Talk:Lotusland

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

"Lotusland" as sobriquet for BC[edit]

I quite honestly didn't know about the actual gardens in Santa Barbara; "Lotusland" as a term for BC (British Columbia), particularly for BC, was coined by Vancouver columnist Allan Fotheringham based on "the land of the Lotus Eaters" in the Odyssey in the 1970s or late '60s. It's equivalent to La-La Land for Los Angeles, though with a more political overtone ("everybody's on drugs", i.e. eating lotuses - in reference mostly to politicians or the political culture of the place); it's also a play on the many gardens in the province's capital city, Victoria. It's only a sobriquet but a common one; I'm not sure "what to do with it", so maybe I'll just enter it on the List of Canadian words page but there are few common terms (within Canada) that have whole articles written about them. I'll give it some thought; maybe just Lotusland (British Columbia) as a redirect to Victoria; when the time comes a dab line would be good here, or certainly a "See also".Skookum1 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Ganna Walska originally called her estate "Tibetland" in honor of her (sixth?) husband's wish to meditate there; she renamed it "Lotusland" after they divorced, to honor Buddhist transcendance, not sybaritic excess. Sharktopus^talk 00:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional tone[edit]

Including business hours is obviously meant to advertise, warranting an advert tag. Furthermore, having 14 individual subject headings is clearly intended to puff up the article's importance. Many of those "sections" are a single sentence. This whole thing needs a rewrite by a neutral editor, but until then, the advert tag is clearly merited. I'm re-adding it. If other editors care to remove it (again), they should engage here with reasons they believe the article is NOT promotional in tone, to show good faith.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What better thing to do than start the required overhaul yourself and ask for assistance from others? I'll take a look at what is in the article that may require rewording - but since you placed the tag I'll wait to see what you think needs work too. Otherwise, I personally don't see the need for a tag and I don't think the best strategy is to tag and go - meaning, if you see the need for changes be bold and go for it! Garchy (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was removing by two different editors. Per WP:BRD it's up to you to discuss it here before restoring it again. Restoring teh operating hours (which you yourself describe as promotional material) so that you can re-add the advert tag is WP:POINTY in the extreme. I have removed that material again. I have also trimmed a few small bits that were non neutral, and added a few tags. I don't see a problem with having subsections to describe the different gardens. It a botanical garden with a number of different settings and it makes sense to describe them as far as I'm concerned. We do need references far the different gardens so I've tagged the section until they can be added. I see no need for the Advert tag so I am removing it. Meters (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]