signs related to federal jurisdiction are bilingual. Most signs are simply in English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll copy and paste from above since you either don't bother to read the references or purposefully attack strawmen:

You have the BC Land Act which states in Chapter 245 "The minister is responsible for geographical names in British Columbia, so this is legislated in BC statute law. As you can see above, the "Minister delegates this responsibility to the Geographical Names Office" (of British Columbia), whose provincial database and decisions I've linked above. So, yes, the BC "legislative body" has indeed passed legislation to that effect. The BC Geo Names Office is the legal authority for names in BC, and they list two official titles, all of which is verifiable fact.

And I believe Hwy43 is attempting to end this entirley odd conversation, as I had already attempted earlier. trackratte (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The minister can call a city or region whatever he wants. The ministry can call a city or region whatever they want. This has no bearing on any official status in legislation. Do not conflate a ministry with official legislation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is B.C. the westernmost province in Canada? The westernmost land in Yukon is slightly west of the westernmost land in B.C. 208.59.132.152 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Calidum

21:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I take it that was from the edit you added and I reverted. Yes, BC is a province while Yukon is a territory. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this revert, there is in fact a "

The BC Hansard is another source that uses "Parliament" for the provincial legislature. Indefatigable (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Constitutional Act 1867, for the initial provinces, says that the respective Legislatures consist of the Lieutenant Governor (i.e. representative of the sovereign) and the Legislative Assembly. So there is a distinction that is often loss in terms of conflating legislature and legislative assembly.

For practical purposes though, a legislature within a Westminster Parliamentary System is a parliament which is why you see many provinces officially use the term.

Either way, a Parliament / Legislature in the Canadian system is made up of the Queen, the lower house, and the upper house if applicable. So to say that the Legislature is the Legislative Assembly is factually incorrect. trackratte (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, in Quebec, they do not have one, they have the National Assembly. In BC, we only have the Legislature. Again, you're conflating a federal document with a provincial institution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Manitoba points to Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. Alberta Legislature. Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly. Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly. Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island. Saskatchewan Legislature. Legislative Assembly of Ontario. All provinces point to their legislative assemblies, not some secondary body. Not sure why BC is the odd one out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that pointing to the Legislative Assembly would be more appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I have responded [2] at Canadian Wikipedians' notice board because this is an issue that affects all the provinces' articles. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Safyrr was brought to

and now we have another editor doing similar. It's not clear what the changes are, and some are obviously unnecessary (such the link to the provinces of Canada and then breaking Canada out of that and linking it in isolation). Without know what the changes are, it is hard to decipher the scope of the changes and moreover, why they are being made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We may need to summarize the residential school discoveries rather than try to list them all individually. We already have discoveries of unmarked graves at two former residential schools in BC and there are searches at two more. I suggest that we summarize this and link back to

Agreee Rather than list each school individually it should be summarized concisely. If there are 20 gravesite discoveries, listing 20 schools would be exhaustive on the page. Yeungkahchun (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: @Walter Görlitz: @Eight96Four: I summarized the discoveries in a concise sentence rather than have a sentence for each individual discovery, however I still listed the names of the 3 schools in brackets. As the list is expected to grow with more searches underway, I think the names of the schools should either be totally omitted or noted in an explanatory footnote (EFN).Yeungkahchun (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a good solution. My fear is that this will stretch well beyond 2021. We might also want to explain that the first discovery was the catalyst for further investigations, and that is relevant as it occurred in BC. We can leave the discussion about how Canada's First Nations had been talking about this for at least a century all across the nation prior to the initial discovery for the main article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Support the need for an explanation that the first discovery in Kamloops was the catalyst for further investigations, and it furthermore sparked the reckoning in Canada (statue descecreations, protests, calls to cancel Canada day, street renamings, church burnings etc)Yeungkahchun (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The section on the 10 largest regions needs to be updated with a new column for 2021 census data

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710013501 Phileo (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I propose that the section Fauna be split into a separate page called Fauna of British Columbia. The current content of the section seems off-topic and these sections are potentially large enough to make their own page. Cascadia630 (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to create a

daughter article with a summary here. Nikkimaria (talk

) 03:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

An anon from Montreal added the French pronunciation to the lede. Didn't we go through this with another editor about nine months ago? There's no reason to have French since it is not an official language in the province. However, the editor also added the supposed name in Halkomelem, which is a language of several South Coast first nations. Since it's only one of several languages in the province, and none are officially recognized by the province, its inclusion (unsourced at that) is simply fodder for additional first nations to supply their name. There's also the issue that many first nations do not recognize the province's right, but that may be a separate issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no useful take on the Halkomelem, but as I have said before, British Columbia is a subunit/region/area/whatever you want to call it of Canada, and Canada has two official languages, and so the French name for British Columbia should most definitely be included in the lead. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you've made that point before, and it's just as much a nonstarter as it was the last times. It's not an official language in British Columbia and should not be present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Canada has two official languages, but the Official Languages Act does not apply to provincial or municipal governments, and British Columbia is not officially bilingual. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding French to the lead comes off as chauvinism. The language has little to no cultural relevance in BC and several other Canadian states, so regardless of whatever the Canadian government states it shouldn’t be in the lead because it’s trivial.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:EC7A:CB9E:D161:6B97 (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that calling adding French language text "Franco language fascism" in your change summary is a pretty clearcut violation of

