Talk:CFB Esquimalt

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CFB Esquimalt article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Canada: British Columbia / Military Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force

Military history: Maritime / Canadian / North America / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Looks very simular to this site:http://www.navy.dnd.ca/marpac/cfb-e/marpac_cfb-e_e.asp Motorfix 02:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Break the article up

The section where all the camps are described are quite irrelevant to Albert Head. I suggest that these descriptions be used to make an article each for the courses. Then just link to them. It would also make it a tidier article.--Midnight Rider 02:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Wikipedia article earlier about Albert Head, that was proposed for deletion. At the time, this page was a mere stub, (everything before the Albert Head section header.) I merged the content that was going to be summarily deleted into here to save the information and to expand this article, (killing two birds with one stone as it were.) Granted, it was a quick and dirty save, and as I don't know all that much about the base, I have no frame of reference to edit further. Feel free to trim down the irrelevant parts, but I wouldn't advise creating new articles at this point, based on the former proposed deletion. --RoninBK_ETC 13:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Merge - I placed the template after finding Esquimault, a stub with no project templates; the oen reason it might not be suitable for merge is if it were expanded to cover the RN period of Esquimalt, when it wasn't CFB....NB the Dockyard is a separate item, as also the Esquimalt Naval Hospital, which was another RN institution originally.Skookum1 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algonquin - DDG or DDH

The official web site of this ship says she is HMCS Algonquin (DDG 283). The article called her HMCS Algonquin (DDH 283). I have changed it but I am concerned because it seems to be described both ways. Which is correct? --KenWalker | Talk 08:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMCS Naden Band

I'm not sure where to fit this in the article and don't have any resources on hand; I've just seen them dozens of times at Remembrance Day ceremonies and in various official functions and community events; one of the last professional brass bands in British Columbia, if not the only one (?).Skookum1 (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Head redirecting here.....

Albert Head is primarily a geographic reference, to a headland, and to Albert Head, Metchosin, a neighbourhood of Metchosin, British Columbia. I'm thinking that Albert Head training facility might be needed a a subarticle, or at least a reference on a four-time disambiguation page (the fourth item would be Albert Head Lagoon, but given that naval training is of issue, maybe that's the location of the training facility - ?? The name of the community is possibly the more common meaning of "Albert Head" locally so Albert Head (headland) may be best for the geographic feature...with Albert Head serving as the disambiguation - ??.Skookum1 (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think common usage would probably go to Albert Head Lagoon, which can also be directed to Metchosin,_British_Columbia#Parks. I think a DAB page would probably be best, or an article at Albert Head, which describes the lagoon (the lagoon is not the location of the naval training facility), describes the naval training facility, and describes the geographic reference/neighbourhood. DigitalC (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Albert Head Lagoon is a full phrase and I'd think not what is meant by "Albert Head", which is the geographic reference; Albert head military training facility or Albert Head training facility can direct to CFB Esquimalt, and I'll make a section heading there that can be the target. SFAIK most common usage is either the headland or the community on it.Skookum1 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I added the following {{redirect}} hatnote at the top of CFB Esquimalt: . -M.Nelson (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, as a temp fix....redirecting it to Metchosin#Parks isn't quite right, since Albert Head Lagoon Regional Park is a different thing, technically, than Albert Head Lagoon...unless it includes most of its waters - ? As with Gordon Head a community article and landform can be the same article, ditto with lakes that refer to parks containing them etc. I linked all the parks at Metchosin#Parks as the're all Regional Parks or maybe with Buckbrush Swamp an ecological preserve, and can have articles, or a Regional Parks in Metchosin article; aren't there other kinds of parks ther? i.e. municipal? any federal sites...might even be a provincial park or two (prov parks are rare inside municipalities, they're usually handed over to municipal or regional district jurisdiction). Regional parks in general, including many in the Lower Mainland and elsewhere, could ues articles, which I why I linked them there...Around Albert Head (headland) are other Prince-Alvert-associated names, pretty much a section in itself....Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, because regional parks are creatures of the regional district,s the appropriate category or article for them in this case would be Regional Parks in the Capital Regional District; it's one of the few instances where I'd actually recommend an RD-based category but suffice to say there'd be 20 or so in the CRD RP category if it were made....Skookum1 (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Since there doesn't seem to be too much info on any of these suggested articles such as headland, regional park, etc (judging from the fact that they are all redlinks presently), I would suggest adding a section for each at Albert Head, Metchosin, and having Albert Head redirect there as most uses will be covered there. Thoughts? -M.Nelson (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did just that; Albert Head redirects to Albert Head, Metchosin. Feel free to modify any of my changes as you see fit. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clean up tag - time for removal?

The clean up tag at the top of this article was added by Skookum1 on 01:31, 9 April 2009. The concerns that Skookum1 had at that time seem to have been addressed by an edit made by Indefatigable on 04:44, 11 April 2009. Does Skookum1 or anyone else think that this article is in need of further clean up? If you are inclined to answer in the affirmative could you please specify what still seems dirty? Thanks. If few cleanliness concerns remain I'd like to propose removing the tag. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a few section titles (#Vessels and #Other facilities) since the intro was far too long; this may address some other cleanup concerns. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Those are changes quite close to ones that I too was thinking should be made to the article layout. (I suspect I would have used "Fleet" instead of "Vessels" and owing to the volatile list like nature of such a section I would prefer to place it after the other sections and before the first footer section — in this case just before "See also".) One section that I think is missing from this article is a "History" section. However, I think a "need to add a History section" request falls under the purview of an {{expand}} template and not under the purview of a {{clean up}} template. In other words, I still think the clean up tag can be removed. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of using "fleet", but I'm not sure if it is used by Canadian Forces as a technical term (ie, "Canadian Pacific Fleet" as used in the article) which would make this use incorrect.

I also agree that the "Vessels" section should be below the other one, but I put it below since the title of "Other facilities" implies some form of preceding "Non-other facilities" section. The word "other" would look out of place if it is the first section of the article, even if the major (non-other) facilities are listed in the intro. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I removed the {{cleanup}} template; Skookum1 can re-add it if he wants, but I'm sure we can deal with any concerns through discussion first. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for removing the tag and the explanation of your use of terms and layout. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's OK re the tag, it was largely the list of vessels and all the caps that bothered me. But just to note that there are four (maybe potentially) five overlapping articles here: Esquimalt, British Columbia, Esquimalt Harbour (for the waterbody), CFB Esquimalt, Esquimalt Royal Navy Dockyard and Pacific Station. List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest also overlaps with it, and ideally the old RN hospital at Esquimalt should have its own article, if enough is found to enable its creation. the list of vessels should definitely be on this page, not on teh municipal Esquimalt, British Columbia page. The Dockyard article needs expansion re its role in keeping the colony and early province fiscally healthy (imperial military spending kept BC from being bankrupt for many years...and hte hospital helped pave the way for the "newly wed and nearly dead" retirement-city culture that Greater Victoria became famous for/identified with). Pacific Station is in reference to RN vessels stationed at Esquimalt when it was a Royal Navy base (rather than a CFB one), so IMO any historical/RN material in CFB Esquimalt belongs in a Royal Navy-categorized article....I'm not the one to un-knot this, it's pretty much in need of a MILHIST specialist, my main interst here is keeping BC geography and early BC history accounts accurate.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Skookum1 and M.Nelson. It seems we have the clean up tag matter resolved and can now proceed with expanding the article. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History section

This article could benefit from having a history section if someone has the will to do it. Air.light (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CFB Esquimalt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]