Talk:Nahanni National Park Reserve

Canada: Northwest Territories / Geography 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian Territories.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Protected areas Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

World Heritage Sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites 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.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vagueness of "great canyons"

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I dropped by because of the new Category "Canyons of Canada" to see if the Grand Canyon of the Nahanni had an article; it doesn't. Since there's four "great" canyons here, it seems appropriate that they should have a canyons+pic page(s), as will also be necessary for, let's see, the Stikine, the Chilcotin, the Chilko (Black Canyon), the Thompson, the Cheakamus, the Stave (drowned), Capilano, Chehalis, Anderson, Elaho and Bridge Rivers (and counting) and a host of creeks, too. In the case of the Nahanni, if someone monitoring this page has a pic of the main canyon and a proper name for it (I think there is one) please write an article and move the new Canyons of Canada category over to it from here, where I just put it. "Great canyon" sounds a bit high-schoolish; was "grand canyon" meant?Skookum1 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The names are First, Second, Third and Fourth. I thought that "great" here ment the same as in "Great Britain". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't have that context with canyons; sounds more like "hey, that's great!" or a mis-take on "grand canyon". There's an official Grand Canyon of the Stikine; are any of the four known as the Grand Canyon of the Nahanni? Otherwise pics for each one, and at least individual redirects (and disambigs as necessary) for those four canyon names to this page, plus a pic of the most canyonesque one. I'd imagine Virginia Falls will/does have its own article (Hunlen Falls should, but doesn't yet). There's more canyons in Canada than people realize; I've only started enumerating the BC list; and that's just things that are known as canyons, capital-c canyons, and not just canyon-like valleys and coulees....Skookum1 06:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry didn't explain myself enough about great/grand. It was just a comment and not a preference for one over the other. The names came from the Canadian Heritage Rivers site. For some reason I didn't look at the Parks Canada site which also calls them 1st - 4th. I just noticed that Parks Canada (in the green box at the top) calls them great. But I have no preference one way or another. This site and this one both call them 1-4 but also refer to a "Painted Canynon" below the falls which may be the 4th. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

My bet on the use of "great' in those websites is because either some bureaucrat has a gee-whiz appreciation of English adjectives, and/or they're not native English speakers; quite likely given the federal civil service (ParksCan) they're native francophones, and the translation of grand from French can be either "great" or "grand" (or just "big" of course). Theres's a difference between a "great guy" and a "grand old man" for instance. But in the case of canyons, "great" is not the usual adjective, certainly not as a category of canyon; more like "great" as in "wow, gee, nifty!" is how it comes across; but again Canadian official English is a hodgepodge of other-language influences. I gather it's First Canyon I was thinking of; and like other canyon-brags it has to compare itself to the Grand Canyon in Arizona; but lots of canyons, including many of BC's (the Stikine, the Bridge, the Homathko, that of Cayoosh Creek (not yet articled), the central Canyons of the Fraser are all deeper than the Grand Canyon; as is Copper Canyon in Mexico. The canyons of the Nile and Tsangpo/Brahmaputra humble the Grand Canyon to a mere multi-coloured scratch into the landscape, and I knkow there's some in South America that are Colorado-humbling, too. It's like people needing to compare waterfall heights to that of Niagara Falls, which is actually a fairly small waterfall in terms of elevation difference and even in terms of waterflow. The Stikine's promotional bumpf also dwells on the Grand Canyon comparison; which to me is rating everything to a comparison in the United States and thereby something of a Canadian pastime/identity issue. The Stikine and Nahanni didn't have a Muir, Roosevelt or Powell to promote them, of course.....more laterSkookum1 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Conversion of Depth of Canyons into Miles

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The depth of the canyons is recorded as 1 square km or 0 square miles.

This is because of a feature that automatically converts from km to miles, and probably truncates to 1 significant figure

however, a depth of 0 square miles is not very informative or useful.

this should be changed. However, I dont know how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.46.96 (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is this what you meant?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the Geography section, it says:

> This has left many geological features in the park much more time to develop than most of North America had.

Perhaps you meant, "Therefore, there are many geological features in the park that are much older than those in most of the rest of North America?"

The Geography section is intriguing, mentioning dozens of geological forms. But the narrative is lacking unless it's paired with a wealth of illustrations to back up the content. Instead, the reader is left to imagine the geography from the descriptions :(

75.110.100.120 (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nahanni National Park Reserve. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified (February 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nahanni National Park Reserve. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608192433/http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspapers/1999-07/jul30_99dead.html to http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspapers/1999-07/jul30_99dead.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic