Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Florida/Archive 1

Ports of Florida

 * Ports? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah! I've got Port of Palm Beach on my to-do/wish list. I know there must be more than a dozen ports in Florida. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  11:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There are 14 active according to Florida Ports Council I live near Port Canaveral, one of the busiest cruise ports in the country. There are more at Historic Ports of Florida.


 * I can see two ways to make the Ports a cohesive project via template. One is to have a template to include in every article with no variables, with links to all Florida Port articles, similar to Template:Creationism2. The other is to have a template with variables, such as Size, Shipping per year, Date founded, Historical (option yes/no) similar to the Template:Pwstatbox for professional wrestlers. Either can have a "Ports of Florida" image (which I can create, I already have an idea.) We can do either or both. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some discussion of the options before stating a preference, but off-hand I suspect having variables will be easier to work with. In particular, ports such as Fernandina Beach and Cedar Key are more interesting for their history than for any current activity. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  12:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I did the Ports project template with all ports in my user talk space anyway - see at User Talk:KillerChihuahua/Sandbox. It gives a good idea of how much there is to do. Port Canaveral redirects to the city of, btw. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am now officially looking for feedback on the template. Note that the page name is automatically included, where KillerChihuahua/Sandbox appears, there will be the correct article name. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The template for this is a great idea, but I don't like the image (though being a first draft, it doesn't necessarily mean that has to be that image). I would like it better if the template was more of horizontal one than vertical one, so it can be placed at the bottom of each article, similar to .  Also, I created a redirect for Port of Miami-Dade to the article Port of Miami, though if the official name is Port of Miami-Dade, perhaps the article should be renamed?  PRueda29 Ptalk29 14:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. You are correct, the image is draft, can be replaced or changed. Horizontal won't fit on many screens, and is less consistent with the wp style for lists like this. Redirect is good idea, but the template also needs to be piped, like this: Port of Miami-Dade but we need to decide which way we're going - are we moving the port article? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If the official name is Port of Miami-Dade, then we should move it; but I'd like to know what others think first. PRueda29  / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 15:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Port of Miami has been moved to Port of Miami-Dade. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Port Canaveral stub created. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Port of Apalachicola stub created. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The infobox has been added to templates at Template:Infobox_FLPorts. Please continue all edits, discussion, and so on for that infobox on the talk page there. We have one vote for bad image, suggestions are welcome. The infobox has been added to the Port of Apalachicola stub (I will probably be adding it to other port articles as well) so to see it in an article, go there. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What variables would make sense for Ports? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a complete list: location (including Long. & Lat.), channel and basin depth, recent stats (ships, cargo tonnage, cruiuse ship passengers). --  Dalbury ( Talk )  21:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox_FLPorts now automatically adds the article to the following categories:
 * Category:Ports and harbors of the United States
 * Category:Geography of Florida
 * Category:Water transport
 * Updated to not add the redundant cat of Water transport per Tetraminoe. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Port of Palm Beach created (a couple of days ago) --  Dalbury ( Talk )  13:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Due to an alphabetizing issue, Template:Infobox_FLPorts does not add to categories. Cats will have to be added manually. Use syntax: to add to cat (replace Tampa with port name.) KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportal Florida
I created the Portal:Ireland some time ago. Do we have enough participation to create a Florida portal? &#08492; astique &#09660; par&#08467;er &#09829; voir &#09809; 03:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. Right now we have a lot of redlinks, and too many of the bluelinks are stubs. I like the idea, I'm just not sure it wouldn't prove to be embarrasing. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A portal needs a steady source of articles to flow in and out, in order to keep it dynamic. Not sure we have enough high-quality Florida articles to cover that base yet. One thing we ought to do here, in fact, is get a list together of the very best existing articles on Florida people, places, and things. Oh, and images, too! bd2412  T 15:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards yes - something between Portal:Utah and Portal:Texas, with layout more like Utah. Bastique, can you commit to keeping the Portal updated? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As with the Ireland Portal I'd be committed to the primary layout and design and certain sections, while other people take responsibility for different parts ("featured" picture, article, "did you know", etc.) Makes the work much less on a single individual and gets a lot of people involved.  &#08492; astique &#09660; par&#08467;er &#09829; voir &#09809; 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Then lets see who is willing to take on roles, including the one of Head Whip-Cracker. If we cannot keep it current, then IMHO it might be worse than not having one at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No commitments from me, right now. I'm waiting to hear if I've got a new job, which would put me back to working full time for the first time in 2 1/2 years. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  20:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm not interested in working on a portal. -- Tetraminoe 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Palmetto Bay, Florida
This article was deleted a while ago after it was discovered that the entire article was a copyvio of the town's mainpage. We should work on at least getting its demographics listed as it is a large community in SoFla. PRueda29 Ptalk29 13:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The census-designated places Cutler, Florida and East Perrine, Florida are both listed in the Miami-Dade County, Florida article as being in Palmetto Bay, Florida. The population of the two CDPs add up to approximately what Palmetto Bay claims on their Web site, but Cutler Ridge, Florida was incorporated just this year, and I wonder how much of the Cutler CDP went to Cutler Ridge rather than Palmetto Bay. Palmetto Bay kindly lists its boundaries on its Web site, but I don't think I can get access to the boundaries of the CDPs for free. If someone has access to the census data, it would help if they could look up what census blocks were incorporated into Palmetto Bay. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  13:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Now I see that the Cutler Ridge article was simply edited to change references from it being a CDP to it being incorporated. This no indication as to whether the city's boundaries correspond to the CDPs boundaries. Again, access to detailed census data would help. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  13:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Confirmed that the town of Cutler Bay is essentially coterminous with the former CDP of Cutler Ridge. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Census info is at http://www.census.gov/, and the Palmetto Bay, Florida information seems to be included there. This may be why WP has it included. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Palmetto Bay is essentially coterminous with the CDPs of Cutler and East Perrine, so I started merging the demographics. The County has demographic data for Palmetto Bay, but I haven't really looked at that yet.

