I rolled back a region "tonna", since I couldn't find any mention of it on Google. --Evan 19:12, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
I travel in Florida for work and pleasure several times each year and believe that "South Florida" refers to only what is currently labeled "Southeast Florida". The other two subcomponents on the "South Florida" sub-regional page are referred to as "Gulf Coast" (instead of Southwest) and "The Everglades" (instead of South Central). Accordingly, I'm not sure which regional (or subregional) page is appropriate for this delineation, but I suggest a change. Also, see my comment in the Talk:South Florida discussion section. User:Mayor pez 17:46, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
And one more note, which I have previously submitted in the discussion for the U.S. guide, I don't believe the State of Florida is it's own region. It appears this state was separated out of the Southeast merely because of the multi-cultural metro area of Miami. However, the balance of the state is settled by traditional Southeasterners (a la Atlanta or Mobile). Even in South Florida, while there still is a heavy influence of Latin American and Carribean ethnicities throughout the region, it is only remarkably different from the rest of the Southeast (and for that matter the Southwest - which most properly includes Texas (a matter for another day)) in Dade County. As one travels north of Dade through Broward and Palm Beach Counties and beyond, the regional culture begins to look much like the balance of the Southeast Atlantic Coast. User:Mayor pez 18:01, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
Anyone have any opinions on the boundaries of the main Florida regions? [This map] seems to cover the same as the article. -- Fastestdogever 10:12, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I have compiled a list (with information & directions) of public boat ramps & fishing piers in 35 coastal counties of Florida. Since the site is my own I did not want to just ad the information without someone else saying ok. If you would like to look over the info it is located at http://www.coastaltravelguide.com/Florida/FL/FloridaBoatRamps.htm
On the page shown above you will find a link to the boat ramps/launch and fishing piers in each county.
Also I did not know if this page (shown above) was a good fit since it only links to other pages with the information. If the info should be added it may be a better fit to ad to different regions/cities. For example Bay County Florida Public Boat Ramps & Fishing Piers (http://www.coastaltravelguide.com/Florida/Bay/BoatRamps/BayBoatRamps.htm).
Anyway if you like the info and would like to include it, please do or let me know its ok and I will ad it. I also have info on such things as public campgrounds, public canoe/kayak trails, ect.
Mountaintravelguide 08:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)mountaintravelguide
I'm not sure that some of the things listed here should be linked, specifically Busch Gardens and possibly the national forests. Wikitravel:What is an article governs this, and the usual test is whether one can sleep there. Does Busch Gardens have lodging on the park site? Do the Forests allow camping? Will they support an article? OldPine 18:15, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
What belongs in the Other destinations section?
Re: the current disagreement about what to put in the "other destinations" section, I have a few suggestions:
2) I'm less sure about the speedways. While cities/towns should not be linked from the "other destinations" section (since the other component there specifically refers to regions and cities (which have devoted preceding sections), the speedways contained within cities could indeed be considered other destinations and proper to link to. We do this with things like Oxford, for example, the university of which is an other destination within the city itself. But it's more important to make sure that we only include the 9 most important other destinations, and I'm not sure listing multiple speedways is ideal in that regard, but I'm no Florida expert. Perhaps it would be better to create a racing subsection of "Do" and list the important speedways there? --PeterTalk 21:59, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
Yeah but the speedways don't have their own articles. The links went to the cities and we don't put those in "other destinations". LtPowers 09:30, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, actually, we do quite often. Because other destinations often don't get their own articles (since you often can't sleep there) it's pretty common practice to link to the nearest city/town, but display the destination. Like for example Gettysburg National Battlefield—its the battlefield that we want to link as an other destination, but since it doesn't satisfy our article criteria, it's described within the Gettysburg town article. But we'll still link straight to the Battlefield in the region article under "other destinations." I'm not sure this is clear in any policies, but the practice is widespread across the site. --PeterTalk 10:01, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, I stand corrected, then. It seems disingenuous to me, though. Got a city that doesn't make the "Top 9"? No problem, just hide in "other destinations" behind its top attraction! To me, "Gettysburg" is the destination; the battlefield is an attraction there. LtPowers 19:32, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
I am trying to flesh out some ideas in my sandbox: User:Gamweb/sandbox/Florida Feel free to suggest any ideas to reorganize and add new features. Florida has many, many attractions that are not documented here yet. For example, State Parks are far too numerous to list on the State page. gamweb 20:24, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
