This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:09, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

In one new Brevard County shopping center the ubiquitous "they" are leveling a 1% legal tax on all goods sold. This suprised the shoppers. The tax is levied by a development group to amortize bonds used to install various infrastructure, water, sewage, roads etc. This will continue for 30 years.

As it turns out, there are a dozen other residential communities in Brevard, and most likely a lot of other places in Florida as well, where, to conceal the price of infrastructure from the home buyer, they have done the same thing. That is, the infrastructure was not paid for up front by either the developer nor the home buyer. So their legal community associations "tax" them to pay off those bonds! This needs to be explained in an article someplace, briefly mentioned in the Florida article and most likely the county articles as well. This goes well beyond what most people expect.

Incidentally, this is just one more factor in producing the real estate bubble we are experiencing in the state. Student7 (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate input from WikiProject Florida members, at Talk:David_Miscavige#Hawk_Radio.3F. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to give you a courtesy notice that Template:FLGovernment has been nominated for deletion. Since it is only transcluded to two articles, it may not be a major concern for your project, but I'm happy to comply. :) You'll find the discussion here, if you have anything to add. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow contributors, please participate in the discussion. This could have much wider implications for WPFlorida, as far as our ability to use materials from the State of Florida. Please download and read: Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Findlaw). I have uploaded a copy to my website if you cannot access the document: Copy of Document Gamweb (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew how to contribute. First, if it's public domain text, I don't believe that Wikipedia should be reprinting it. If it's documents or photographs held in the archives, that's a different story, but I don't understand the intricacies of what the State of Florida uses to indicate something is public domain. --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. If you want to challenge Florida's right to assert copyright restrictions on its governmental works, consensus is not going to do it. Legal counsel is what's needed. Shall we check with the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer to see whether we respect the posted copyright restrictions on Florida's official sites and the State of Florida's explicit copyright disclaimers ("MyFlorida.com is owned and operated by THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (referred to as "DMS" herein). No material from MyFlorida.com or any Web site owned, operated, licensed or controlled by THE STATE OF FLORIDA or DMS may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way. Materials may be downloaded on any single personal computer, for non-commercial use only providing all copyright and other proprietary notices are kept intact. Modification of the materials or use of the materials for any other purpose is a violation of THE STATE OF FLORIDA and DMS's copyright and other proprietary rights."[1]) or interpret that claim as legally indefensible? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've written the Foundation's attorney; I hope he'll be able to indicate an official stance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, are these "findings" or whatever they are called archived someplace? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a resident of Florida, so I don't doubt there are options I don't know about, but higher court cases in Florida are published in the Southern Reporter. There are searchable databanks like [2], which is a premium service. There's a free searchable database for the Supreme Court, here. It evidently documents official opinions registered on cases from November 1985. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I "won" the deletion debate - we can now use photos from the Florida Memory archive and upload them to the Commons. You have to manually change the permission tag to {{PD-FLGov}} Gamweb (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Mormon temple in Orlando. Should the article belong to this WikiProject? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, unless it's particularly notable for some reason (NHRP sites are sometimes included in WP:FLA, as are Catholic diocesan cathedrals), but other religious structures (such as Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Sts. Peter & Paul Catholic Church, First Baptist Church, or Calvary Chapel of Fort Lauderdale) are generally not included. Horologium (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Pan American World Airways for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a History chapter to the article on The Daytona Beach News-Journal recently after scouring some local history books. I think I revised the text enough to avoid any copyvios, but it would help if someone else with a fresh pair of eyes did the same. Gamweb (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone from the Plantation area update Fashion Mall please? I've been unable to find any sources dating from after 2007 to tell what's happened at Fashion Mall since its closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the University of Florida article was just recently created, and could use a major expansion. NorwalkJames (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm a bit confused by the template on the Jesse Levine discussion page. While he is rated B (and this will, possibly, be upped shortly) on all other categories, that's not the case for the Florida template, which lists a C and a B. Can anyone help? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that article. It appears that one of the recent edits to the template broke it. All "B" class articles are showing up as "C" class, with the "B" class criteria checklist showing up underneath. I will speak with User:Happy-melon, who was editing the template, and ask him to clean up his mess. It has screwed up our current assessment summary as well. Horologium (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had a chat with Happy-melon, and it has to do with the assessment checklist on the template. Unless all six of the B-level criteria (b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6) are listed as "=yes", the template will display "C" class. This does create a bit of a workload for the project, but it's probably a good thing; a lot of the B-class assessments predate the addition of C-class, and I'm willing to bet that some of them won't qualify as B-class once we go through and verify all of them. There are 163 articles in the C-Class category, most of which were B class until the template was changed. It would be nice to have a group of us go through and verify all of the articles. Anyone else willing to step up? Horologium (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Can someone not involved with editing the article (that counts me out) take a look perhaps? It should likely be higher than B IMHO, but certainly not a C ... and it's out of sych w/the other ratings. Seems wrong to rate it C when what is really meant is that it is not yet rated. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To help organize potential sources for a number of articles I want to work on, I've put together a bibliography on this page. Would anyone else find this or an expanded bibliography useful? If so, should it be a subpage of this project? -- Donald Albury 11:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Florida State University article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My review is here. It is my opinion that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. There are several dead links, areas of the article that need to be referenced, and a general tone to the article that does not appear neutral. I have placed the article on hold for a week and I am notifying all interested projects and editors. Please contact me on my talk page should you have questions. H1nkles (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, I made this Florida State Parks userbox. Feel free to use if you like. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:Ebyabe/Userboxes/FLSP1}}

