Jump to content

Talk:Galiano Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2020 Edits

[edit]

I (user Technocrat7) have made several edits, including adding a History section and reorganizing much of the page. I believe it looks much better now. I am currently in the process of adding citations to the information I have added. Please do not start deleting/flagging things until all my citations are completed. Will update here when this is done.

Most citations are done. If someone can review and give comment that would be great! :) Technocrat7 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many external links. There should be none in the main body of a wiki article. Victuallers (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled]

[edit]

I heard that the winter population is approximately 900. Also... the recently added discussion of election results suggests that the "Island's Trust" is a political party that can be defeated. Isn't "Island Trust" the name of the government body and whomever wins the election is a representative for the Island Trust? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.73.138.126 (talk • contribs) 16:32, August 23, 2004

I agree with those comments, and actually instituted some changes before reading this....obviously not alone on that. As for the population...when I lived there, we used to just round it off to 2000. The 800-900 number is pretty old...anyone with some real census information? Etherworks 23:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Added some real census data Etherworks 23:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit]

I've added ActiveGaliano.Org twice now and it's been removed twice. I think that the removal of this link is completely in error and that the link to ActiveGaliano.Org should remain. ActiveGaliano.Org is a non-profit (no revenue, volunteer) community driven website that allows people to find out what's going on on the island. The last reason that was given for the removal of this link is that it was supposedly "non-encyclopedic". If that's the justification being given, then I also think that many of the other external links should also be removed. What is "encyclopedic" about each of the ones that are there presently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianNally (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt' the editor who took that out but see WP:Linkfarm and WP:Wikipedia is not a directory (or if that's not right see WP:What Wikipedia is not and look for "directory".Skookum1 (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that all of us Wikipedia editors are not paid, and so might not have time to dig into the details, but the options that have been left in so far are not optimal. For instance, why would a link to britishcolumbia.com and its entry for Galiano Island remain? Turns out that link is itself a Link farm, with advertising that isn't relevant to the island. Many questions are raised by this issue: What is this Wikipedia Page for? What is the external link section for. Since it's not a "Link Farm" or a Directory, what are external links? ActiveGaliano is a open website built by residents of the island, contributed to in the vast majority by residents of the island, and even if we chose to put up ads on it someday, all the money would go to community development. I see that no one has thought it wise to remove the link to the museum. Now, I have nothing against the museum website, presuming it is a site about Galiano's past. Let's say there was a blanket policy that 'external links' would only have 4 or 5 links maximum. What constitutes something you can link to? Much like wikipedia itself, ActiveGaliano is community driven and not for profit and the only interest behind it is sharing the most up to date information about the island and its community. I can see that britishcolumbia.com aims to be a Link Farm for Galiano, but ActiveGaliano is a far better choice for this page, because it too is an index, but one without the commercial interest, one contributed to by people who live on the island. I think it's a fair question: Why wouldn't it have an entry in the external links list? ChristianNally (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no policy that says britishcolumbia.com is a "valid" external link, but the reason their links have been widely accepted is that, quite often, their pages are the only source for some communities; this clearly isn't the case with Galiano Island. But a "link farm" in wikispeak means a collection of links that, whether spam or community, constitute a "directory" (see WP:Wikipedia is not a directory and WP:Linkfarm). This really has to be addressed on a community/location-by-community/location basis I guess; in many cases commercial sites masquerading as community pages, as I've seen for example in teh Shuswap, are purely commercial and have only token, or borrowed, historical/geographical information. The important point to stress is that Wikipedia articles should not be community directories, nor should they be used for tourist promotions; there is, in the latter case, http://www.wikitravel.org which can be as promotional and "peacock" as needed/desired, and bear in mind that community wikis are readily linkable under wiki guidelines; for example many articles on Orthodox churches and saints link through to teh Orthodox Wiki; this could be a tool for any community, and also linkable within wikipedia....what I suggest here is that you take this to WP:CANTALK and ask there; it's not like anyone can "grant permission" but there may be interpretations of WP:Linkfarm and WP:Spam and WP:Directory that others can provide which can validate ActiveGaliano's inclusion, and/or cause the exclusion of britishcolumbia.com when other sites perform the same "service". Again, the reason britishcolumbia.com gets in many external links sections is simply because it has proven to be the only online source in many cases; but when it's not the only one, perhaps itshould be excluded because it is, of course, an ad-driven commercial site.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is being decided case by case, I'll report a few more opinions here. Thanks Skookum1 for explaining things as you have done. I realize that Wikipedia is not a community directory. Active Galiano is a community directory and therefore is exactly the kind of jumping off place that Wikipedia ought to link to. Active Galiano's community directory is 'external' to Wikipedia and if it belongs anywhere on the Wikipedia "Galiano Island" entry, it would be in external links. I'm actually not arguing so much against britishcolumbia.com as I am arguing against the editorial process that has resulted in Active Galiano being removed multiple times from the External Links section. I would argue that the relevancy of Active Galiano is higher than BritishColumbia.com and if there was a strict policy that said 4 and only 4 links, then Active Galiano should be included instead of BritishColumbia.com. Alongside Galiano Island's Chamber of Commerce site (which focuses on its members) Active Galiano (which permits free postings from ANY Galiano Community member) is a highly relevant external link. It's a jumping off place for people who are interested in the island community, to learn more about what's going on, and in particular, it's a great resource for up to the minute information about the place. Active Galiano actually has an entry in it for the Museum. Again, I'm not so much arguing against the inclusion of the museum page. It could be argued that the Wikipedia page should reference the island's history, but I would argue that the extend to which is does should be reflected in a history section within the article. I wouldn't argue that Active Galiano should be in any of the other sections of the article. I won't put the link to Active Galiano back in, but I would encourage anyone else with an editorial interest in this page to put the link up there, and I feel that the Wikipedia article is currently missing out on directing its users to a highly relevant and useful "External" resource. ChristianNally (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Photos

