Jump to content

Talk:Grand Cayman

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

Untitled

[edit]

I am pretty sure the clarity is NOT caused by the lack of Rivers. Not sure and too lazy to research. If someone could research that would be great.Mondaymonkey1 (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely some mention of money laundering,off shore banking and John Grisham novels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.13.179 (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Entertainment bit needs to get fixed, now. Murdersaurusrex (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Income Taxes, Property Taxes or Sales Taxes

[edit]

The island collects a franchise fee, of sorts, from all businesses, and while it is high for some, it's simple and uncomplicated, and it's a very desirable structure for banks. Visiting cruise ships are charged at least $15 US Dollars for each passenger and incoming flights, $25 a head. I do not have specific citing sufficient to post this outside of the talk section. It could be noted that petroleum refineries are prohibited and all fuel oils are 'ready to use' when brought to the island. They gained their independence in 1973 and retain the photo of the British queen on the dollar bill which is chained to the US dollar, and it is worth $1.20 in US currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.87.243 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to article

[edit]

(a) Flora and fauna. Don't see a reason why the subsections need a preceding statement. Everything that needs to be said about the two subgroups is in the text. As well, I'm not seeing the need to remove the "non-native" statement "because it has no follow up". There is no deadline in Wikipedia - this can be developed over time and there's no need to remove the statement in order to make the section more "perfect" (if that's what you meant by "because it has no follow up"). (b) There were citations in the section on off-shore banking but they were removed and cite needed tags replaced them. Why?

If we are unable to reach agreement here, I will be calling for an informal RF/C on this page so we can get more opinions and ideas on improving the article. Lhb1239 (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions!
Not too bad now. Remember that this is about Grand Cayman, not Cayman Islands. The article is written this way now, and it sounds fine.
It's misleading to tell a reader that something is wrong (non-native) and then not follow up. Kind of like waiting for the other shoe to drop but it never does.
It doesn't have to be "perfect" by a long shot. It just needs to be as "good as possible with the information that is available." It seems pretty good to me.
If I deleted cites, it may have been accidentally. The only thing I can think of is that the wording said "Cayman Islands" and not "Grand Cayman." Which may be the same thing for banking, I don't know. But the wording needs alteration for this article.
Did the section mention some other place? That might have been the reason. Comparing to some other place is often a) non-WP:TOPIC or WP:OR. Usually not needed anyway. Student7 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well.....saying that there are non-native plants on the island isn't really "something...wrong", just something imported from somewhere else. So, I'm not really able to agree with your analogy because I just don't think it applies - after all, there is really no such thing as a "native Caymanian", since the Caymans have no archaeological evidence to prove any aboriginal people ever lived on the island. Does this mean that "something is wrong" with those who live there now? Certainly not - see where I'm coming from? I agree that something should be added into the flora subsection about the non-native plants on the island, but I see no reason why there should be no mention of the non-native plants in the meantime.
Aside from all that, I think the article is looking pretty good, too. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Cayman seems unique. There must be other places like it, but just can't think of a place where most of the activity takes place on one island of three (or more). So that anything said about GC can be said about CI as well. The government functions should normally be reserved for the Cayman Islands article. Although, the national government being located on GC is a source of economic activity. Student7 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the government stuff should be mostly contained in the CI article, only because the CI capital is located on GC. But, I do think that the government stuff should be more in-depth in the CI article. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article comments belong on talk pages, not within the article itself

[edit]

In my opinion, things that need to be commented on in articles in Wikipedia should be discussed on talk pages, not through snippets placed within the article between {{ }} markings. Anything else smacks of article ownership and really accomplishes nothing more than cluttering up the article. I don't know if there's a specific policy within Wikipedia that speaks to this (maybe in the Manual of Style?), but this seems like common sense to me. Let's rid the article of these comments and place them here -- on the article talk page -- where they belong, okay? Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've had to do this for religious pages before because tempers ran so hot even over trivial changes. First time for me for a place article. First time for everything I guess.
Superlatives like "best" "first" "most liked" "most popular" etc. really need a citation. Either someone neutral (not the local chamber of commerce or tourism bureau) thinks so, or (most likely) best to omit them.
I was told last week that some island had the "best" bars. I guess if someone gets drunk enough, any bar looks good. No citations from him yet.
Because of general bad press, Wikipedia editors have been looking for solid references in the past year or two to ensure that material was actually perceived by reliable sources and someone was not just writing down WP:OR "observations." Like the "best nightclubs" business. This suggests, at a minimum, there should be at least one cite per paragraph IMO. Otherwise why is the info there? Who says there are palm trees in GC? I'm not trying to be "picky" about this. This goes for all articles. Not just GC and not just place articles. Since they are usually not controversial, I usually tolerate local citations, but the high quality of material from the flora/fauna subsection, suggests that you might have a superior reference that would be acceptable to everyone for all time. That would be nice. Student7 (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have removed the external link to the real estate search in external links. These links are not encyclopedic. whether they are not for profit organisations or not. Just because a website exists does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, it is WP:PROMO, commonly referred to as spam links. Cotton2 (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grand Cayman. 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) 03:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>>>Airport?

[edit]

Does anybody know what this is?

https://www.google.com/maps/@19.3343866,-81.3726866,987m/data=!3m1!1e3

That can be found north of central George Town on the way to West Bay (19°20'02.1"N, 81°22'19.5"W), and looks distinctly like an airport development. Is it a disused airport, or perhaps an abortive airport project? You can also see straight along what would seem to be a taxiway on Google StreetView:

https://www.google.com/maps/@19.3339996,-81.3778008,3a,28.6y,95.05h,91.08t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPvuTDR2yY0rKa6cMjUVJ9UGz3fpZPuXxCbqonM!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPvuTDR2yY0rKa6cMjUVJ9UGz3fpZPuXxCbqonM%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi1.684772-ya250.81952-ro1.794903-fo100!7i11000!8i5500

...although it is quite clear that it could not be used as such in its current condition. I have tried various searches online to find out what this place is or was, but can find nothing. All airport references to Grand Cayman mention only Owen Roberts International Airport. Is it some kind of dirty secret or something? If anybody knows what it is, I think it would be a good idea to include it in Grand Cayman's aviation history — if indeed it is/was and airfield of some kind.Kelisi (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is going to be more of the same type of use that is immediately to the north, i.e. resort housing, marina and golf courses. If you go back a few years it is completely undeveloped but the plot is long and thin. Then they cut down that strip. But the telltale clue is the cannel all the way to the right. It wasn't there a year ago. It wouldn't make sense if this were an airport, but it could be the beginning of an artificial set of lakes and canals. Also there seems to be a couple of depressions that they are digging out, much as you would expect if you were creating a lake, but not if you were building an airport. blu (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If it is housing, as you say, it would make sense of that otherwise thoroughly useless roundabout at the west end that seems to link to the "taxiway". It would, however, become useful if a new neighbourhood were built there. The units don't seem to be being advertised for sale yet. Well, I was going to put "Disused Airport" or something on the Grand Cayman map, but... Nevertheless, that map is about to be updated with a number of new labels. I do wish that I could find out the name of that bay south of Barker's National Park, though. No source names it. Kelisi (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may not understand which bay you mean, but isn't that Morgan's Bay? blu (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Cayman&oldid=1207385128"