I see that many county seals in the Florida articles are used under fair use, when according to this statute states they are public domain. I will add missing ones, and upload higher resolution versions to commons, and use those, if there are no objections. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in that statute that makes county seals, or anything else, public domain. It generally grants permission to copy public records, but that is not the same as waiving all copyright in them, and I see nothing clearly indicating that official insignia are public records. Sec 119.011 (12) could be so interpreted, but this is far from clear. What specific provision says seals are public domain? DES ^(talk) 01:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is established by the decision in Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, where the court said that anything covered under the provision in question could not be copyrighted. Any image, text, or other work produced by a Florida government agency, with some legislative exceptions (which are the Public Universities, the Citrus Bureau, and the Lottery), are public domain under current court interpretation of laws. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now that is much clearer. Objection withdrawn. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of you may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Bain_(innocent_prisoner) or write Innocence Project of Florida. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a system in the US where governors request their state be names a "disaster area" to qualify for various types of aid. I just chronicled the latest (agricultural disaster Jan 2010) in History of Florida, not knowing where the best place for it goes. There have been dozens of these. Should they be in a separate article? Obviously for major hurricanes, it will flow with the article. But where do "minor" ones go, like this latest one? Student7 (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno; I think mentioning things like this in the main article is enough. Some of them could also go into the Climate of Florida, Climate of the Tampa Bay area, or Climate of Miami articles, as applicable. Also, is there an article on Florida Agriculture? If so, these events deserve a mention there as well, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some states, they mention in each hamlet, village, town and city, all the federal officers (senator, mainly) and sometimes the state. This makes sense to me for state senator, state legislator, and US representative. It seems silly for US Senator who is elected statewide and governor likewise. It seems WP:PR for those guys, which tends to annoy me. I wish we could arrive at a sensible decision at this for Florida. Just ran across someone (first one in Florida) doing this.Student7 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can any one in the Central Florida region or Miami Beach area get a picture of a BK Whopper Bar for me? I need some for the various Burger King related articles.

Thanks all, Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there's a debate on the Florida Whig Party article regarding whether or not recent act is a 'party revival'. I cannot help but laugh at the photos of the 19th century politicians along with the new photos that have been provided. Though, I don't know anything about the situation to make a judgment, so I was hoping someone here does. Here's a diff [3] of the debate. Thank You

A new editor made a number of significant additions to the article Cape Coral, Florida. The additions are very promotional sounding to me. Large blocks of it are directly from the city website. I strongly suspect a WP:COI. Could someone else take a look at it and see if they get the same feeling. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look. If you are referring the the edits from Capewik (talk · contribs), while they have a promotional tone, I didn't find any copyright violation, but the city's website has lots of pages; if you could point out any verbatim copyvios (including links to the specific pages) we can remove them. The username could be interpreted as promotional, but it might also simply be someone who lives in Cape Coral and wants to improve the article on their city, which is not a CoI. While the edits are unreferenced and somewhat promotional, they also add a good deal of information to the article, which is a good thing as long as it copyrights are respected. Horologium (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I was careful to say "suspect" and ask for another point of view. I haven't had time to make a detailed comparison, especially since some of the links didn't work. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nite, did you try using web.archive.org? Some links may be archived there. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be interested in starting an Orlando, Florida task force?