[edit]

I am uploading lots of pictures - I hope wikipedia doesn't have space limitations, and I'll try to make sure they are relevant and piquant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrecife (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to take out an editoralized caption on one of them; please see WP:POV amd WP:SOAP.Skookum1 (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've cleaned it up. BTW, re:North Straits Salish, the local Penelakuts are Cowichan and spoke Halkomelem - I'll change that presently, unless you have some objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrecife (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Way, way, way, way too many images. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tied adding a link to wikimedia commons as suggested by CambridgeBayWeather - I hope this is acceptable and won't cause problems. I will make sure the pictures are interesting and relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrecifazo (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I personally like galleries. Many don't. There were just too many, and a lot were off topic. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit brutal on taking out some of the remaining pictures, but pics of individuals, no matter how well-known, just aren't relevant, nor are "news pics" like the awards and unveiling; the Galiano memorial picture might be suitable on the Galiano bio-page however, in "Legacy", and because this is a community page as well as geography/island page teh type of community pics could/should be of "downtown" and "typical groups of houses" etc., maybe a pic from on-ferry coming into harbour etc; the views FROM Galiano I've left, but they really are more suitable on the pages of the things they're of (e.g. Trincomali Channel).Skookum1 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to see what the fuss at Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Galiano_Island_gallery_out_of_control is all about, and yes I agree there are too many pictures which are hindering the text. My own preference is to have only the gallery at the bottom of the article. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity of articles long-since resolved. It was no big deal. Bottom of the article is a good idea. I like your suggestion. If you live in Ottawa, I'm so sorry to hear that. But from one Canadian to another, I still love you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not live in Ottawa anymore. I am one of thousands of Nortel refugees. Not sure if this is supposed to be good or bad :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galiano Island. 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) 10:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Galiano Island. 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) 08:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from Caroline Shaw

[edit]

I have removed a long quote from the composer Caroline Shaw from the history section. It mentions Galiano briefly, and is entirely unrelated to the subject of the island's history. The quote could perhaps be appropriate in a section on popular culture references to the island, but that would probably end up being quite sparse. Toadchavay (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galiano_Island&oldid=1207346266"