WP:CIV. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう

20:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You are making a completely fallacious argument - just because British Columbia is a province of Canada does not automatically make it a mandatory requirement to have the French name included in the lead. As a case in point, Manitoba, Alberta and Newfoundland most definitely do not have the French name included in the lead.

You're wrong, in addition to this article, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the NWT have french in the parenthesis after their titles. When you only include province/territories with alternative names in French. 4 out of 6 have French names in their parenthesis, only PEI and NFL don't. CASalt (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are other factors that your emotional bias is preventing you from considering Phileo (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

1. Both French and English official names have been included in this page since 2002, so a 19 year-long consensus based standard cannot be overturned on a whim by one or two editors.

2. The Government of British Columbia states that the French form is official |here.

3.Treasury Board Circular 1983-58, 23 November 1983 states that"'British Columbia' and the approved French form, 'Colombie-Britannique'" are both official.

4.. In British Columbia's GEOGRAPHICAL NAMING PRINCIPLES, POLICY AND PROCEDURES, it states that "The Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is responsible for naming geographical features in British Columbia. The Minister delegates this responsibility to the Geographical Names Office. Reference Land Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 245; Order in Council 652, 2010; Privy Council Order 1969-1458; Privy Council Order 1990-549 and Privy Council Order 2000- 283....The Geographical Names Board of Canada (formerly known as the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names) is the coordinating body for provincial and territorial geographical names authorities in Canada. As a member of this committee, British Columbia endorses the geographical naming principles and procedures established by the committee".

5. The Geographic Names Board of Canada (GNBC) "is comprised of members from each province and territory and various federal departments concerned" and whose role is as a "national coordinating body for the development of standard policies for the treatment of names and terminology, the promotion of the use of official names, and the encouragement of the development of international standards in cooperation with the United Nations". It's entry |here clearly shows the French name as official.

6. The Constitution of Canada, of which both English and French versions are coequal in law, states that British Columbia and Columbia-Britannique are the Province's two legal names.

All of which is to say that all of Canada's provinces have legally and officially have both French and English forms of their names. If there is any ever doubt as to the official name of something in Canada, you just have to do a quick search in the Geographic Names Board of Canada database. Further, the long standing consensus of 19 years cannot be thrown out on the whim of a just a few folks. trackratte (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You are making a fallacious argument because The wikipedia articles for the other provinces do not have their French names in the lead. Phileo (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You're wrong, in addition to this article, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the NWT have french in the parenthesis after their titles. When you only include province/territories with alternative names in French. 4 out of 6 have French names in their parenthesis, only PEI and NFL don't. CASalt (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Eight of the provincial articles & the three territorial articles should not have french in the leads or infobox headings. Only Quebec & New Brunswick should have french included. Quebec? because this is English Wikipedia & so we can't exclude the english language & New Brunswick? because it's the 'only bilingual province. PS: IF you want 'two' overdone examples? See Nova Scotia & particularly Manitoba. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Then there's Nunavut, Yukon, Northwest Territories, too. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What is this mystical reverse onus proviso where a 19 year strong consensus (as trackratte pointed out) can be overturned with no discussion whatsoever, but consensus is now suddenly necessary again to reinstate it? CASalt (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Let the 19 year old consensus prevail. Peter Horn User talk 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Since when is French note worthy enough to be included in the lead of the article on British Columbia? This smacks of French chauvinism, the irony being Québécois editors who resent “English encroachment” into their province trying to force a Francophone outlook on a part of Canada where French language and culture is *insignificant.* Wikipedia policy is *not* decided upon whatever the Canadian government says! 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:E539:751A:8146:5C39 (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Reminder of

WP:AGF. There are many strong arguments for keeping the french name in the parenthesis, none of which have anything to do with "French chauvinism". I can't speak for anyone else (nor should I have to since it's irrelevant), but I'm neither a Quebecor nor do I speak a word of french. CASalt (talk

) 01:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

We need to be consistent with other Wikipedia articles elsewhere where it is already formally documented, understood, and accepted that British Columbia does not recognize French as an official language for the province.

Official Languages Act does not apply to provincial or municipal governments

British Columbia is not officially bilingual

There is only one demonym for British Columbia, no distinction is made for the 8.5% French population that reside in BC.

We need to be consistent withh the infobox for this article, French is not listed as an official language.

