Talk:Cape Coral, Florida

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Untitled[edit]

The History section needs a new beginning. Probably something like, "Until the fifties the area was agricultural/scrub/whatever. Then George and Richard Rosen, two brothers who had experience in real estate development in Chicago/Philadelphia/Sarasota, bought a tract of zz thousand acres from John and Mary Doe, paying, according to county records, xx cents per acre on July 4, 1776. They easily/with difficulty obtained permits from the County and their architect, Frank Lloyd Saarinen, designed an entire city/residential area." Et cetera. Thanks to someone who can write this.Ccerf (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As of 6/26/2006, the map looks right. I live in Cape Coral also.


--orig--


Is it me or is the Picture upside down? (Cape Coral is on the N & W side of the Caloosahatchee. tww

Photo is upside down, and if I am not mistaken, NS is divided by Pine Island Road. pjr


The picture *IS* upside-down I live there, and I can tell you for a fact the image is 180 degrees off...


Mike


<nitpicking continued> As of 3/1/06 the picture now only looks about 10-15 degrees off line if north is assumed to be top center. The article is correct as far as the seperators for the NE/NW/SE/SW go. If you look towards the west end of the city you will find SE addresses north of Pine Island Road. (BTW I live here also.) tww Clix 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC) </nitpicking continued>

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cape_Coral%2C_Florida"

Interesting fact: A large portion of the Cape Coral population calls this place "Cape Coma."

Canals[edit]

Dont you think there should be some acknowledgement of the canal system? Cape Coral used to be swamp land, there for the need to dig canals to raise the ground level. There is over 400 miles of them also, they are salt and fresh water also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.240.186.22 (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I've made some inquires about getting Cape Coral published as the city with the most manmade canals in the world. When I get it, we'll have the source we need. I know now that it is, indeed the #1, but cannot verify. The #2 city is Birmingham, England, with just 150 linear miles, as compared to Cape Coral's 400 linear miles.ReignMan (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this is notable how? If you are having trouble confirming this from reliable sources, then it is in fact not notable. Most of the canals in Cape Coral are little more than drainage ditches. The canals of Birmingham were dug as a transportation network, comparable in scope and purpose to railroads. -- Donald Albury 11:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Locally it is considered notable, mentioned in blurbs about the area by the city, by the local tourism industry and others. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but I don't see it as being of encyclopedic interest. It looks like civic boosterism to me. -- Donald Albury 17:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Call it boosterism if you want. Venice is noted for their canals. Cape Coral has more miles of canals and makes an issue of it. Sounds encyclopedic to me. In either case, factual statements are enyclopedic and all those canals are a major factor in simple day to day navigation in CC (try driving in it if you don't believe that) and without those canals, the Cape wouldn't even exist. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. Lets go erase the mention of canals from Venice because they are boosterism. Cape Coral was founded on the canal system, and has a MASSIVE system of them to boot. They have locks, police patrol them, they are used for transportation, they are all channels charted by the U.S. Coast Gaurd, and fall under the juristiction of maratime law. There is NOTHING about the claim that is boosterism. The comparison is what you'd call a "gauge". ReignMan (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of the canals mentioned are navigable, manmade waterways. Anyone who calls them "mere drainage ditches" has probably never seen them. One look at a satelite picture will confirm that they are indeed, something of note. They are about 50-100 feet wide, 50 for the branches, 100 for the main. They are about 15-20 feet deep in the main channels, as shallow as 10 feet in the finger canals.
File:Capecoral1.jpg

Calling it boosterism is simply ridiculous. ReignMan (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Housing Bubble burst is not being mentioned[edit]

I've just run into 2 News articles that talk about the terrible effects that the Housing bubble burst is having on Cape Coral.

So I am really surprised to see that this article neither mentions the over construction nor addresses the effects of the Housing Bubble bursting.

I hope that this sort of highly negative information is not being avoided and/or censored from the article.