Project Templates
I created some templates for our project to use. I posted them on the project page. — M o e   ε  16:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added Project Florida category for categories. -- Tetraminoe 10:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Forts
In addition to Ports, what about historic forts? Coastal Forts KillerChihuahua?!? 11:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are some interesting forts in the state, including a number in the National Parks system. List of forts has ten (although I've never heard of Fort Foster. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  12:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Besides the (more or less) preserved forts, there were a number of Seminole War forts that have disappeared, although the names live on. How do we handle thoose? --  Dalbury ( Talk )  13:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Write articles if they are notable and we can find sources, starting with the ones in parks (more likely to be notable and have documentation.) But I think what you're asking is if we add them to the Florida forts list? or did you mean something else? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This dovetails nicely into the voluminous redlinks on the List of Florida state parks. bd2412  T 13:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Can we add this to the cleanup list? This has the potential to be an incredible featured article. &#08492; astique &#09660; par&#08467;er &#09829; voir &#09809; 03:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added it to the to do list PRueda29  / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 03:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

New headers on project page
I added a bunch of headers from WikiProject to the project page. I am in favor of not using the full template, as I feel that's overly restrictive and I don't think it suits our needs at the moment. But I do think there are ideas there we can use -- so I borrowed them. I also tinkered with them a bit. If you're a stickler for precedent, or just don't like the way I did things, feel free to play with it.