The wikipedia articles for the other provinces do not have the French pronunciation in the lead.

Phileo (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

1) This is false, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the NWT have french in the parenthesis after their titles, this is despite NS and NWT not having french as a official language. When you only include province/territories with alternative names in French. 4 out of 6 have French names in their parenthesis, only PEI and NFL don't. So if want to be consistent we would include french in their parenthesis, not the other way around. 2) The Official Languages Act has nothing to do with anything here (it's a federal statue as it's been pointed out), section 16 of the Constitution (1982) declares French and English as the official languages of Canada, both french and english versions of the constitution are equally authoritative, and the french version of the B.C terms of Union (a part of the constitution) refers to the province as "Colombie-Britannique" |1 CASalt (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The people who keep adding the French language to the lead, can you explain why this is relevant to BC and other non-Francophone provinces? The lead is supposed to be a condensed introduction to BC, not a reflection of Canadian government policy. French is clearly no more important to the history and present situation in BC than Hungarian or Japanese. The addition of French is elitist, chauvinistic and deeply hypocritical given how French-Canadians resent English language intrusion into their region. It is also grossly offensive to the first nations peoples, may I add.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:2554:413C:40A4:BC95 (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your comment has been addressed ad nauseam in this discussion. It's relevant (and different from the other languages you just listed) for the reasons that have been discussed thoroughly, including in the comment you're replying to. And you're not going to win any bedfellows by repeating that irrelevant "elitist, chauvinistic and deeply hypocritical" line, which appears to have been your sole motivating force behind this latest comment. CASalt (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@

• MOS:LEADLANG
  calls for a close associated with a non-English language in order to included "a single foreign language equivalent name" in the lead sentence. But as has been mentioned already in this discussion, only 8.5 percent of British Columbians claim French as their ethnic origin, and the French had little involvement in the province's history.
• MOS:FIRST
  addresses the need to keep the lead sentence free from distracting clutter.

British Columbia's bilingual status, and a translation of the province's name to French, can be added elsewhere in article, but a consensus of editors appears to have clearly defined Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Your input would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think my favourite part about these spurious arguments against including the French name is that people making them seem to like to pretend BC isn't part of Canada, and isn't, in fact, a subdivision of Canada subject to the federal government, a federal government which declared, decades ago, even, that Canada is bilingual. Since BC does not exist in and of itself, listing the federal government's nameS for it is a no-brainer. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

And I think my favourite part about your spurious arguments about including it is that Canadian language laws apply to provinces when you know full well that they do not. They only apply to federal properties. Every province makes its own language laws. To suggest anything else is either intentionally misleading or missing the actual point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: I'm just trying to approach this discussion from a different perspective, and BC is very much a part of Canada, just like Niagara Falls and Baffin Island. My concern is that government policies must not dictate Wikipedia's decisions. A consensus of editors have defined the inclusion criteria for a first-line translation, and this applies to all Wikipedia articles, not just those in Canada. California is not officially bilingual, yet Palos Verdes Estates, California, has a Spanish translation in the first sentence because of its Spanish history, and the fact that 74 percent of its population are Spanish. Some articles about Prairie towns in Canada have translations into German. My point is that just because a particular place is officially bilingual, does not automatically mean Wikipedia needs to translate every single city in that region--or every federally-owned property, such as the CN Tower--into the other language. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not a

WP:COMMONNAME situation where we have to pick and choose between the common name and the official one, here it is perfectly possible to accommodate both; what the province is commonly known by (British Columbia and BC), and what's one of it's official titles (under the Constitution). No one is proposing that the title of the article be changed to "Colombie-Britannique". As Joeyconnick pointed out, all these arguments against the inclusion of the french translation (and one of the official names of the province) seem completely spurious, especially because the parenthesis isn't even close to being long or cluttered. CASalt (talk

) 18:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Request someone to update hottest temp section. It’s outdated 2001:569:74E7:7D00:28C8:4AE:3555:F84B (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

An issue has come up: should the infobox to this article contain the field "government_type", filled in with "Parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Since this issue affects all ten provinces and the three territories, a Request for Comment has been started on the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board. If you are interested in this issue, please come to the Notice Board and contribute to the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• W.A.C. Bennett.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

    Its 1 word

    Its literally one of the 2 official names this federated state has. Official documents legislating stuff for British Columbia have Colombie-Britanique on them, and government employees, elected officials and non-elected officials (like the Senators) say "Colombie-Britanique" to refer to this place. Not "不列顛哥倫比亞省", not "ब्रिटिश कोलंबिया", not "Britisch-Kolumbien", or anything like that. Its "British Columbia" and "Colombie-Britanique". Who cares if few French-speakers live there? When India was a part of the British Empire, few people there spoke English, but the legal and legislative stuff was in English anyway.

    Its not, please stop embarrassing yourself

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)