Talk:Banff National Park/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggestions

• The geography section discusses mainly non natural features and that belongs more in a tourism section. Geography needs to emphasize the mountains, glaciers, rivers and how that these things were formed, with ages of the rocks and and maybe even broken down with a geology subheading. Mention the tallest mountains, lowest altitude, and the largest river.
• Try to get rid of all the redlined links with subarticles. I can help with the glaciers and a few things.
• Work to eliminate the singular sentences and turn them into paragraphs instead.
• There should be a small section on management of the park...the budget, fire/natural resource management.

Just trying to be helpful.--MONGO 07:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also we can expand the discussions of the animal species in the park, a list of threatened and or endangered species, and any natural resource programs going on there.--MONGO 08:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure that I agree about the "geography" section, though. I'll think about it, but the separate "geology" section does all that. Somewhere, near the beginning of the article, it's important to explain the geography (what's where, the different sections of the park) to help orient the reader with later discussions. I completely agree on all the other points made. -Aude (talk contribs) 12:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What the geography section does right now is to break the park into three regions, for further discussion. This is ths same way my Gem Trek hiking maps are done (#3 - Icefields Parkway, #4 - Lake Louise, #5 - Banff townsite area). Within that framework, perhaps I can integrate the geology and geography sections more. -Aude (talk contribs) 13:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, that works too of course. I'll try and help out with some stubs to fill in the relined links. I started Peyto Glacier so far and will work on others over the next ciouple of weeks.--MONGO 18:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking good

Maybe a little more expansion on Park Management...there is a section here that has more information:[1]. Maybe some mention of forest fires, if there are many. I think after that, run it through spellcheck, make sure the references all work and then send it to peer review.--MONGO 03:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Park management (including prescribed burns) and human impact need to be addressed more. There's been plenty of controversy in recent years involving the business community, environmental groups, and Parks Canada. I should have time to work on this over the weekend. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind

I found the info I was looking for. I have to say the article's organization is tough to follow. Kevlar67 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

PS I fixed the bit on internment. Kevlar67 16:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

World Heritage Site designation is mentioned, though maybe it can use more discussion including about threats to revoke it in the 1990s, and be discussed in a different section. Do you have any suggestions on organizing the sections?

Also two questions:

1. Internment - Third Geneva Convention seems to cover prisoners of war. It was enacted in the 1920s, whereas the World War I internment camps were prior to that. Was there something in the early Geneva Conventions that covered prisoners of war?
2. 1988 Olympics - What events were held in Banff? In my recolition, some events were held nearby in Canmore and Nakiska (Kannanaskis), but none actually in Banff. If that's indeed the case, it still is worth mentioning that some of the 1988 events were held nearby.

Aside from that, keep looking through the article, make edits, suggestions, ... Thanks. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• POWs - Actually, I think it was the Hague Conventions that covered POWs (before Geneva III) but I can't seem to get any firm info on that.
• Olypmics - you are right, I was thinking of Canmore, etc.

Will add more comments if I can link of any later. Kevlar67 21:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor last-minute clean-up

I did a basic copy edit on the first third of the article, through the History section. There are a couple of things I saw but didn't fix: under Prison and Work Camps two successive sentences read as follows:

"During World War I, immigrants from Austria, Hungary, Germany, and Ukraine were sent to Banff to work in internment camps. The camp was located at Castle Mountain, and was moved to Cave and Basin during winter." [my emphasis]

Either there was one camp or there was more than one camp. The sentences clash on that point. I'm here to polish form, not mess with content, so could someone with the requisite knowledge fix it? Also, there are several instances where the name of a piece of legislation is italicized. Is this the proper style in Canada? It's not consistent throughout the article, anyway, because there are at least two non-italicized references to the National Parks Act. I'm a little too weary to do the research on this point. Rivertorch 06:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits. Look good. I'd say "camps" is correct, as there was one main camp along with smaller camps in Banff. I have fixed the wording to reflect this better. As for legislation, I really don't know if there is a standard. In Canada, which is a featured article, the names of legislation are wikified and not in italics. I will try doing the same here, though will need to create stubs for these items of legislation. --Aude (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

vandilism

There has been some vandalizarion to the page and I am unaware of the correct information. The name of the Prime Minister has been changed. So other information has been added.User:Jbebeau 05:39, 21 November 2006

some1 vandilised and i cant fix it, help please.Sometimes1must 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. - User: Anon 07:25, 16 October 2006

Snow Dome: Hydrological apex?

