Fort 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on
Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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The result of the move request was: Not moved, consensus is clearly against this RM and nom was withdrawn even though I think this is arguably a good idea.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
Although I think it would be a good idea since it does fall foul of
WP:CONCISE, its not one of the big 30 on the AP Stylebook per
WP:USPLACE which advocates that its common usage in the US. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose At first, I thought this was a good idea, but after reading the links provided by Zzyzx11, I can see that there's a long established style guide on not doing this. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 07:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Proposal withdrawn I am withdrawing this proposal. I did not realize there was a universally established [city, state] article naming policy on American cities.
TrailBlzr (
talk) 02:57, 29 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.
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 FarmBacon 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
Delist - It's been almost two months and none of this has been addressed.
Hog FarmBacon 03:18, 27 December 2020 (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
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.
