Talk:Ashcroft, British Columbia

Unreferenced claims of Ashcroft being a desert

@Tatlayoko: We need to have a source to make a claim such as that Ashcroft is a desert. First of all it's important that it's true but more importantly than that is that it's important for people who read the article to be able to verify what they read here to maintain WIkipedia's credibility. Verifiability is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. You posted 2 sources but I don't see what is in them that attempted to verify the desert claim? Air.light (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought about deleting the entire climate section because none of it is referenced, but then clicked on the Koppen map, and zoomed in, and it shows desert right over Ashcroft, so yes, that is verification that it is a desert. Tatlayoko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a link to this Koppen map? Hwy43 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, how does this reference specifically verify the claim of "Because of its arid climate, Ashcroft and the surrounding area have occasionally been utilized for movie productions as stand in background terrain while portraying the Middle East or Desert Southwest of the United States"? Hwy43 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

When there is only one place on the internet that says in English that there is a desert in Canada and it's Ashcroft, and it's Wikipedia, we know we have a problem. The map doesn't show any political boundaries or anything else to verify that it's Ashcroft that is being specified. If for one moment we took the previous blog entry as a reliable source, even it says that more data is needed before we'll know with any certainty if Ashcroft meets the threshold for actually being a desert. We should not be making this claim here based on one weakly sourced climate map. We're over stepping our role as Wikipedia editors by ignoring the intent of the core policy of verifiability and hurting the very project that we're trying to help. Air.light (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. I like the latest edition. As a side note, blogs can be good sources of information. For example, if you look at the Della Falls page, it sides with the waterfall database blog that says that it's not the tallest waterfall in Canada even though the government of Canada says it is. The Wiki page sides with the amateur website because it's clearly more accurate than the official government data. That's an exception to the rule for sure. Tatlayoko (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Tatlayoko, what "looks good"? Note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at a different article is not a valid reason for this article to contravene verifiability and WP:BLOGS. My two questions above remain unanswered. The section is entirely unreferenced (per above, the one reference does not verify what it is stated) and should be removed until someone can put together an effort that is properly referenced based on reliable sources. Hwy43 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hwy43, The way it was fixed looked good to me. The edit that stated Eureka, Nunavut, is more arid that Ashcroft is obviously not true since aridity is largely determined by temperature, but besides that, it looked good. The Canadian Almanac lists Ashcroft as the driest place in BC at 208 mm/year (anyone who has ever been there know this to be true just by the vegetation and geography of the area), so it's quite obvious that the piece of "desert" shown on the Koppen map is Ashcroft. When I said "looks good," I was good with removing the sentence stating this area is Ashcroft. Maybe the desert shown on the map is on top of the wet, forested mountain tops. We'll never know, I guess. Tatlayoko (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