The task force would cover Lake, Osceola, Orange and Seminole counties. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested. I may not be that helpful, but I would definitely keep the updates and whatnot on my watchlist and provide updates when possible. I have done a couple updates to Orlando and Seminole County stuff and I have also created several entities for Orlando area things (Andrews Causeway, Black Hammock Wilderness Area, and Lake Proctor Wilderness Area). Frank0051 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article following this request. You are being notified as your project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Burger King/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is working on an article related to Lee County (or maybe surrounding counties) and you need pictures of specific things to improve the article, shoot me a message and I'll see if I can help you out. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Those of us on the Spanish Wikipedia are considering forming a Florida Wikiproject there. If anyone is interested, please contact es:Wikiproyecto_Discusión:Estados_Unidos#Wikiproyecto_Florida WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would be greatly appreciated at an Afd for a Florida musical ensemble here. Neelix (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Florida articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Commons image File:Miami-Dade_County_Correctional_Institution.jpg, which has an image from the Dade Correctional Institution/Homestead Correctional Instution complex, which prison is pictured? Both are next to each other. This image shows the prison that is on the north (there are two - one is to the north, and one is to the south) - But I don't know whether Dade CI is to the north or whether Homestead CI is to the north. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 20 articles to be referenced, a 4.8% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick run-through identified three obvious CSDs, and another which had a reference masquerading as an external link. I deleted those four from the list; there are a couple more which probably don't meet our notability guidelines, but also don't qualify as CSD candidates, because they assert notability. Jennifer Green has an assertion of strong notability, but no reference to back it up. Mike Riley (fighter) also has an assertion without any easily found support, and Ruby Williams probably fails to meet our guidelines even with the two external links provided. If anybody else in WPFLA is willing to take a look at these three articles, I'd appreciate it. The remaining articles (mostly lower-level politicians) are probably strong enough to meet the notability guidelines, but need referencing. Horologium (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. Apart from making it clearer to other editors, there is no need to manually delete the articles from the list, the Bot will do that each day (currently runs at about 0500 UTC) automatically. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(smile) I knew that the bot would take care of it, but removing them right away made it easier for any other editors who took a look at the page between my sweep and the bot's cleanup would have a more concise list to peruse. I won't be doing it again, since it doesn't seem to have attracted too much attention; WPFLA runs hot and cold, and it appears to be in a cold phase. Horologium (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anybody interested, I just made a new Userbox for New Yorkers living in Florida:

See here: Talk:1928_Okeechobee_hurricane#Requested_move --Moni3 (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today I noticed somebody put a delete request on Orlando Health, the wiki article for the Orlando Health healthcare system. Can we get somebody to examine it, please?

Any help in filling in missing federal courthouses, or providing missing information on listed courthouses (especially pictures) would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rick Scott (businessman) currently has a one-sentence section about the 2010 gubernatorial campaign. I have written a bit longer replacement section, currently in my user space here. I haven't added it yet because I have a potential COI (I have a financial relationship to Rick Scott). That said, I think what I've written is neutral and significant and would help anyone who has just heard of him now because of the campaign. Please feel free to weigh in on the article's Talk page, or move it over if you agree it woud improve the existing article. Thank you. Thirteenth Florida (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the second paragraph makes it sound as if we think those two views of McCollums are contradictory. We can't do that, particularly words like "though" and "although" run the risk of implying a judgement rather than just reporting what reliable sources have said. It would be better if that paragraph simply said that McCollum has emphasized his involvement, and then a bit on the ads Scott has run, giving his counter-view. Other than that, it looks good and NPOV. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for replying. In the second paragraph, the viewpoint belongs to the Miami Herald, which in the article cited, they do evaluate McCollum's criticisms of Rick Scott in light of his previous record on health care. Could this be more clearly stated? I do want to represent the fact that health care has been a matter of debate, but I think it would be wrong to simply let the McCollum view stand alone. Do I understand you correctly? Thanks for your time, I look forward to your reply. Thirteenth Florida (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I rewrote it to show you what I meant on your userpage. If you do mind, please don't hesitate to change it back. I added Scott's comments, and made it more clear who thought that of McCollum. Also, I changed "legislation" to "bill", since it was never passed. Thank you for taking my concerns so seriously and neutrally, and also for improving pages on important Florida politicians! かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks again! Thirteenth Florida (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some additional eyes on History of Florida State University? I've identified some problems with sourcing and original synthesis that need to be addressed, but overall it's quite a good article and could probably pass for WP:GA with some work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]