There are at least two claims to be the hydrological apex of North America: Snow Dome and Triple Divide Peak in Montana. Both peaks drain into three bodies of water, but they can't both claim to be the hydrological apex - either only one of them is the true hydrological apex, or both of them should be considered to be a hydrological apex. See the talk page for Snow Dome for a more detailed version of this question. I can't answer the question authoritatively enough to warrant editing any of these pages, but hopefully asking the question on this higher-profile page will catch the attention of someone who can.

Note that there may be other mountains making the same claim. For example, there may be a point that drains into the Pacific Ocean and the Gulfs of Mexico and California, and another that drains into the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and the Pacific Ocean.

sMacJ 20:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Three rivers drain from the Snow Dome

• Columbia River - which drains into the Pacific Ocean
• Athabasca River - drains in to the Arctic Ocean
• North Saskatchewan River, which ultimately feeds via Lake Winnipeg into the Hudson Bay, which in turn connects to the Atlantic Ocean via Hudson Strait

Triple Divide Peak forms the boundary between the Missouri River basin (ultimately feeds into the Gulf of Mexico), and the Saskatchewan River (to the Hudson Bay). The Triple Divide Peak articles says the Hudson Bay feeds into the Arctic Ocean, which is also partly true (Foxe Channel). It appears that water flows out of the Hudson, into the Atlantic. [2] Nonetheless, I can try to clarify the wording in this article to say that its a hydrological apex, which separates these watersheds. --Aude (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Resource exploitation and orgins of park

Much more should be made of the origins of the park - openly modelled on Yellowstone - which from the first included provisions for the extraction of timber and mineral resources within the park boundaries. The Hot Springs were one asset that was to be protected by a national park, but the lesson of Yellowstone was that a park could also "protect" valuable resources. In addition to Bankhead and Anthracite, there were several other small mining towns in the park area in the early days, including Silver City and (if memory serves) Coppermine. From day one the park was an uneasy compromise between competing interests for supporters of a resort, of resource exploitation and of wilderness preservation. Two other points, much more could be said of the issue of forest fires in the park and surroundings - forest fires were a regular and devasting occurrence (often caused or exacerbated by human activity) in the area, particularly in the early years. And more could be said of the uses of the region by native people before Europeans arrived - if I remember correctly, the hot springs were known to the aboriginal peoples of the region and used by them as a recreation ground. An intersting irony of the Park is that, although it is often assumed or said that the Park is an attempt to preserve nature in its pristine state, there is considerable evidence that even before Eurpoeans arrived the area had already been altered by humans and diverted from the pristine. Pinkville 02:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a huge amount of time right now to work on this article, to expand on these aspects. For now, Jasper National Park and other articles are in rather poor condition and are higher on my to-do list. But do intend to come back to it at some point, maybe write up an expanded subarticle on history of the park and other aspects. When I do, I try to dig up more information on the points you make. Thanks for bringing them up. --Aude (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You bet. i know there are some books that provide the information I'm referring to - but i conducted my own research about 8 years ago and i can't recall any titles or names. But I'll see what I can find and add what I can as well. Pinkville 00:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Map

Could the location dot for the park be changed to red please? I had a real job spotting it in amongst all the other green areas (which I assume are other national parks?) It would stand out immediately if it were red. 81.147.147.86 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However, it appears it can't be done on this article. It is a template thing. Try posting your request here, referencing this discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wildlife management section

We would like to add a section about wildlife management as a subheading in the Park Management section to expand it.

