Talk:Salt Spring Island

message: This article was tagged as a suspected copyright infringement of http://www.vancouverisland.com/regions/towns/?townid=257 and listed for investigation at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 February 21. See the first edit. Note the question in that first edit, "Is the island named Saltspring or Salt Spring?" This question has been absent from the article for almost two years (being revised out shortly after this), but appears in the suspected source. This does seem to support the original taggers concerns. 
The copyright tag was removed out of process. It has been restored and the clock reset to allow time for contributors to this article to respond to these concerns. It may be necessary to create a new article in temporary space that does not infringe on the copyright of prior contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A new version, researched from scratch, is in place. Only non-GFDL infringing elements have been retained. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright concerns

message: The phrase "draft evaders" was the choice of the source, which says, verbatim, "Salt Spring is now a 'commuter island' to Victoria, full of 1960s American draft evaders and artisan food producers."() I chose to use the precise term and attribute it in the text to Victoria and Vancouver Island because it can be seen as pejorative. If it is changed, of course, the quotation marks will also need to be dropped, since quotes must be accurate. However, I'm not sure the value of changing it, given that it is the precise term used in the book. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Using that particular book's terminology is, to me, pretentious as is "artisan food producers".  There are other sources, and the current sources choice of neologistic terminology is at variance with the norms; "draft dodger" is, after all, the target article; it's not all that perjorative either, and like I said, most of these fine folks I knew (and know) use that term themselves.  "Draft evader" may be a neo-modern conceit, and "artisan food producers" sounds like it comes from a designer-food magazine.....ditch the quotation marks, there's no point in having to repeat that one source's wording exactly; given that oodles of other sources for that do exist, even if not cited here yet.Skookum1 (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if you find my choice pretentious. :) Feel free to add whatever sources you may find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As below, I didn't say you were pretentious, I find the use of such terms in modern publications to be pretentious; very nouvaeu and artificial-sounding; it's also a matter of bypassing a redirect, as clearly there must have been some debate about "draft dodger" for that to be an article-title, despite some perceptions it may be derisive; I'm used to thinking of it is complimentary, in fact.  "Fashionable language" like p.c. language is also inherently POV.....(though that takes some self-examination to realize sometimes).  Again, not pointing fingers at you, but to remind you, or anyone, that a modern author's choice of "trumped up" language doesn't change the basic meaning; and the basic meaning is "draft dodger".Skookum1 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "draft evader" is mentioned in the lead of the "draft dodger" article and seems on relatively equal footing. :) But I don't really care which term is used, as long as the quotation marks are dropped if the text is changed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft dodgers vs. evaders

message: Re the material in the previous section, it occurred to me while looking at this article last night that there were an awful lot of in-text mentions of certain books which have been published about hte island.  These constitute plugs for those books; fine to have them in the refs, but to insert their names into text in an article about the island is very much a sales pitch for them (rather than a simple write up about the island).  All should be migrated into the refs, unless it's an item from a "major history" like Walbran or the Akriggs or another non-commercial/non-tourist-market work.Skookum1 (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no vested interest in any book mentioned in this article. It's fine to disagree with my style of attribution, of course, but I object to your implication that I am "very much" making "a sales pitch". I have no conflict of interest here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, dear editor, I did not say that YOU were making a sales pitch, I am saying that inserting book names into text like that comes across as a sales pitch; it's fine if it's unique information that only one source has, or citing an opinion/perspective, but for a basic history-item like this it's entirely unnecssary.Skookum1 (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's a difference in communication style, then. I tend to view "sales pitch" as intentional, and maybe you didn't mean it that way. (Ditto with pretentious, above.) My attribution style is undoubtedly a hangover of my particular educational experience, where even with citation failure to name your source smacks of plagiarism if you are mirroring their research or ideas. It's my tendency to specify who is saying what unless the fact really is general. I had no prior familiarity with Saltspring Island when addressing the infringement here, so I don't really know what's generally and widely accepted and what is unusual or disputed. I don't object to changing the attribution style, but please rest assured that I don't care at all if you buy these books (although I am grateful to them for being available through google books, as they make my work much easier). :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Book-plugging

message: User:Dazed but not confused changed many instances of "Saltspring" to "Salt Spring", which yes is a very common usage; "Saltspring" is the official one in CGNDB and BCGNIS.  This probably needs a discussion and a decision on which is the most common usage, since the official isn't necessarily the correct one to use....so I didn't change them back, other than the category where it's necessary, pending a CfD once the proper usage is decided on....unless this has been discussed before?Skookum1 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very surprised that the official name is "Saltspring". Everything on the island itself (I'm typing this from there now) says "Salt Spring". Blacklite (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The title should not be changed unless we have a clear majority of reliable sources using the name "Salt Spring Island" instead of "Saltspring Island". DigitalC (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Salt Spring" vs "Saltspring"

message: Why all the flags? What are the specific problems on this page? -- Kayoty (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Thechristiancontender who added it is the one to say why he placed them; I don't see anything outrageously wrong with it, whether re original research or whatever; he's edited other BC island articles but didn't place a tag on them.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a category and removed the "add more categories" tag, since, IMO the article is sufficiently well-categorized. PaintedCarpet (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Saltspring Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080529011913/http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca:80/bcgn-bin/bcg10?name=13666 to http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/bcgn-bin/bcg10?name=13666
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A good bit of space here is dedicated to a list of books written about this area. They're not used as citations - it's just a collection of titles on the topic. This seems like a very non-standard inclusion. Is it necessary? Jessicapierce (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of books necessary?