Talk:List of cities in British Columbia

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

images huh?[edit]

Re this reversion, if they are "needed for Featured List" status, then they should be within table fields, not all together at the start of a section; the resulting white space, scrolling down past image after image, is not very reader-friendly, and hardly seems suitable for a "featured" list....or should be in a "gallery" section, not in the way of reading the list. To me, it's still brochure-material given the pitch-y style of the captions.Skookum1 (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maps would be far more suitable, i.e. city-maps showing e.g. Kamloops' and Prince George's expanded boundaries and locations within them, or Prince Rupert and environs (Port Edward and Lax Kw'aalms/Port Simpson).Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about?
  1. In this version of the page, the 10 images, which are of the 10 most populous cities, fit perfectly to the right of the table with no white space. In fact there is no white space to the right of the table at all and only a negligible amount within the entire section (to the right of the final two notes at the very bottom of the section). There is no big blank space before the table whatsoever.
  2. I returned only two of the ten images and I put them in the lead before the table (they were not returned to the right of the table) to address the apparent concern about the images forcing the table down. Now there is no extraneous white space on the right side of the lead section. Given the previous point, I'm tempted to return the other eight photos and place them all in their original position.
  3. Putting images in table fields results in extraneous spaces within the balance of their rows as a consequence of accommodating the images, making the table no longer reader-friendly. Doing this is sloppy and is a discouraged practice.
  4. Your opinion is your opinion, but AGF. I have a tough time believing whomever added the photos was doing so for travel brochure (promotional) purposes. They add value to the article, making it more visually appealing than an article that is strictly prose and table.
  5. There is nothing at MOS:LISTS and MOS:IMAGES that discourages use of images in list articles.
  6. You are welcome to add a map.
Hwy43 (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
when I took those out, they were all together and did make a huge whitespace; and I don't see what's not user-friendly about List of heritage buildings in Vancouver, which does have images in the table, as with many other similar lists. And yes, town boosters and BC booster regularly add bumpf-photos with bumpf-captions. "more visually appealing...than strictly prose and table" to me sounds like a preference for picture books over other kinds of books. This is supposed to be a reference list of incorporated cities; not a gallery of them.
I'm not a good mapmaker though I have good ideas about what kinds of maps are needed, instead of hte useless province-wide locator button-maps. I just think they have more context and utility in a lot of cases than the provincial maps.Skookum1 (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An embedded image within a table generates a needlessly high row height that in turn generates excessive unused space within other cells within the row. Do that in every row, the problems are exacerbated and a user must excessively scroll to get through the table. Tables are intended to be, and should be, as compact as possible.

I have preparing a map for List of municipalities in British Columbia on my to do list. At that time, I can create a separate map showing just the distribution of cities. Hwy43 (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try and tell that t o the folks who built the heritage-list tables...who say that tables are not just allowed, but proper and illustrative. The maps "showing just the distribution of cities" if you mean on a province-wide map would be pretty useless; regional maps e.g. Lower Mainland, the Island, Kootenay-Boundary-Okanagan, and the Central Interior Northeast/Peace and the North Coast/Rupert are what I mean.Skookum1 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Municipal boundary maps can be worked out by the same tool I use as the cite on Lillooet Land District, New Westminster Land District etc, and the host page for that tool also has shape files for digital-map generation available.Skookum1 (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't useless. Rather, they have been well-received by others. You wanted a map, now you want five maps? Those regional maps would be more appropriate on regional articles.

I already have the data I need. Hwy43 (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said one map, I originally spoke of local/regional maps for good reason. A province-wide map would not be useful at all, so fuggadeboutit; it would be cluttered and not ilustrative at all.Skookum1 (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you did pluralize maps. My bad. A province-wide map would totally be useful, so fuggadeboutit; it would illustrate where the higher concentrations of cities are. Hwy43 (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
there's only one concentration of cities in the province, and that's the Lower Mainland. Other agglomerations are mixes of city and surrounding municipalities of various types (e.g. Greater Kelowna) and some "constellations" of cities, as in the West Kootenay triad of Nelson, Castlegar and Trail (and er, Rossland I think is a city also). A province-wide map would have a cluster on the Lower Mainland, and then pointillistic tids and tads elsewhere; showing the municipalities of South and Mid Island adequately requires a regional map; likewise with the Lower Mainland's complex municipal map, and similarly a boundary map of the municipalities of the Peace Country (of which two are cities). The boundaries of Kamloops, PG and Nanaimo need showing in their own right as "modern expansions".Skookum1 (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"well-received by others" - you mean you've made city-distribution maps for other provinces?Skookum1 (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See my user page for various city, town, village, urban municipality, etc. distribution maps. Hwy43 (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mission[edit]

Hrm. Mission is missing, but its page says it's ~36.4k. Is there some reason it was left out? --204.244.10.42 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mission isn't missing. It's ineligible. It is a district municipality, not a city. See List of district municipalities in British Columbia. Hwy43 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cities in British Columbia. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_cities_in_British_Columbia&oldid=1203630377"