good idea, Rjensen (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible FAR

some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Like "Internment camps", "Winter tourism", "Fire management", and I just add few {{cn}} tage.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--MONGO 04:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to correct sentences like this, "The pre-existing structure left over from mountain-building has strongly guided glacial erosion: mountains in Banff include complex, irregular, anticlinal, synclinal, castellate, dogtooth, and sawback mountains[33] and many of the mountain ranges trend North-Northeast, with sedimentary layering dipping down to the West at 40–60 degrees." This colon after glacial erosion and the following run on sentence about the structural geology all sourced to a 1977 book I can't access leave me lost. I think the best correction would be to delete this sentence and a few others from the geology section, but, no matter how bad, this tends to anger writers. The geology is poorly organized and appears to have been copied (I don't mean plagiarized) by someone who read it but did not fully comprehend the big picture. I can't easily find a good general text on the geology that I can access to rewrite these parts. If someone can suggest one, or a review article, I would be willing to clean up and fix this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:101:9DAF:34AA:9AEE:8B0F:9B4 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to just delete some sentences that are wrong. Quartzite is not a sedimentary rock. The tectonics in this regime are not glacial. Some of this is misinformation because the writer did not know geology. Some of it is mangled information from bad prose. Will other writers object to removing what is wrong? It seems that when you say the sky is carrot orange, it is better to delete it rather than ask for a citation as the bad info sits, as I have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:101:9DAF:7D71:373B:633B:CB8F (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Geology issues

1. "The Canadian Rockies consist of several northwest-southeast trending ranges.[33][34]"

But in the third paragraph "many of the mountain ranges trend North-Northeast."

• Corrected.--MONGO 03:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

2. Closely following the continental divide, which is the western boundary of the park, the Main Ranges form the backbone of the Canadian Rockies.

Isn't the Divide part of the Main Ranges? This confuses the definition of drainage divide to make a mountain range follow a divide rather than define it.

• Have made significant wording improvements for flow through this first paragraph.

3. The Front Ranges are located east of the Main Ranges.[35]

Have we now defined the western and eastern boundaries of the park, or are the Foothills part of the park, too? I don't think so, but it would be nice to define the geological section of the article with these two geological provinces, Banff National Park is in the Rocky Mountains extending from the Continental Divide in the Main Ranges of the Rockies to the eastern Front Ranges, or something cleanly written and easy to follow on a map.

• Adjusted this for ease of comprehension.--MONGO 03:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

4. Banff National Park extends eastward from the continental divide and includes the eastern slope of the Main Ranges and much of the Front Ranges.

This does not flow well, with the prior sentence. From a purely Featured Article on the Main Page pov, the articles are often compelling reads due to the organized presentation of facts. When describing locations, it is helpful, imo, to have some logical flow. For geology this can be direction, age, etc., but we already moved from east to west, maybe rewrite as one sentence. And how much of the Front Ranges? Is there a dividing line, a dividing range?

• I condensed several of these sentences as part of the cleanup in wording.--MONGO 03:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

5. The latter include the mountains around the Banff townsite.

How about, "The Banff townsite sits in the Front Ranges."

• Corrected as suggested.--MONGO 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

6. The foothills are located to the east of the Park, between Calgary and Canmore.

Now we've moved out of the park to the east. So, where do the Front Ranges part of the park end, and where do the Foothills begin?

• Have reworded this to be less ambiguous.--MONGO 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

7. On the other side of the Park, the Western Ranges pass through Yoho and Kootenay National Parks.

And now out of the park to the west, maybe. The Western Ranges of the Rockies? I assume you mean the Kootenay Ranges, but Western Ranges should be linked. This whole section jumps all over.

• Again, as above, reworded for ease of comprehension.--MONGO 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

8. Still farther west is the Rocky Mountain Trench, the western boundary of the Canadian Rockies region in British Columbia.[34]

And now even further to the west, off to BC. What does the Rocky Mountain Trench in BC have to do with Banff National Park's geology? If you want to go to that level, mention it, but include why its mentioned, or, imo, leave it out.

