This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

Rich country bias

This article is short and to the point, all in all very nicely done in my opinion. I do have one concern, but I'd rather not make the change myself in order not to cause offense, and also because I would like to hear other opinions besides my own:

California the best climate on Earth? Now, I realise its a quote, but still, it betrays the clasic US attitude of confusing the world with English speaking North America. Mexico, which is also in North America, and quite close, I might add, has scores (if not most of the country) of places with a nicer climate than California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.31.131 (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I agree, there are plenty of places in the world that have nicer climates than the places cited here. However, this article isn't "list of places with a really nice climate". It's about places that have a nice climate AND a high cost of living, AND there is a common expression or common wisdom saying the two are connected. If there is a similar expression in Mexico - for example, if it costs more to live on the coast than inland, and there is some kind of saying or expression that attributes the difference to the climate - then that would be an appropriate addition to this article. Can you think of anything like that? If there is a feeling like that anywhere in the world and it is sourced, I would be happy to add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material is inside a quote which has developed linkrot. It could be removed, though it tends to sum up a lot of the argument in one place. It is deliberately a US-Centric (and Canadian, perhaps) article, so a US-centric statement might not be out of order. Climate of Hawaii (in the US) might be considered "better" but has same defects (higher prices, higher taxes, etc.) which sort of "proves the point", at least for the US! Student7 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link via Wayback Machine. It's true this is a U.S.-Canadian term (as least as far as currently available sources go) so that does limit its worldwide applicability. Very open to adding any similar term if it turns up in non North American sources.

BTW User:Student7, I have been wondering whether to propose a merger of this article with Paradise tax, which is about basically the same concept as applied to Hawaii. What do you think? I'll do a formal merge proposal if you think the idea has merit. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Like most mainlainders, I've heard of the "Sunshine tax" more often than the "Paradise tax". The latter sounds a bit WP:BOOSTERism IMO. The first sounds a bit sarcastic, which therefore seems more "neutral." :) Student7 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's boosterish; that's the point. 0;-D I think "sunshine tax" is more common/better sourced so I will propose merging Paradise Tax to Sunshine Tax. Might take me a day or two before I get around to it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

I propose that the article Paradise tax be merged into this article. These are two names for what is basically the same concept - namely, the notion that living in a highly desirable area results in a higher cost of living which is jokingly referred to as a "tax". Everything which is currently in the Paradise tax article could easily be incorporated into this article, and a redirect left behind at Paradise tax. I am proposing the merge from Paradise tax to this article, rather than the other way around, because Sunshine tax seems to be used widely in North America, while Paradise tax is used only in Hawaii. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think paradise tax is a distinct term as it will appear in the news/literature but I agree that it is the same concept and could be merged into this article w/ a section (very short) on the paradise tax. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, merge. There are as to Protonk's point that (assuming both articles are 100% accurate) Paradise tax is a local, specific case of Sunshine tax, we have tons of examples of how to handle that with one article. One that comes to mind is Copyright trap which redirects to the more general case word and explains that Copyright Trap is a unique instance. Dave (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. That's a great example, too. Protonk (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, per above. Thanks for doing this! Student7 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done OK, I went ahead and did the merge. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN and Protonk: I have added {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} to avoid confusion. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sunshine tax. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/stories_local.php?id=197555

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]