Jump to content

Talk:Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleFort Lauderdale, Florida was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 4, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 7, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 30, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Coral Ridge Mall (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Coral Ridge Mall (Fort Lauderdale, Florida). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 July 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, consensus is clearly against this RM and nom was withdrawn even though I think this is arguably a good idea. (non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Fort Lauderdale, FloridaFort Lauderdale – There isn't another place named Fort Lauderdale anywhere in the world that would be confused with this Fort Lauderdale. Per WP:Concise, we should keep titles as concise as possible. Other major cities don't have the state, country, or province attached to the page name: Miami, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Toronto, Atlanta, Vancouver, New York City, London, Los Angeles, etc. TrailBlzr (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fort Lauderdale, Florida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am fulfilling a request to reassess the article. The most obvious issues are the update tag on the article, indicating that it does not fully cover the topic, and the content in the article which lacks a citation. I am also skeptical that all the sources cited meet WP:RS (can provide more details if necessary). (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm skeptical on some of these sources, too. For instance, "Falling Rain Genomics" looks a bit on the iffy side. Significant uncited text, multiple sections tagged for update. The healthcare section is very out of date, and parts of the demographics section date to 2000. There's some prose issues, such as "As of the 2019 census, the city has an estimated population of 182,437", which ignores the fact that there was no 2019 census. I'm also concerned a little bit about the degree of affiliated sourcing: there's big chunks cited to either the city itself, the county, the Florida municipal league, the county historical commission, or the city tourism commission. This is an important enough city that secondary sourcing is available. Too much work for me to deal with at the moment. Hog Farm Bacon 06:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a conflict of interest since I used to live in Fort Lauderdale ~8 years ago, but I agree with the decision to reassess it. Mostly the reasons stated above and the update tag. As the user above me mentioned, this definitely is an important city and further research can be done, but at its current condition, it should be subject to reassessment. FredModulars (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to merge, with discussion stale; reasons for a merge focus on 'alternative to deletion' given a lack of notability; reasons against focus on balance at the target following any merge and notability of this particular fire department. Klbrain (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem notable outside of the city, but merging would be better than AfD. DrowssapSMM 15:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge — the Fort Lauderdale Fire-Rescue Department article is too long and detailed to merge into this article. I guess (but do correct if I'm mistaken) that the proposal is actually advocating a partial merge and loss of maybe 80% or 90% of the Fire Rescue article; in effect making such a "merge" little more than a redirect. I stand by my edit summary on reverting the redirect: AfD is a better option because new sources may be put up for consideration — it allows one to consider and comment on all options in the hope that a consensus will emerge on whether to keep/delete/merge/redirect the article. Rupples (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. I would argue that there is inherent notability for large city police fire and medical, and I concur with Rupples on the length of the article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge — A full merge is too big for the Fort Lauderdale article but I'm in full support for a partial merge, only the main parts of the article. The article itself has a notability guideline warning so I don't think it should have its own article as bigger cities than Fort Lauderdale, Florida don't have Fire-Rescue Department articles examples: Richmond, Salt Lake City, St. Petersburg Florida, Tallahassee FloridaMan21 (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.