• It is indirectly all part of the Rockies geomorphology, but as you mention, not part of the immediate geological story of the park. Removed.--MONGO 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

9. Though the tallest peak entirely within the park is Mount Forbes at 3,612 metres (11,850 ft), Mount Assiniboine on the Banff-Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park border is slightly higher at 3,618 m (11,870 ft).[36]

Some individual mountains in the park. For me, for a FA, the structure of this section makes it difficult to read. We describe the trend of the mountains in the park, the park's western and eastern boundaries, the location of the townsite, outside the park to the east, then outside the park to the west, then even further west we get into the structure of the Cordillera, individual mountain peaks, and now ... It seems there is no reason to not mention individual peaks in this section, they are, after all, along with the Hot Springs, the major tourist draws to the park. But this seems like an afterthought, badly placed, imo.

• Understandable, but since this is a mountain park, the highest peak should be mentioned somewhere.--MONGO 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This will work better now that the introductory paragraph to the geology established the mountain ranges that comprise the park. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:ECA7:CBFA:3732:E0B0 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

10. The Canadian Rockies are composed of sedimentary rock, including shale, sandstone, dolomite and limestone.[33] The geologic formations in Banff range in age from Precambrian to the Jurassic periods (600–145 m.y.a.).[34] Rocks as young as the lower Cretaceous (145–66 m.y.a.) can be found near the east entrance and on Cascade Mountain above the Banff townsite.[37]

If the formations range from Precambrian to Jurassic in age, then what are the Cretaceous rocks doing here?

• Reworded to make it clear that Cretaceous rocks are in the park, but so rarely that they are not part of the vast bulk of those found.--MONGO 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

11. These sedimentary rocks were laid down in shallow seas between 600 and 175 m.y.a. and were pushed east and over top younger rocks during the Laramide orogeny.[38] Mountain building in Banff National Park ended approximately 55 m.y.a.[38] There are three prominent thrusts shown in geological maps of Banff National Park and they broadly define the largest structures of the park, so pushed east, okay, put that isn't how I would describe Laramide structures because it doesn't focus on the folding. The Bourgeau Thrust, the Sulphur Mountain Thrust, and the Rundle Thrust. Are all these Laramide structures? Bourgeau Thrust (Santonian, Mesozoic Assembly of the North American Cordillera, Hildebrand?), Sulphur Mountain Thrust (Maastrichtian/Campanian), Rundle Thrust (late Jurassic/early Cretaceous), so what was going on for the intervening "seas laid down until 175 MA" and "orogeny ended 55 MA," did orogeny start 175 MA? Then make the mountain building begin and end.

12. The Canadian Rockies may have towered 8,000 metres (26,000 ft) around 70 m.y.a near the end of the mountain building period.[39]

The mountain building ended 55 MA in the preceding sentence.

• Going by sources...I do not find it surprising that the peaks may have been highest before all mountain building ceased.--MONGO 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• By this I mean that in the terms of this mountain building, the 15 million year gap between "near the end of mountain building period" and the mountain building that "ended in 55 MA" is a little much. If the sources disagree (as they most likely do), then please incorporate both sources or something, so readers don't have confusion about when mountain building ended. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:ECA7:CBFA:3732:E0B0 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

13. Once mountain formation ceased, erosion from water and greatly augmented later from glacier ice beginning with the Quaternary glaciation 2.5 m.y.a. carved the mountains into their present shapes. Glacial landforms dominate Banff's geomorphology, with examples of all classic glacial forms, including cirques, arêtes, hanging valleys, moraines, and U-shaped valleys.

What about that 67.5 or 52.5 million years of river erosion, did that leave anything behind? Can you talk about those landforms, since they lasted longer, even if they are not biased towards the recent?

• I removed the comment about 70 m.y.a. so as to not confuse the reader. I'll check for fluvial/river info, but last time I did, it was scanty.--MONGO 22:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

14. The pre-existing structure left over from mountain-building strongly guided glacial erosion: mountains in Banff include complex, irregular, anticlinal, synclinal, castellate, dogtooth, and sawback mountains.[40]

Did the rivers do anything after the mountain building to define alpine glacier paths? The structure isn't really "left over from the mountain building," rather the structure is due to the mountain building, or it is the mountain building.

15. Many of the mountain ranges trend North-Northeast, with sedimentary layering dipping down to the West at 40–60 degrees.[34]

They trended differently at the start of this section.