An unreferenced sentence asserting such claims, or a complete section asserting a bunch of claims, looks the opposite of good. I applaud the IP editor's removal of this unreferenced section. My two questions in my first post within this thread still remain unanswered, but no matter anymore as the problematic section is now gone. Hwy43 (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. You're questioning the validity of the Koppen Map? If so, let's deleted the Koppen map off of Wikipedia. You are also wondering about the claim about the movies. You'd have to ask the person who asserted that the movies are filmed there because it looks like a desert. As you well know, there are no trees to speak of in Ashcroft because it's too dry for much in way of trees, but I think the person probably just posted that as common knowledge. Perhaps they should have posted a link to someplace like this: http://www.tnrd.bcfilmcommission.com/deserts1/index.php Tatlayoko (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't question the Koppen map because I still have not been provided a link to the map despite asking for it above. This is now the third time I have not been provided a link to this map for review. Hwy43 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean this? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification#/media/File:World_Koppen_Classification_(with_authors).svg Tatlayoko (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem here and that is original research. There are no facts to say with any certainty that Ashcroft is a desert. All we have is a map that shows the colour associated with an arid/desert climate, and it doesn't even show anything certain such as geographical features or cities to our readers that it is for Ashcroft and area. The researchers that put this map together have the same data that we have for Ashcroft and most of it is very old, up until the 1980s only. I imagine what the University of Melbourne researchers (with the Koppen map here) did is that they're either using the old data, which would be inaccurate and ultimately original research to suggest that it's current and applies today (since the province has been warming and getting a little more wet at the same time,) or they're making the same assumptions on the data (again original research) that the blog guy did; (be sure to read his commentary in the comments section for this.) When putting a map together like this, it's kind of hard to leave areas blank or with asterisks saying that they're making educated guesses on incomplete data. We have to remember that more importantly than truth here is what is acceptably verifiable — WP:NOTTRUTH. Is a single, lone source that (sort of) makes the claim on a map that Canada has a desert considered to be enough for us to make this claim on Wikipedia? When people from all walks of life come here and read this being presented as truth, is this colour coded map enough for us to make this claim? Personally, I don't think it is. I think we need to have more than this to back this up. Air.light (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "While Ashcroft is the driest place in BC and almost dry enough to be classified as arid, it is technically semi-arid." Tatlayoko (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No, your suggested sentence does not work because you have not provided a reliable source that explicitly verifies the facts you are trying to assert.
We've since had an IP editor re-add the section with two sources. Given the IP editor used the exact sentence proposed above, I'm guessing it was you (please start logging in consistently). There continues to be issues.
First, the reference provided at the end of the first paragraph actually does not appear to verify the content it supposedly supports. This is WP:SYNTH and has been removed as a result. If I am missing something, specifically tell us where the content is within the source provided, and advise which sentence(s) the content supports in the first paragraph.
The second paragraph had no source at all so it has also been removed.
Finally, the source provided for the third paragraph also did not verify its content whatsoever. No mention of Ashcroft on this page at all. Since obviously there is some real difficulty here understanding how to summarize and write facts into articles based on sources, I have revised the paragraph and provided sources to the actual pages from the subject website that support the facts. Hwy43 (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the link?? No mention of Ashcroft!??? ... [1] As for the common knowledge that Ashcroft is the driest place in BC, EC says so, the Canadian almanac says so. Every scientist I've ever met who studies climates says so. I guess I'll have to pull out my EC source tonight when I get home? Tatlayoko (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The link you just provided is the link that I provided for you. You originally provided this link. No mention of Ashcroft on this page. I had to drill down to the desert terrain page for you to find explicit mention of Ashcroft. In addition to the feedback above, please in future provide links to the actual pages that explicitly state what you are trying to support, not pages up a level or two. Otherwise this is improper sourcing. Hwy43 (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what area you think the pink represents on the Koppen map. Logan Lake? Kamloops? Vancouver? Toronto? Tatlayoko (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We have nothing from the internet making the claim, in written English, or any other language, that this area is a desert. The climate data from this area is very incomplete making any such claims immediately suspect. We have another climate map here which does not show this area to be arid. For us to make this claim here on Wikipedia would violate a number of Wikipedia policies. I'm sorry but we can't do this right now. Maybe we will be able to in a number of years when the current, recently installed weather station gathers enough data but that will be a long while though. Air.light (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Since this is a discussion type page, and there has been a TON of debate about Ashcroft's apparent status as borderline true desert, I feel compelled to bring something to everyone's attention (on both sides of the debate). This little observation should provide all the proof we need; NOTE: in the references section at the bottom of the main Ashcroft wikipedia page; let me bring it to everyone's attention about reference citation number "6"-- where it explicitly says: "the =deserts= of the Thompson and Nicola"-- I think that's -FUNNY- that wikipedia itself can be this 'two faced!' For years the monitors of this page have been fighting me about my unrelenting claims (which I've backed up as true in multiple ways) of the -immediate- Ashcroft area as qualifying as true desert, which is admittedly a "very small" patch of land- BUT, the very same Ashcroft page has the =gall= to cite a source that by definition declares that the desert 'region' is supposedly a lot bigger! Hah! What a croc of hog. I have half a mind to edit the main climate page showing Ashcroft as desert.... but I will wait to see what -anybody- has to say about THIS little revelation!! Cheers children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.39.212 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

First of all; lovely talk page with riveting discussion. Now, to the good stuff-- with this new reference to Ashcroft's immediate area being a -true- pocket desert; Lord have mercy (in a GOOD way) it's finally been gotten RIGHT!!! I am absolutely and utterly stunned. "Way to go" to whoever was able to definitively cite this information. I guess I have a new best friend- I declare. By the way, the Mayor of Ashcroft, Barbara Roden, bless her spirit, has imminent plans to -promote- Ashcroft as a desert community; and rightfully so. With all this positive news emerging from the wood work, so to speak, I wonder if the Koppen climate classification of BWk (desert) may soon replace the current BSk (semi-arid) on the front page itself. Anyways, my hat's off to this hard researching individual!! Remember too, the Kamloops wikipedia page has for a long time cited this general area as BWK desert. CHEERS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.39.212 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Failed verification of cited book

@Tatlayoko: In your most recent edit, you cited a book, but the citation seems to be false. Here are photos of the book, the page you cited and the index showing no mention of Ashcroft. Your edit has been reverted. Air.light (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Air.light:What? I don't know where I got that year from. I'm not sure why I would use 2003 since the book I have is 1996. I believe the proper reference is Columbo, John Robert (1995), The 1996 Canadian Global Almanac, Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan Canada, p. 15-25 (approx), but I can't seem to find it in my collect at the moment. Check it out, and get back to me.

Incorrect precipitation information

There is absolutely no WAY the precipitation for Ashcroft in the climate chart is correct. 21 inches of annual precipitation is way more than the true amount for what is the driest non-arctic location in Canada. For it to border on true desert, the true amount of precipitation should be less than half of this amount. Bomb319 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I was looking at this article (I like looking at climate stuff on Wikipedia) and saw the same thing - 21 in (541 mm) of rainfall is more than enough here to be classified as humid continental - nowhere near a true desert (as per Koppen, you'd need at most 12.51 in (318 mm) of rainfall for a semi-arid classification). However, I did find some seemingly more accurate data on Weatherspark: https://weatherspark.com/y/1257/Average-Weather-in-Ashcroft-British-Columbia-Canada-Year-Round Antarctican2606 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The wettest year ever recorded in Ashcroft wasn't even 500mm! It looks like whoever did this took the extreme wettest month ever recorded, and then totaled it all up! Tatlayoko (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Train station merger proposal

The flag stop is merely a trackside pole with no platform. The Railway section of the Ashcroft article provides a clearer understanding of the Ashcroft stops over the decades. The respective tables in that section are better suited to handling the geographical context where multiple former adjacent station combinations have existed than the less informative adjacent station templates of the train station infobox. DMBanks1 (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)