For other destinations, it's important to keep it to no more than nine representative samples. Likewise, in the See and Do sections of the state article, descriptions should usually be general rather than specific, with links to subregions or cities for full listings. LtPowers 10:33, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
True. One solution to the desire to help people looking for specific types of attractions within a region (like Florida) would be to list them in a travel topic. The general consensus on how this should be done, is that such topics should not duplicate information from the destination guides, but should rather serve as a list of pointers to the destination guides with basic one-liner info about each to help visitors choose which ones to visit. And, of course, a nice intro explaining why the category of things (like lighthouses) make an interesting category of sightseeing for visitors to Florida. Said travel topics then can be linked from the see/do/buy sections without dumping a load of links there. --PeterTalk 15:32, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Okay, this gives me some ideas what to put into the "region" pages, which were kind of a mystery to me up to now. gamweb 16:19, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Glad to help! I wouldn't call myself an expert in most areas here, but I do know my region articles ;) --PeterTalk 17:50, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
I have a problem with repeatedly listing "Disneyworld" and the "Everglades" several times (Other Destinations, See, Do) on the state page. Other destinations and attractions should have an opportunity to be listed as well. There is more to see in Florida than just Mickey Mouse. And there are more Natural Parks other than the Everglades. gamweb 02:45, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
So add some other destinations. The "See" and "Do" sections in particular are heavily underpopulated. LtPowers 09:48, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Florida does not have an official government agency dedicated to tourism. Instead, there is a "business organization" that cooperates with the state government on tourism matters. It is mostly made of people with business in the tourism industry. Their official website:
http://www.visitflorida.com/Gamweb 22:22, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
I think the one with cities and points of interest would be more helpful/informative for travelers. I propose using it on the Florida page instead, anyone disagree?Jtesla16 17:04, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
I believe Fort Myers or another city in Southwest Florida should be added to the map - Southwest Florida kind of looks "bare" to me on that map. gamweb 02:06, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Nine cities is the limit; which one do you want to remove? LtPowers 16:31, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
If thats the case then the map is good as is, those are the top cities.Jtesla16 17:10, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Alright, but there are only 5 "Other Destinations" on the map. Surely we can have nine of them. gamweb 18:21, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Kennedy Space Center is the only big one I can think of to add. LtPowers, would you be willing to add some destinations?Jtesla16 18:41, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I think as long as a map isn't overcrowded it's fine to show more than just the 9 cities on it, it makes it more useful for travel... roads too! – cacahuatetalk 02:35, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm still not convinced that's the best way to go. I think simpler maps have value for large regions. LtPowers 09:43, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Of course I can add to the map, but so can anyone else. LtPowers 09:43, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
I have noticed that California has more than nine points in "Other Destinations." gamweb 02:42, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Probably shouldn't, although breaking it into subsections mitigates that somewhat. LtPowers 09:43, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Then perhaps you can explain your edit here: . Previously, we had "Other Destinations" divided into two sections, "Attractions" (9 bullet points) and "Parks" (10 bullet points) listed. You did not seek out consensus or opinions from other contributors; you eliminated the subheadings and "reduce Other destinations to five" (your note on this edit). gamweb 14:11, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, you can see the resultant discussion above. What I removed from the "Other destinations" section were redlinks and the speedway links (since they were links to city articles, I felt they didn't belong in "other destinations"). Reasonable people can disagree, as you can see in the discussion above (#What belongs in the Other destinations section?). LtPowers 17:27, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
I've uploaded a new version of the map, with the "other destinations" listed in the article added. (Except Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas, which appears to be an attraction rather than a destination.) LtPowers 16:51, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Make a hierarchy of these numerous airports, it seems a bit overwhelming for someone just looking to get into Florida. Rank them in importance and relevance, and add which sub-region of the state they are located in.