• I corrected this a few days ago.--MONGO 22:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

16. This leads to dip slope landforms, with generally steeper east and north faces, and trellis drainage, where rivers and old glacial valleys followed the weaker layers in the rocks and caused them to be relatively easily weathered and eroded.[34][41]

Too much going on in this sentence, but at least there are some rivers.

17. Classic examples are found at the Banff townsite proper: Mount Rundle is a classic dip slope mountain,[42] and the Spray and Sulphur river drainages flow parallel to the geological strike of the mountain range.

"Classic examples ... of (a) classic dip slope mountain," needs rewritten.

• Rewritten to explain.--MONGO 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

18. Just to the North of Banff townsite, Castle Mountain exemplifies a castellate shape, with steep slopes and cliffs. Castle Mountain is composed of Cambrian rocks of the Cathedral formation (limestone), the Stephen shale above it, and the Eldon formation (limestone).[43][44]

• This was confusing...I've written to to explain what strata consists of what type of rock and where they exist on Castle Mountain.--MONGO 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Where is the Eldon formation? ... and the Eldon formation ... Don't like this "exemplifies a castellate shape," is it named after its shape? A cleaner sentence would be nice.

• I've rewritten this to explain.--MONGO 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

19. Dogtooth mountains, such as Mount Louis, exhibit sharp, jagged slopes.[45] The Sawback Range, which consists of near-vertically dipping sedimentary layers, has been eroded by cross gullies.[46] Scree deposits are common toward the bottom of many mountains and cliffs.

What are "cross gullies?" Plainly?

• ...its more a descriptive thing than an actual geological term. I've explained this now I hope.--MONGO 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

20. Photographic evidence alone provides testimony to this retreat and the trend has become alarming enough that glaciologists have commenced researching the glaciers in the park more thoroughly, and have been analyzing the impact that reduced glacier ice may have on water supplies to streams and rivers.

A little sensational. "Photographic evidence shows that glaciers in the park are retreating. Glaciologists have begun more thorough study of the park's glaciers, including examining the impact of reduced ice on water supplies to nearby streams and rivers." (Probably streams at these elevations, but maybe they're going downstream, too, but can you add some of this research from these alarmed glaciologists?)

21. ... Bow Glacier retreated an estimated 1,100 m (3,600 ft) between the years 1850 and 1953,[47] and since that period, there has been further retreat which has left a newly formed lake at the terminal moraine. Peyto Glacier has retreated approximately 2,000 m (6,600 ft) since 1880,[48] and is at risk of disappearing entirely within the next 30 to 40 years.[49]

Although the prior paragraph makes it seem as if the retreat is much more recent and all of sudden lots of research is going on, like 21st century maybe, this paragraph then makes it seem as if the glaciers have been well studied for a century and a half, ending in the 1950s. Where is this renewed research?

22. Both Crowfoot and Hector Glaciers are also easily visible from the Icefields Parkway, yet they are singular glaciers and are not affiliated with any major icesheets.

So what? The park's in continental Canada.

23. The Columbia Icefield, at the northern end of Banff, straddles the Banff and Jasper National Park border and extends into British Columbia.

Confusing to me because the parks are in Alberta and the icefield straddles their borders, maybe a better geographical description about its extent would make this easier to read.

24. Snow Dome, in the Columbia Icefields, forms a hydrological apex of North America, with water flowing from this point into the Pacific via the Columbia, the Arctic Ocean via the Athabasca River, and into the Hudson Bay and ultimately into the Atlantic Ocean, via the North Saskatchewan River.[47]

Isn't this something called a triple divide? hydrological apex? Is that what the source calls it? Yes, Snow Dome is a triple divide, but this non-wikilinked term is awkward to my American ear, a little clarification rather than just a listing would make this easier to read, imo, a triple divide with water flowing in three directions ultimately to three oceans. Triple divides are cool, and Snow Dome is a king!

25. Saskatchewan Glacier, which is approximately 13 km (8.1 mi) in length and 30 km2 (12 sq mi) in area,[47] is the major outlet of the Columbia Icefield that flows into Banff. Between the years 1893 and 1953, Saskatchewan Glacier had retreated a distance of 1,364 m (4,475 ft), with the rate of retreat between the years 1948 and 1953 averaging 55 m (180 ft) per year.[47] Overall, the glaciers of the Canadian Rockies lost 25 percent of their mass during the 20th century.[50]

With so much renewed research as mentioned above, couldn't we find sources that describe anything later than the mid 1950s?

