Talk:British Columbia

Is linking to "Provinces and territories of Canada" in the infobox an Easter egg?

This issue has come up with regards to the "settlement_type" field in the infobox. Should it read "Province" (no wikilink), or should "Province" be piped to "Provinces and territories of Canada": Province.

Joeyconnick and I have disagreed on this point, as the edit history shows, so I'm bringing it to the Talk page.

I think it's okay to link this way, and have pointed out that all the other articles on Canadian province and territories link to the "Provinces and territories article.

On the other hand, Joeyconnick believes that it's an example of MOS:EGG.

I agree with Joeyconnick that just because one article doesn't follow a guideline, that doesn't mean we can ignore the guideline. However, when we're looking at whether a guideline applies in a particular case, it is helpful to see how other editors have applied it, and whether they consider a particular practice to be a breach of the guideline.

So I went looking at other federations, and I've found that the articles for the states / province / federal units in other federations that I've checked all link to the general article on the states / provinces / federal units in that federation.

In addition to the other nine Canadian provinces and three territories linking to Provinces and territories of Canada, see these articles from other federations:

• US: infoboxes link "State" to U.S. state. For example, see California, Rhode Island, Alabama (pulled at random as examples; I've not searched all 50 states).

• Australia: infoboxes link "State" to States and territories of Australia. See: New South Wales and Victoria.

• Mexico: infoboxes link "State" to List of states of Mexico. See: Baja California and Yucatán.

• Germany: infoboxes link "State" to States of Germany. See: Bavaria and Thuringia.

• India: infoboxes link "State" to States and union territories of India. See: Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh.

• Brazil: infoboxes link "State" to Federative units of Brazil. See: São Paulo (state) and Ceará.

• South Africa: infoboxes link "Province" to Provinces of South Africa. See: KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga.

As mentioned, these examples of particular states / provinces / federative units are not meant to be a complete survey, but so far, I've not found one in any of these countries that doesn't link to the general article for that county.

I think that means that this type of linking is not considered to be a breach of Easter egg, in articles produced by a large number of editors, relating to several different countries. I don't think linking "Province" in the BC infobox is an example of an Easter egg.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't see how this might run afoul of EGG. While not very long, Provinces and territories of Canada is the article which gives the overview of Canadian provinces. It is where you'd expect a "Province" link to go. CMD (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see this as a MOS:EGG problem, and i agree that Provinces and territories of Canada is an appropriate target. Meters (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see this as an Easter Egg either. Masterhatch (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree this is not an MOS:EGG problem. The best target for a wikilink is Province (Canada). What does that redirect to? Provinces and territories of Canada. If it redirects to there it is not a surprise. Hwy43 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, is linking to "List of cities in British Columbia" in the infobox an Easter egg?

Similar to the above discussion, if I recall correctly, Joeyconnick also believes that EASTER EGG applies to [[List of cities in British Columbia|City]] in the infoboxes of cities. For a city in British Columbia, List of cities in British Columbia is exactly where I would expect to learn about cities in the British Columbian context. What are the opinions of others on this similar situation? Hwy43 (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hwy43, I agree with you on this. That is not an Easter Egg either. Masterhatch (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"Britishcolumbia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Britishcolumbia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 19 § Alanturing until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest

Hi! I am not too familiar with editing Wikipedia. But I was just wondering what the process would be to correct a mistake in the article: BC being referred to as part of the American region of the “Pacific Northwest”. It keeps getting reverted back whenever I try to update it. Thanks! ~2026-35300-73 (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

BC is part of the pacific northwest. , , , , . Pacific northwest refers to the northwest part of the pacific, not just the region of the US. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any Canadian sources instead of American ones like you provided? I don’t doubt that in the USA they use that term but it doesn’t seem accurate to use it on an article about a Canadian province? ~2026-35300-73 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It's more about Wikipedia:Reliable sources than which country published what. Yes, I agree, BC is not part of the US Pacific Northwest, but it is in the geographically area of the Pacific that is "northwest". Masterhatch (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and the link to Pacific Northwest is about the geographical region, not just the US region.Masterhatch (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Citations work both ways. Masterhatch has given you cites that PNW includes BC, and we’ve both pointed to the WP article on Pacific Northwest that includes cites that say BC can be considered part of the Pacific Northwest.

Do you have cites saying it isn’t? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, with respect to Wikipedia process, you’ve done the right thing by coming to the Talk page. If editors disagree about the content of an article, we raise it on the Talk page and try to reach a consensus on the point in dispute. Edit wars, where editors just keep reverting each other, are strongly discouraged.

However, Wikipedia runs on consensus. If one editor keeps getting reverted by a number of different editors, that is often a signal that there is a general consensus on the point in question.

With respect to the point in issue here, Masterhatch has already given several cites supporting BC being part of the Pacific Northwest. You may also want to check out the “definition” section of the Wikipedia article on the Pacific Northwest which discusses this very point. Most of the cites given there support BC being part of the PNW, although the article acknowledges that in some cases, it may be limited to the US. Where there is no clear definition, consensus by editors becomes an important way to resolve the issue.

One other point about resolving disagreements is that cites rule. Personal opinions of editors have to give way to WP:Reliable sources, given in citations. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Having lived in BC my entire life, and having considered it the Pacific Northwest for the entire time, it is slightly frustrating when people like this pop up and insist they know what we are better than we do. BC is the Pacific Northwest. ~2026-49255-07 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

(Regardless of whether that happens to sound right to you) ~2026-49255-07 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Geography Section

This section: “The northern, mostly mountainous, two-thirds of the province is largely unpopulated and undeveloped, except for the area east of the Rockies, where the Peace River Country contains BC's portion of the Canadian Prairies, centred at the city of Dawson Creek.” Is just completely inaccurate. I guess I am not allowed to change it but I don’t understand why is this allowed to stay up? ~2026-35300-73 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You removed it, but i think that sentence is referring to that Peace River area is not mountainous where the rest of northern bc is. It could be worded better, but i think removing it completely is a mistake. Masterhatch (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Am I allowed to reword it to be more accurate? Because right now it is saying that Peace River Country is the only place in the northern 2/3rds of the province that is populated and developed. ~2026-35300-73 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have no issue if you reword it to be more clear. Masterhatch (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)