List 7 to 9 best things to see in Florida, with links to sight's city. The exhaustive list of Lighthouses seems too encyclopedic for the casual traveler. Maybe we can list Florida Lighthouses as a linked Travel Topic.
Same for the national parks list.
This too seems very encyclopedic, I'm not sure a traveler interested in visiting Florida would be interested in this information. Also, Learn is not a part of Wikitravel's recommended Region template. Perhaps this heading should be deleted and the individual listing put in the city pages.Jtesla16 22:39, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
There are very separate from the rest of Florida both geographically and culturally. Also they are very rarely considered to be part of South Florida.--18.104.22.168 15:58, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree the Keys are culturally distinct from South Florida proper. I think they are grouped in South Florida due to geography and to not over complicate things for someone unaccustomed to the area. I don't think the cultural uniqueness quite warrants a separate Florida region. I think a sub-region of South Florida suffices for the Keys. Other thoughts? Jtesla16 20:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
I see your point but I disagree. You have a point but in terms of geography the keys ARE very different from South Florida. The large cities, gorgeous beaches, rural heartland, and lakes and swamps found in S. Florida are completely absent (OK so the Keys do have beaches, but almost all are too small or rocky to compare). The Keys are a small chain of islands so getting around, seeing the sights and doing activities are completely from South Florida. Grouping them together would be both misleading and inconvenient I.M.O. I suppose that you could say it should be part of south Florida because the only way to get by land is by going through S. Florida, but the same thing could be said about S. Florida (you have to drive through Central Florida).--22.214.171.124 08:53, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Likewise, the beaches of Miami are very different from the swamps of the Everglades, yet they are in the same subregion of Florida. On some level, we have to group dissimilar locations together just for usability. My general feeling is that the Keys are too small of a region content-wise to be placed on even footing with the other four regions of Florida. It's not about culture or even exclusively about geography -- it's about what's useful for the traveler. LtPowers 09:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Well O.K if you put it that way I guess its alright to leave it as South Florida.--126.96.36.199 15:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Like some others, I think the regions need to be tweeked a bit and here are my suggestions:
The Panhandle is ok.
North FL could include Citrus, Hernando, & Sumpter counties.
Central & South FL should be divided up a bit:
Gulf Coast: Pasco county south to Charlotte county, plus the interior Polk, Highlands, Hardee, & Desoto counties
Central FL...while not precise when talking geographically, Orlando considers itself "central FL", so I'd be fine with a "Central FL" rather than an "East Central FL" to describe Volusia, Lee, Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Indian River, & Martin
with South FL being the rest
Also, is this article good enough to be a "guide" yet?
AHeneen 06:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Afraid not; while the page is getting better, to be "guide" status, every one of the nine featured cities and nine featured destinations has to be "usable" first. We're getting there though! As for regions, we could argue six ways from Sunday about what should belong where, and in the end, I don't see the big deal about it. I feel the regions are of almost no use to the traveller, and just make more work for us. Still, since we have to have them, I'm fine with what we have now. --Tallytalk 16:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't know about the rest of the state, but I know here in the Panhandle, trying to evacuate usually isn't the best decision. Most hotels in the state were built under very stringent hurricane safety codes, and for a traveller, their best bet is usually to stay in their hotel room and wait out the storm, and listen to the radio and TV for advice. In Erin and Opal in 1995, most of the deaths from the storm were evacuees stuck in traffic on overcrowded roads. I think it'd be much more prudent to simply tell the traveller to listen to news and radio for storm advice, and then link to the NHC website. Or maybe we need a Hurricane Safety page here on Wikitravel. --Tallytalk 20:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I'd like to disagree. While many hotels and such are built to high standards, most tourists are urged to evacuate long before a storm approaches. The thing about staying in a hotel is simple logistics...will there be enough non-perishible food to feed the tourists during and after the storm? What will the tourists do in the aftermath of the storm? I could have sworn