This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Florida Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The picture has no "red" counties. It's just a blank map of Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plomp ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Fix the map please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.188.154 ( talk) 20:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

What the hey? Map not red just is florida. What wrong? Does my computer maybe need a new motherboard or video card? My nephew says that I do and to stop useing internet explorer 5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.61.114 ( talk) 16:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I've removed the map to prevent confusion -- see the history page for today. -- tgeller ( talk) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The Ais are known only from the historic period. While the archaeological evidence for peninsular Florida in general indicates no major disruptions in the development of regional cultures, any statements about how long the Ais existed in the area prior to European contact are speculation. Moreover, claims of evidence for the presence of people in Florida more than 10,000 or 12,000 years ago remain controversial. Both points would require citations to reliable sources, and I know of reliable sources that indicate otherwise. -- Donald Albury 14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Certain parts of this article are written in a promotional tone. These parts need to be re-written in a more encyclopedic style, with specific facts instead of general glowing praise, and citations need to be added to back up these facts. Specific examples include:

• The introduction (especially the last sentence)
• History section, "21st Century" subsection
• Recreation section, "State Parks" subsection
• Culture section
• Education section, specifically "Public Education" and "Private Education"
• Economy section

Oanjao ( talk) 19:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree that those sections do include overblown language. I also suspect that any sources that could be cited to support that language would not meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. I don't have a lot of time to devote to this, but I'll try to help. -- Donald Albury 20:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Palm Beach County has been removed a few times from this article, so I figured I'd bring it up here. The article is largely cited to the Lamme and Oldakowski article, a reliable, published source. This specifically says that in their survey, Palm Beach was considered part of the Treasure Coast, though the authors note it was it was part of the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale metro area. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council likewise includes Palm Beach County. There's nothing wrong with adding sources that don't include Palm Beach, if there are any, but this cited material should not be removed.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 14:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm the one who added the "Communities" headline in the article. I still have some holes in there, but I'm still adding more of the communities. If I should delete any, add any, or stop, let me know and I will take care of it. DAZ14LPA ( talk) 00:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply

This comment is based upon the 22:27, 1 September 2017‎ version of the Treasure Coast article ... which is (/slash "was") the current version of that article "as of" when this comment was written.

In the third sentence of the lede, it says [quote:]

The region, whose name refers to the Spanish Treasure Fleet lost in a 1715 hurricane, evidently emerged from residents' desire to distinguish themselves from Miami and the Gold Coast region to the south.

Even if we try to focus upon the "original intent", IMHO that "original intent" was probably NOT to suggest /slash imply that the "region" itself would not exist at all, if it were not for some residents' desire for something or other.

Rather, I think the "original intent" was probably [something more like] to say something about the origin of the name, and to explain the reason why this region (now called the Florida Treasure Coast region) has its own name, and its own identity, separate from those of Miami and the Gold Coast region.

This is suggested partly from the mention of the word "name" (already present in the text of the third sentence of this article)

... as in, "whose name refers to [...something or other...]") -- and partly from the mention of the word "distinguish" (already present in the text of the third sentence of this article).

The word "name" suggests that the etymology of this region's name is of interest, and the word "distinguish" suggests that the reason why this region has its own identity, and its own name (separate from those of other regions) is of interest.

IMHO the currently wording, -- which ["technically"] now states that the existence of the "region" itself was caused by, or stems from, or "emerged from", ... some residents' desire for something or other ... is probably just the result of some [clumsy?] attempt to combine

• talking about the derivation of the name, and
• talking about the reason why this region has its own separate identity

both in the same sentence.

Any consensus? and/or disagreement?

If you agree (or if you do not respond at all) ^[1], then it is my intention to update that sentence (the sentence that is now the third sentence of the Treasure Coast article), (the "blockquote"ed sentence shown above) to instead say [something more like] this proposed new wording of that sentence:

The name of this region refers to the Spanish Treasure Fleet lost in a 1715 hurricane; and its identity or "status" as a region separate and distinct from other parts of Florida, evidently emerged from its residents' desire to distinguish themselves from Miami and the Gold Coast region to the south.

Comments are welcome -- for example, if you think that the phrase << its identity or "status" as a region separate and distinct from other parts of Florida >> is overkill, and that it should be simplified.

Any comments? -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 21:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply