Talk:Elections in Florida

Merge
I disagree with a merge. This is an article that deserves to stand alone. It is sad that there is more information on Wikipedia on sports events then on the state by state electoral process.--Jorfer (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If there was something here, I'd agree with you. Before I prodded it, the entire contents of the article read as follows:


 * Florida received international attention for their 2000 Presidential election, where Bush led Gore by only a couple hundred votes when the Supreme Court of the United States ended a recount. It had also played a role in equally contested 1876 Presidential election.


 * That's a sub-stub, and it looked abandoned, since the last edit (which was the only one that added content) was a month ago, and the previous edit had been in October. The Prod resulted in the addition of a single sentence and one perfunctory reference. Nothing there justifies a separate article at this time. If you actually create an article that can stand on its own, I would support pulling it out of the Florida article (as I have done with MANY portions of that beast), but this is not worth saving, and I'd consider sending it to AfD in this form. I agree that electoral politics should have more emphasis in an encyclopedia than Pokemon or Family Guy, but that's a different debate altogether. Note also that the template at the bottom shows that only 10 states and the District of Columbia have articles on this topic, so it's not just a Florida thing; of the existing articles, the only ones that have any real content are the ones for California, New Hampshire, and (the gold standard) Elections in Oklahoma.  Horologium  (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, there are already articles at United States presidential election in Florida, 2000 and Florida election recount about the 2000 election in Florida, which appears to be the sole reason this article was created. We most certainly do not need a third article on the same subject. In fact, I think we need to reduce the count to one article. -- Donald Albury 21:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oy. One of those two needs to go away. (I'd suggest Florida election recount, which is the lesser of the two and does not appear to contain anything that is not in the longer sister article.) However, I don't think the black-helicopter mentality of the longer article belongs in here, although perhaps a summary could be added if this is retained as something other than a redirect.  Horologium  (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best think to do would be to merge Florida election recount into United States presidential election in Florida, 2000, use WP:Summary of the would be merged article and United States presidential election, 1876 on this page, and then expand from there.--Jorfer (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with the merge. I have just added some more to the article and there is definite potential for expansion. Just because the article is a stub does not mean it should be merged especially as the article has got plenty of potential for expansion. Davewild (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The potential for expansion does not justify keeping something that is so short and lacking in context. Donald has already identified two separate articles that contain a lot of information about the 2000 controversy, and United States presidential election, 1876 has a detailed analysis of the double returns from Florida, which covered everything that was in this article until a few moments ago.


 * If you sufficiently expand the article, I can support keeping it, but it's sad that only a prod got anybody's attention on this article, and it appeared that you had stopped after your burst of edits from Friday.  Horologium  (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree if the article did not have context then deletion is a valid consideration but could not see that it was an uncontroversial deletion as proposed deletions are and cannot see that the article would ever be deleted at AFD. My small addition on Friday provided context to the article addressing that concern. While still a short stub article (like tens of thousands of valid stubs) its existence can help to draw people in to expand the article. I hope that when my other editing interests permit I can continue to help expand this article. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As as general comment, I still fail to see any reason for this article to exist. -- Donald Albury 00:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take the article to AFD then so that a community consensus can be shown. I cannot see any guidelines or policies this article violates, it adds information that other articles do not have and has too much valuable information to be merged especially to the main Florida article. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I proposed the merge. Until that is rejected, I see no reason to AFD. -- Donald Albury 00:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am removing the merge tag as it has been up for over a week and there is certainly no consensus for merging the article, especially as the main Florida article is already very large. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elections in Florida. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404222720/http://www.floridamemory.com/Timeline/ to http://www.floridamemory.com/Timeline/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161024133158/http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-monthly-reports/voter-registration-current-by-county/ to http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-monthly-reports/voter-registration-current-by-county/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)