2601:283:4301:D3A6:DC63:FC39:86B3:6D1E (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

26. Can you name the subranges in geographical order, and cite this, such as the Bow is at the divide? then roughly trending west to east? I can't find the information to add. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:ECA7:CBFA:3732:E0B0 (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

First Nations Incorrectly Attributed to Banff Wildlife Depletion

The article correctly attributes settlers' blaming "the depletion of wildlife in the park on the Indians' reliance on subsistence hunting." But this claim was shown to be false. The article does not mention this, so I corrected it (but someone keeps removing it). Anyone can probably find a link to this fact, but please stop removing my one sentence update. Either remove the fallacious notion that First Nations inordinately depleted wildlife, or keep the added sentence which corrects the historical error. 65.255.177.125 (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone else to fix it this time, but two points in response:

First, I reverted because you appeared to be inserting original research into the article, which is expressly against Wikipedia policy. No matter how correct or factual what you say may be, it is incumbent upon you to support it by providing a reliable source.

Second, your edit summary—"syntax"—was extremely misleading. Both times. (You did it twice.) You did not make an adjustment of syntax; you added new content. Deliberately using misleading edit summaries may be considered deceptive and is not a good idea.

Then again, you did open a discussion here on the talk page, and that is a good idea. Thank you for that. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

...

Even the most amateurish Banff historian knows that the Nakoda were forcibly stripped of their birthright and homeland by the Canadian Govt, and removed "at threat of gunpoint" from their ancestral homes in the Banff area. Are you feigning ignorance to further some nationalist agenda? The Wiki article, as written, is grossly skewed to put the Canadian government in a good light, in spite of the fact that they screwed the First Nation people (of Banff and elsewhere), under the guise of "they're depleting of wildlife." Heck, it's happening today under pressure of corporate oil companies taking indigenous lands. Fine -- if you want to play childish games to further some white-privilege fantasy, I will cite multiple references, including the 2010 admission by the Canadian government that re-establishes the Nakoda as the proper inhabitants and original caretakers of Banff. You people here claim to be writing history, but all you're doing is furthering a racist agenda. Guessing some of you are on Govt payroll. This article needs a complete section written from the perspective of First Nations historians, correcting the contrived history scattered throughout. 24.64.85.24 (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Since your IP is apparently a dynamic one, I'll note here that I left a message for you on the talk page associated with your most recent IP. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Johnson Lake

Minor lake in Banff National Park. Not notable enough for it's own article. Cbs527 00:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbs527 (talk • contribs)

• Support Oppose. Six years after its creation, the article remains the merest stub. If the lake proves notable on its own, which a quick search suggests is unlikely, it can always be broken out into a separate article again sometime in the future. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Added: Striking support. What Hwy43 writes below makes sense. In the meantime, can it just be PRODded? Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If it hasn't been subject to a PROD before, I don't see why not. In doing so, a link to this discussion can be provided to affirm how it appears to be an uncontroversial deletion. Hwy43 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• oppose the lake is a separate unique topic that does not overlap the park topic. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as well. If we merge, we have to note its existence in the article somehow (it isn't at present). If we do, how many other lakes within the park that are ≥ 0.2 km² will we also have to mention (or list)? It is unclear how this tiny water body is even notable enough to warrant an article in the first place. I was hoping WP:GEOLAND would be be more explicit with notability thresholds, but it isn't. We therefore must look to WP:GNG in lieu. Beyond its associated statistics and coordinates, we know it exists and is named, but these facts are not sufficient to confirm notability. I say delete instead of merge. Hwy43 (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You have made some good points, (User talk:Hwy43). There are quite a number of small lakes in Banff National Park and this is one of the smaller ones. There does not appear to be much information about this lake in the Parks Canada website Here. Delete does seem more appropriate. Cbs527 03:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbs527 (talk • contribs)