 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The birthplace of British Columbia?
editFort St. John may have a quibble with this young whippersnapper! Fishhead64 02:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- The reason Fort Langley has been called the "birthplace of BC"' is described in the following way on Fort Langley's website: "On November 19, 1858, the actual proclamation of Crown Colony status took place in the Big House at Fort Langley. Thus Fort Langley was proclaimed the birthplace of B.C."[1] Sunray 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Historic Site vs. Village?
editPerhaps a differentiation should be made between Fort Langley National Historic Site and Fort Langley, British Columbia? Both could really use some work. -- TheMightyQuill 14:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with both your points. Sunray 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I created a Fort Langley page that redirects to this page, and then I put {{For|the historic fort|Fort Langley National Historic Site}} at the top of this page. -- Usgnus 21:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
History section
editI came to the page to add see if there is information for me to add onto the Skwxwu7mesh page. There was lots of trade between the two when it got set up, but that's not what I'm looking for. I just wanted to comment that the history seciton is really hard to read. It doesn't run coherently, or well, in a linear timeline. I wish I could help, but I really know little about Fort Langley (and I actually wanted to learn more! haha). Just wanted to offer some feedback! Thanks! OldManRivers (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Edits
editI have made some significant edits to the page in hopes of making it clearer and separating similar information into sections. I have tried not to delete any substantial information and only remove repetitive material while creating new sections others can add to. The article formerly had a large history section and a present day section and was difficult to find information in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperbolicSheet (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I really like this restructuring and additional content to the page, good job! This article is slowly getting better and more accessible. I too agree the history section dwarfed over the rest of the page content so it's good to see that reduced. I'm trying to get more photos to put on this page too - may have to take some more myself. James.bc (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)