there was a Hurricane safety page on WIkitravel until (ironically) a couple of days ago I realized there isn't. Yes, I wouldn't mind creating such a page. I even have a few great pictures to add (like the one I just added to the climate section). With regard to deaths when evacuating, tourists (not having to worry about there property and what to take/leave, etc) are usually among the first to evacuate, so I don't think it's all that dangerous for them to do so. The climate section lists the NHC website and says simply "EVACUATE". I think the point being made is a good one. AHeneen 21:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Maybe it depends on where in the state one is. Disney is known to close the parks, but they let people stay in the hotels and send characters and everything -- but they're smack in the middle, where hurricanes, if they show up, have weakened at least a little. On the coast, I sure as heck wouldn't want to stay in a hotel during a 'cane. LtPowers 22:27, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Here's FEMA's opinion on the subject: FEMA: During a Hurricane I still think evacuating is dangerous, and shouldn't be attempted unless you're told to, or the place you're staying is unsafe. And yes, a hurricane safety page on Wikitravel would be a great idea. --Tallytalk 12:00, 19 November 2008 (EST)
The hierarchy for the state is over done. We don't need articles for every single county! Many county articles are likely to end up as just stubs. To simplify things, I propose a new hierarchy for the state below. I have used the "coasts" which are used for tourism purposes (and on Wikipedia) and think only a few counties deserve their own article.
Emerald Coast (Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, & Bay counties)
Forgotten Coast (Gulf, Franklin, Wakulla, & coastal Jefferson counties
Interior Panhandle (Holmes, Washington, Calhoun, Jackson, Leon, & interior Jefferson counties)
First Coast (Nassau, Duval, St.John's, Clay, & Putnam counties)
I have a major issue with this page: the current system of dividing the state into regions sucks. I have no major issues with the Panhandle or North Florida, although I question whether either area has enough value to the tourist to qualify as a "region". I feel the Central Florida region might be better served by dividing it into two regions: Tampa Bay and the Orlando area, but since both are commonly referred to as "Central Florida" by tourists and locals, and because the grouping makes sense from a tourist's standpoint, I am willing to keep them together. My major issue is with the region currently referred to as "South Florida". This is a massive (geographically and population-wise) region that includes some of the most important tourist destinations in the state, as well as several areas that have very little in common culturally and that are rarely grouped together from a tourism standpoint. Furthermore, the region's name, South Florida, is already in common use by both locals and tourists to refer strictly to the so-called "Gold Coast" region (Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties), occasionally including the Treasure Coast or the Keys, but NEVER Southwest Florida. Using the term in this sense puts Wikitravel at odds with virtually every other website and publication in the travel industry and is bound to confuse users, who come here for information on their trip to Miami and Palm Beach, search "South Florida", and find themselves wading through useless information on Fort Meyers and Key West. Meanwhile, the page that DOES refer to the region they're looking for, the Florida Gold Coast page, has very little information. In fact, when I came across the page several weeks ago, it was basically an outline with no information except a list of foreign consulates. Why would the page of one of the top tourist destinations in the country be so sparse? Probably because locals and tourists seeking to contribute information on the region are putting it in the South Florida article, which seems to be the obvious place for it! Since then, I have started editing the Gold Coast article to include necessary information, and it is starting to look better, although it is still missing key sections that's haven't gotten around to working on. But even if I devote hours to this page and eventually make it a star-quality article, it will still basically be a duplicate of the South Florida article. Users will either have to print both articles to get all the information they need, or they will continue to assume that the "South Florida" article contains all the necessary information, and never see the Gold Coast article at all.
Therefore, I am proposing that we change the regional hierarchy to the following:
Northeast Florida (I am also open to combining these two into one "North Florida" article, since they contain few tourist attractions compared to Central and South Florida)
East-Central Florida (I am also fine with continuing to combine these into Central Florida
The Florida Keys
South Florida (combining most of the current "South Florida" article with the Florida Gold Coast)