In particular, I couldn't get the sister project links to come out in a way I liked; maybe someone would like to try their hand at it. -- Tetraminoe 12:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Images
What do you think of making a list of Florida articles that need images? We could then search online for free images or encourage project members to go out and take their own. (For instance, I added my own photos to Blue Spring State Park, New Smyrna Beach, Florida, Longwood, Florida, and Lake Mary, Florida.) Besides being a worthy task, I think this could help the longevity of the project: so many WikiProjects die out because they don't lay out reasonable goals. Searching for Florida articles that lack images, and then searching for or creating those images, is a bite-sized task that can last essentially forever -- the sort of thing you want to keep WikiProject volunteers. -- Tetraminoe 12:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I can add a few articles to that list. I've been trying to contact the local historical society to see what I can get from them, but haven't been able to find the office open since Wilma passed through. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  12:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion we should try to take our own pictures. We could also find them in the internet, but they are more likely copyrighted. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I do intend to take some pictures, but I may be a while getting around to all of the places on my list. As I'm not a pilot, I can't take my own aerial shots. And some of the pictures I want have to be old. I can't very well go take a picture of something that no longer exists. I have had a little luck getting PD images through the Internet. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  00:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been keeping my camera in my vehicle lately as I'm driving around town and realize with some dismay that I have far less opportunity for decent images than in ordinary times. Although it's been two months since Hurricane Wilma, a huge amount of signs and structures remain unrepaired.  I suppose as time goes on my opportunities will increase.   &#08492; astique &#09660; par&#08467;er &#09829; voir &#09809; 19:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I know. I was planning to take pictures for Morikami Park and Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens, but they had a lot of damage, and I don't want to put up a picture of the Museum building with so many tiles missing from the roof. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Collaborations of the week
Do we really want to link to the U.S Collaboration of the Week and the Southern Collaboration of the Week? American Old West has been the U.S. Collaboration of the Week for more than a year, and History of South Carolina has been the U.S. Southern Collaboration of the Week for more than a year. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  14:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't find including them to be all that important, but I don't see the harm in including them, either. Would it be better to just include a text link rather than the full template? -- Tetraminoe 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The projects are moribund, and I was just wondering if we want to remind visitors that projects die. :-) No big deal to me, though, they can stay. --  Dalbury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  14:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Concur we should ditch them. What about starting our own, similar to the Texan Collaboration of the Month? This could be helpful in improving the FL articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Or we could just add a nom to the Article Improvement Drive now and then. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dalbury, that's not entirely true...History of South Carolina was nominated on July 7 2005. I know, I voted for it myself.  Therefore it's only been less than 6 months.  But your point is taken.   &#08492; astique &#09660; par&#08467;er &#09829; voir &#09809; 15:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OUCH! Dalbury!  American Old West has only been a collaberation since August 17, 2005!  While I agree with your outcome, please check your figures in the future!   &#08492; astique &#09660; par&#08467;er &#09829; voir &#09809; 15:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I got fooled by the way the history pages show the collaboration of the week. Going back in the page histories as far as September 2004, when I looked at the page for a given date, it still showed the most recent CotW. That makes sense, now that I think about it, though. --  Dalbury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW, the U.S. CotW obviously is not inactive. On the other hand, the Southern CotW is very obviously dead. I think we should put the U.S. CotW back on the project page.
 * In addition, over the next week or so, we should pick out a few articles we might propose for the U.S. CotW, Wikipedia CotW or Article Improvement Drive. We can try that for a while before considering whether we'd want to do a Florida CotMonth. -- Tetraminoe 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Tagging all articles
This was placed on the to-do list with no discussion. IMHO, this should not be done. Tagging should be done when we collaborate on an article, not on articles and article stubs in serious need of attention. It is appropriate on Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Palmetto Bay, Florida currently under this guideline. I am completely open to the idea that I might be alone in my perspective. It seems to me that tagging all articles will only serve to make this project look bad. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Most things are placed on the to-do list with no discussion -- be bold, as they say :) This didn't seem controversial, so I didn't think it was something that needed to be talked about.
 * I don't know how other projects tag articles, if at all. In general, I find WikiProjects to be under-developed and under-recognized -- they don't do very well at making themselves known. It seems entirely appropriate that someone interested in an article about Florida might want to know about this project -- going beyond people who are members of Wikipedians in Florida. I think greater awareness of WikiProjects may even contribute to people editing more, or deciding to edit at all. If you are unaware of WikiProjects or other methods for collaborating on editing -- all of which only advertise themselves to editors rather than readers at large -- then contributing to Wikipedia seems to be a wholly unstructured task, discouraging people from starting, or from editing more than a typo now and then.
 * This is actually half of the reason why I think we should have more navigation templates for Florida subjects: they can let people know about the project.
 * That said, in fairness, I only said we should tag all categories, not all articles. And if the criterion for adding tags is that we actually work directly on that subject, then tagging categories seems valid, since cleanup of categories in on the to-do list.
 * On the other hand, I don't see that much harm in tagging everything to do with Florida. I guess this is something we should decide now before we move on too much.
 * I think everyone can agree that it's appropriate and valuable to tag contributions made by the project -- articles and categories created or significantly improved, FL infobox and navigation templates, and images added or significantly improved. Any objections there?
 * Going beyond that, should we tag everything about Florida, regardless of whether the project directly works on it or not?
 * And (since I've raised the subject anyway) what can we do to raise awanress of the project, particularly among people who don't currently contribute frequently? We need long-term approaches that will continue to let people know about the project into the future, so we have the possibility of continually recruiting new members (since we will be continually losing old ones, and will go inactive if we don't gain new blood). -- Tetraminoe 00:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)