Talk:Cape Canaveral, Florida

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

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

Untitled

Yes, I shared A photo of the City 50th Anniversary but the editors here removed it.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow editors

Hi, I just thought I'd take this opportunity to introduce myself. I just added a short narrative to the history of the City of Cape Canaveral. I look forward to working with you to improve this article by embellishment and accurate editing. I've enjoyed what's been written so far and look forward to further contributions from other editors.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we verify this? What was the name of the settlement?

The first permanent settlement in present-day Brevard County was established near Cape Canaveral in 1848.[7] Was this Fort Ann? --Ourhistory153 (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Ann was established in 1837. "Someone" really ought to do an article on it.

If the Fort were not within modern day Cape Canaveral, it should not be mentioned in this article, but rather "Brevard County, Florida." Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the impression that Port Canaveral is part of unincorporated Brevard County and not part of the city at all. I will check first, then remove, if true. Student7 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial? Tropicana

One of my narratives (Tropicana meeting place for first city meetings) was removed for being considered 'Trivial' and yet others are left there. Whereas the narrative about the meeting place at Tropicana may be considered trivial to some outside the area to those who live here it is considered an interesting fact. The question goes to who decides what is trivial? I will be restoring this unless I hear good reasoning why it should be left out.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Undos

I recently reversed some Undos, I leave this posting to ask why the wiki-editor feels it necessary to undo the page? For example can there be too many cites? --Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The city and the area articles, what history is in?

I saw this months ago but knew it would need addressing one day after they city content go built up. But there is history of the area in the city article here. All the area history should be in the other article. I'm not going to remove it now but leave it for discussion that it will be later. Other wiki-editors may want to consider that before removing narratives that they think are trivial. I agree Fort Ann should not be here but some other topics too may want to be moved out. We just have to decide what needs to be in.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we can locate sufficient material on Fort Ann, it would be nice to have a separate article. If it was within the current city limits, it could be forked/linked from here. If not, then wherever it was which may be the highest level Cape article or Brevard County. On the other hand, it may just turn out to be a short-term crude stockade. Student7 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this http://ww3.brevardcounty.us/history/history-summary.cfm, Fort Ann on east coast of Merritt Island. Student7 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a mention of the name change from Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy and back again would be appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecataldo (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50th anniversary, 51st, 52nd, etc.

Material relating to an "anniversary" of some event for a place is generally WP:TRIVIA. Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The potential for anniversaries are just way to large and their content usually way too small. It is distracting to real information about the place itself.

There might be very rare exceptions like Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, the American 1876 Exposition, that sort of thing. But one would almost have to be known worldwide for it to be sufficiently important.

Also, there is the matter of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BURDEN. Student7 (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what the issue is. First off if you do a keyword search in Wikipedia on 50th or 'anniversaries'

dozens of articles show up. Anniversaries keep history alive for many people. When I did a keyword search on Cape Canaveral it was the new section that brought up this complete article early in the search. Lastly it is only a short narrative, so it is not like it will grow into anything larger. But leaving it or taking it out will leave a precedent as Titusville will have its 150th in a couple years and I'm not going to spend time writing up short narrative because one editor thinks it is irrelevant.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on just one of the objections: WP:BURDEN. What have you shown that indicates that this section should be here? Why should it not revert to WP:STATUSQUO?

Every city, and organization (and people!) have 50th birthdays, anniversaries, etc. Do you believe that they all should go into here. Should Rome's 25th, 250th, 500th, 1750th, 1871st, etc. all go into that article? What would Wikipedia look like, if this were allowed? Student7 (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it WP:Trivia, it is uncited trivia. Local holidays and anniversaries are not considered WP:Notable unless several prominent sources are discussing them. Is there even one non-local news source discussing this? If not, it should be removed immediately. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 12:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appear, Ourhistory, that you may have a WP:CONFLICT of interest here as city historian. Not really appropriate to take a heavy hand in a project in which you have a direct involvement. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems trivial. What is the purpose of the section or the so what to the reader? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem trivial to you but let me ask you where do you live? Please answer that. Are you all saying that the only people that can be an editor to an area must not live there? And I object to the criticism of me being heavy-handed as I've never mentioned my

interests into any arguments for the section in question. If someone in another area wants to write about the anniversary of an entity and takes the time and interest to do so, then good luck to them. I've seen this Trivia argument used before not only here but in other projects and the important point that is missed, is that it doesn't take into account on what is important to the people that live there. Are outsiders to have the final say so on what is trivial and what is meaningful? I recently added content about archaeological sites here in Cape Canaveral, now is an editor going to say because there are archaeological sites everywhere then it is not meaningful to the post?--Ourhistory153 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[[FieldMarine])said, "It seems trivial" the word 'seems' indicates that is his belief. Not that it is trivial. So what part of the country does he live? Maybe that is why he says 'seems trivial'.

It doesn't seem like any of the editors making these arguments here are listed on the Wikipedians_in_Brevard_County page.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, everything witten on a talk page is an opinion of an editor working towards improving the article, so you are correct that my input is an opinion. I recommend you address the issues raised by three other editors so that consensus can be achieved. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try merging this into history, since that is what it is. Student7 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. The only place I have seen "anniversaries" mentioned is when a US President or foreign dignitary showed up. Otherwise, place articles would be mostly "anniversaries," and very little else. Student7 (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not try too hard. See my new talk section.

You guys got all the facts wrong and really poor word-smithing. Jay Barbree spoke? That's the best you can do? You leave one little fragment of the anniversary I built up, and what you leave is incorrect. And your incorporation facts and wording was all wrong too. You two editors are exhibiting 'olde croneyism' and are depriving Wikipedia of a well written and resourced article here. Are you going to follow me to Titusville when I try and improve their article too? Ourhistory153 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metrics for 50th Anniversary

The previous editor did not try real hard witH his search. Here is the search that anyone could have done. Can I assume that you did not think of it, or maybe for more biased reasons did not use it because it did not support your argument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=50th+anniversary&title=Special%3ASearch

26,688 entries for 50th anniversaryOurhistory153 (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is out of 3 million articles.

There is something wrong with nearly every article, except those just selected for FA, and found something with one of those once. It's just this sort of thing that keeps patrolers, like myself in business!

Note the subtlety of this entry: Lake_Champlain#Modern_history. This commemorates the 300th anniversary with a US President and a few other dignitaries present. It did not merit a separate subsection. The 200th, the more recent 400th, the 350th, if there was one, did not merit an entry. Lack of merit is fairly common.

You have provided sufficient material. Except for commenting on our edits, I would suggest that you would restrict your entries to actual history, not commemorations of history. These have been WP:UNDUE.

Other editors tend to agree. See WP:CONSENSUS. Student7 (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cape Canaveral, Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX flight

Is the SpaceX all-civilian flight from 2022 notable to be in the history section? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]