Talk:Phoenix, British Columbia

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, but rather to improve; no support for the merge and two objecting. Klbrain (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

---

The life of the former town can't be realistically separated from that of the former mine. This page and the Phoenix Mine both contradict and duplicate each other. A merged article should be drafted replacing the structurally weak current page. I recommend reading http://www.crowsnest-highway.ca/cgi-bin/citypage.pl?city=GREENWOOD#9 and the relevant sections of CHAPTER NINE: GRANBY 1895 – 1902 of https://klopp-family.com/colorful-history/bill-laux-and-his-works/the-mining-railroads/, which, despite first impressions, contains solid content based on personal knowledge of the history of mining and railways in BC. Some further basic research to examine other sources should be completed to construct an accurate and useful page. DMBanks1 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as it is highly seems unconventional for a community mine to redirect to a mine community article based on my review of articles associated with the communities of Pine Point, Northwest Territories, Uranium City, and Eldorado, Saskatchewan and their nearby former mines let alone a community that was once incorporated as a city. My suggestion is to apply WP:FIXIT to both articles starting with content you can extract from the two links you've advanced. If the will of final consensus on this discussion is to merge, then I suggest the opposite; at least this is a proposed merging of Phoenix Mine into Phoenix, British Columbia and not the other way around. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Hwy43 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as noted the community is very much a separate concept from the mine, and should be treated as such. Also as I noted at Talk:Spokane and British Columbia Railway, I suspect that klopp-family.com runs afoul of WP:blog with regards to use as s source. it give no links to the sources that were used in its creation, and thus there is no way to verify any of the information presented as factual. Also why not be WP:Bold and make the additions to the articles rather then reference dumping with the expectation that others should make the changes you ask for?--Kevmin § 23:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hwy43: Merging Phoenix Mine into Phoenix, British Columbia is the original suggestion, not the converse. As mentioned, I see no way to meaningfully tell the story of them separately without significant duplication. Avoidable duplication prevents inconsistencies with ongoing revisions. DMBanks1 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of direction of proposed merge acknowledged and original response revised above in italics. Hwy43 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Like you, I was initially concerned by the Klopp web name, which I came across when researching a small West Kootenay community. However, I discovered Klopp is a respected figure in Kootenay historical research, and the article is a compilation of material unfinished by another research member prior to his death. However, as with all sources, we must weigh them up against other sources. I have on a number of occasions found errors in texts by authorities. I have read widely on the history of BC railways over the past three decades, and did not note anything which gave reason for concern with Klopp's work. I primarily expand existing articles, but do not have time to rewrite every problematic article. DMBanks1 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ramsey, Bruce: Ghost Towns of British Columbia

Since obvious inaccuracies cite this source, I assumed the fault was with the contributor rather than the source. On examining the book, I realized the contributor was not at fault. This superficial publication probably had some merit when published in 1963 but rates poorly against other material produced in recent decades. In the circumstances, we should not regard it as a reliable source. DMBanks1 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thats not how sourcing works in WP. Ramsey is still considered a citable source, and areas where the information is contradicted or expanded upon are to be cited to the sources that do so.--Kevmin § 14:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would a source comprising indisputable inaccuracies be used as a citation? We are not talking about alternate plausible theories. We have basic fact and fiction. In WP, most of us do not knowingly cite an erroneous source, but research to discover sound sources.DMBanks1 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)