This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes, I shared A photo of the City 50th Anniversary but the editors here removed it.-- Ourhistory153 ( talk) 22:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?search=50th+anniversary&title=Special%3ASearch
26,688 entries for 50th anniversary Ourhistory153 ( talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Is the SpaceX all-civilian flight from 2022 notable to be in the history section? NintendoTTTEfan2005 ( talk) 13:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)