Talk:San Salvador Island

Untitled

Since an edition of National Geographic Magazine in 1986 dealt with the subject of Columbus landfall it is not widely believed any more that 'this' San Salvador (aka Watlings Island) is the site of Columbus first landfall. Modern Scholars tend to appoint Samana Cay (National Geographic's suggestion) or Plana Cays as Columbus first landfall site. Info on Plana Cays theory: http://www1.minn.net/~keithp/clues.htm

Untitled

Just returned from a research stint at the GRC on San Salvador. A point that both the administrators and the locals made was that Watling was NOT a buccaneer, but rather a homesteader; evidently the Bahamian ministry of tourism made all that Dread Pirate Watling junk up in the 70s and 80s to stir up tourism. Therefore removing the word 'buccaneer' from this article.--Sky 04:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Have spent three weeks on San Salvador Island (2009-2010) conducting audio and video interviews for grant-funded research on the topic of bush medicine as part of a forthcoming book (and website) about San Salvador Island. As part of the research we also recorded oral histories of elderly residents of the island. Regarding the report of the recent discovery of gold on the island, it is not mineral gold, but according to an interviewee, the gold is buried gold coin from a shipwreck. The location is the Fortune Hill settlement area. Rhizomatist (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Non-Admin Closure: As there have been no edits to this article in over a month, article protection is not necessary. If there are future issues by single users/ip address, the editor should be warned through the process at WP:VAN and if necessary taken to WP:AIV. If there is large amounts of vandalism, edit warning, etc, coming from multiple sources and the criteria set at WP:ROUGH is met, protection could be requested at WP:RPP -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should San Salvador Island become a semi-protected article due to recent vandalism? Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes as per reason given. A very sensible move at this juncture. Basket _Feudalist 17:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, don't want fucking I.P. editors messing it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.230.26 (talk • contribs) 15:24 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• No, only ip-vandalism last year was last month, mostly 1 guy. Two years back I see the exact same. I dont see more vandalism on this page then any other. I see no reason for semi-protecting. - Taketa (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• No As per WP: Rough guide to semi-protection which states as a criteria "There are regularly many new vandals, therefore it would be a huge unending task to notify and warn all the vandals individually." I see one IP-user vandalising this page. I also see no warnings about the vandalism on that user page. Locking this page is not the solution to a single-IP vandal. Do the usual: place a warning on the IP talk page and move to get them blocked. See WP:Van#How to respond to vandalism and WP:Van#Warnings and then list them at WP:AIV --Cooper⁴²(Talk)(Contr) 00:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I started this RfC so I wish to be neutral although I will say this: Semi-protection can't hurt, I will prevent this IP from editing this page and other future vandals. So I would say that I'm mostly neutral, but leaning toward support. Leoesb1032 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• No As per WP: Rough guide to semi-protection and the fact that two IP editors were reverted, with one editing at a level to be considered a vandal. I've exclusively been sending warnings and for the more troublesome, final warnings, then to WP:AIV. When sent to WP:AIV, every one had their IP blocked from editing.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• No Have to agree with Wzrd1 and Cooper⁴². IP address 185.15.127.184 seems to be the only recent vandal. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ENGVAR

This edit established the use of the page as American English. Of course there are arguments both ways—proximity to America and the nationality of most visitors and readers interested in the topic vs Britain's former colonization—but kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus. — LlywelynII 05:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)