Talk:British Columbia mainland coastal forests

Source accuracy

The source is valid only to its own system of definition, although at least it does use actual official-name landforms in its descriptions (which this article doesn't, as yet). But to see an article of a deep stretch of inlet titled "Strait of Georgia" - see here, tells me everything I need to know about the accuracy/relevance of this classification system, no matter who the partners behind it are. The title is only valid as a reference to this classification system, and not in reference to forests themselves. Other classification systems for the forests do exist, not just hte CEC Ecoregion/Ecozones system (used by Environment Canada and also by teh equivalent US system and also the Dept of the Interior there). The BC Ministry of Forests has yet another system, for forest-types notably, and there's the biogeoclimatic zones, which are something different again, i.e. the defined regions/zones are different. Misrepresenting one systme as if it were the fact of the matter, above the other defintions, titles, is not Wikipedia's purpose; adopting one over the other as some kind of binding definition is highly questionable/POV-ish....and as I often find with ecological-group-based websites, the sites themselves arent' generally all that accurate. Showing a picture of what I gather is the deeper end of Jervis Inlet or the Kitlope or another coastal inlet, and using it to illstrate the Strait of Georgia is just so wrong....Skookum1 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

removed completely unsuitable image

I removed the image of the Black Tusk that was here; it's in an alpine ecozone/ecoregion and not illustrative of the Mainland Coastal Forests in the slightest. Please remember not to gussy up article with unsuitable even if scenic photos; Wikipedia is not a tourism brochure.Skookum1 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, despite the name of this ecoregion, the entirety of Garibaldi Provincial Park lies within its boundaries. The photo of Black Tusk was indeed appropriate. Miguel.v (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. The alpine ecology is not part of the Mainland Coastal Forests, they are an alpine and subalpine zone. Ecology shifts with elevation in British Columbia; only the lower valleys have the time of forests described; not the subalpine and alpine shown in the picture; very wrong illustration. Big cedars and hemlocks is more like it, not alpine scrub, alpine meadow/tundra and rock. Maybe as high as Rubble Creek and the Garibaldi townsite, but even Whistler has a different kind of forest than Squamish or the great groves that used to be where Vancouver is now. Alpine tundra is a no-go, not even close.Skookum1 (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the map; I'd thought the lowland groves were what was meant here; but I do know that whether Garibaldi Park or the Clendenning area or the west flank of the Lillooet Ranges along Harrison Lake, and more, is not forest but icefield; and that includes large areas within Garibaldi Park, and of course the Pemberton and Powder Mountain Icefields north and west of Whistler; the map seems lazy in composition; it bears no resemblance at all to the sort of thing you see in the map on Biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia and seems typical of NGO work, drawing and colouring in lines on a map (note how Harrison Lake is yellowed out too, as if forest covered the lake surface??) but with no awareness of the terrain indicated or how climate changes vertically in British Columbia; it is not a broad swipe that says everything inside it is in the ecoregion in question; if it is, then it points to an amateurishness on the part of the mapmaker - not the WWF from what I can tell - and is not proof that the Black Tusk is in "Mainland Coastal Forests". Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the useful map, Miguel. I see that the shores of Kitlope Lake are right on the boundary of the ecoregion, so perhaps the photo I chose is not appropriate. I agree with Skookum that we should choose a photograph of a representative place in the ecoregion, not a place that is marginal or arguable. As much as I like that photo of Black Tusk, I think we should look for another.

Skookum: you probably don't intend this, but you're coming across as being angry and aggressive. Miguel is a valuable WP contributor, having worked on many ecoregion articles and contributed many beautiful photos to Commons. Let's try to work this out in a calm and friendly manner. —hike395 (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Rachelzanini: Maybe try adding a few academic sources. The article, although well written, would benefit from reputable journal sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelzanini (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)