News articles:

  1. Reuters - http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081022/us_nm/us_financial_usa_housing
  2. CS MOnitor - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1210/p17s01-usec.html

EconomistBR 20:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Your conspiracy theory is empty. If you think it is so important, why didn't you add it? Personally, I think that the issue is a case of wp:recentism, but that would be up for discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The housing bubble was a major factor in many places, so to say it was unique enough to mention is not really proper, however, including the term "Cape Coral, with its economy driven by the construction of new homes, was affected heavilly by the housing bubble (<---link that to housing bubble), then add ref.
I wouldn't let the article be censored personally, I don't care about CC one way or another, but what I do, is have foriegn people read the articles, and us read theirs (e.g., me from Lauderdale read the (random city) article, etc.) and provide an unbiased opinion. Call up some people from a random city to read the CC article. ReignMan (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposing merge[edit]

Proposing that article Cape Coral, Florida Police Department be merged as a section into this article. It's brief, unreferenced and would fit well. Chuckiesdad (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The current article is more of a bio of the chief rather than an article about the dept. Some work on it could change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've revamped the article. Expanded and sourced, it is now too long to be merged into this article easily. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cape-fire-works.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Cape-fire-works.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Cape-fire-works.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tarpon-point.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Tarpon-point.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tarpon-point.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture of the city[edit]

Nice lizard pic, but what does the city look like? This city is so much bigger than Fort Myers, which ironically seems like a better known city in that county. So, why not have some pics of the city and/or its skyline? YellowAries2010 (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Why is that ironic? Ft. Myers is much, much older and is the county seat. Of course it is better known. What is the irony in this? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cape Coral, Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better fotos added, then reverted[edit]

I added a new satellite photo (replacing an older, less-detailed one), put a new photo in the infobox, and did minor cleanup. Another editor reverted the whole thing, commenting "Why would we make a picture of this single home the infobox picture?"

OK, pick something else. Please don't just revert multiple edits for one objection. Thanks --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • And why would you revert to a picture of house? Especially a house that is really a backdoor advertisement. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So that others can judge for themselves: "backdoor advertisement"? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sunset Front 001
  • Calling it a "sunset" is false. The focus is the house. You can't even see the sunset. A single house of no historic or cultural significance doesn't belong in the article, let alone the infobox. And yes, the copyrighted photo from a builder is a backdoor ad. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why are you insisting on putting this advertisement in? You've demonstrated no reasoning for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you campaigning against using an attractive photo? It would be good to hearf rom other users -- and for you to adopt a less combative attitude. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An attractive photo isn't really the point. First, it was wholly inappropriate for the infobox. Second, you claimed it was a "sunset", yet it really doesn't show a sun set. Third, you pretend that you don't realize that it's a publicity photo for a builder. So perhaps you can explain why an "attractive" photo of a non-notable home belongs in this article? The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. What does this photo inform us of? A builder's name? There's nothing combative about asking why you insist on putting this advertisement on here.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re appropriate use of this photo: the section you (last) removed this from starts, "The economy in Cape Coral is based on Health care services, retail, and real estate/construction.. So a photo of a new house is certainly appropriate in this section. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo looks like an advertisement, and shows nothing of Cape Coral. It could have been taken anywhere. It's over-colorized too. This isn't Flickr. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That house could be anywhere in Lee County or south Florida. It tells us nothing more than a picture of Walmart or of a doctors office. We don't add pictures just for the sake of being "attractive". Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree completely with Niteshift36. This photo has no place in the article, much less as the primary illustration in the article. It's a frikken house. It is illustrative of absolutely nothing of the subject of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cape Coral, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Cape Coral, 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GALC or GAC[edit]

If I understand the text correctly, Gulf American Land Corporation is abbreviated as both GALC and GAC in the article. That should be harmonized. I'm not sure which abbreviation should be preferred. - Donald Albury 15:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]