Talk:Garibaldi Provincial Park

Garibaldi Provincial Park received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Canada: British Columbia / Geography / The 10,000 Challenge Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
	This article was created or improved during The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada, which started in November 2016 and is ongoing. You can help!!

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

images[edit]

If anyone wants to use any of my images from http://gallery.gotroot.ca/v/hiking/ on this page, leave a message on my talk page and I will upload them.

IUCN Category II (National Park)[edit]

The infobox read "IUCN Category II (National Park)", which is clearly not the case, so I removed the IUCN designation. If anyone knows the correct category, feel free to add it back in. →smably 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Category II is the correct category. Though the IUCN designation says national, the verbose definition doesn't mention national governance at all - see [[1]]). The UN page linked also calls it Cat II. Further, National_park#Other_sites_designated_for_preservation states "In many countries, local governmental bodies may be responsible for the maintenance of park systems. Some of these are also called national parks." It simply doesn't make sense for an entity concerned with conservation of nature make a distinction between nationally governed and provincially governed parks. They exist for the same purpose (the def'n of a Category II) and there is no other space in the rating system for such a park. I've readded the IUCN category II designation to the page.→Ktims 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to place a IUCN category, as BC Parks is NOT affiliated to ICUN. --Qyd 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I was reading yesterday on the World Database on Protected Areas site, linked at the article, their source is the Canadian Conservation Areas Database. If you follow up on that site, one of their goals is to classify Canadian protected areas under the IUCN classifications. Taken together, I'd consider this data somewhat authoritative, especially since it's listed on the IUCN-affiliated WDPA site. Further, I'm not sure these classifications are given out by the IUCN, it seems to just be specifying a classification system and allowing local organizations to apply it themselves. If you don't think there's enough of an argument for using these classifications, I don't have a huge problem with removing it.--Ktims 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this a very old talk thread, but I wanted to clarify this for anyone reading and wondering about the park's classification. Garibaldi park is in fact designated as a class II "national" park by IUCN, as per their official 'protected planet' tool. see: [[2]]. --Luidias (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garibaldi, British Columbia redirect[edit]

Uh, just found out that redirects here, which it shouldn't. Garibaldi was a town, not a park; its evacuation and eviction/appropriation because of the threat from The Barrier is worthy of a whole article, once researched; I don't ahve the resources to write such an article but may convert the redirect to a stub; I was hoping to find an article; this was the original DBA location of the Garibaldi Lift Company (now Whistler-Blackcomb) and I was popping by to see if they'd ever even put in so much as a rope tow near Garibaldi townsite - see Category talk:Ski areas and resorts in British Columbia re defunct (and planned) ski areas.Skookum1 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I noticed this when I made a link to it on The Barrier article and was surprised there was no such article other than a redirect. But I didn't create an article about the town because I couldn't find anything other than the text on The Barrier article. It seems like the page was redirected to Garibaldi Provincial Park because that's what the article was originally about [3]. Black Tusk (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There've been a lot of weird things I've found since first starting to edit Wikipedia; Lillooet went to the language, Squamish to the wind, and so on.....I'll make the Garibaldi stub now, based on BCGNIS name/date info; somewhere out there in newspaper archives are huge amounts of public debate/dispute about the appropriation and such; some say it was just to make Whistler more valuable that Garibaldi was forcibly evacuated, adn that Whistler has its own geotehnical hazards (Fitzsimmons Creek flowing through, and almsot directly into, the Village, for instance). Politics, politics, politics, like the old claim from WRA/RMOW hacks that Powder Mountiain wasn't viable as a ski area "because too much of it is above treeline" and that the village site was environmentally dubious; as if the 2010 Sliding Centre weren't in the same location, and many of the same people involved in the kiboshing of Powder Mountain (and Garibaldi, come to think of it) are now on the VANOC Board.....did I say that? yeah; I have an inside track on certain bits of information, but it should bei n the news soon....I'll see if any of my journalist contacts might know what years the Garibaldi appropriation/debate went on in, maybe we can dig something out of the Sun archives...It was big news/controversy for quite a while.Skookum1 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garibaldi, British Columbia is now a separate article and not about the park or redirecting to it; Black Tusk knows this, posting this for other editors/readers to clarify the resolution of the above debate.Skookum1 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Garibaldi Provincial Park. 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) 10:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]