Talk:Punta Gorda, Florida

Charley

Let me clarify that edit summary I made about Charley not being the "worst to hit the US since Andrew". We don't know exactly how much damage it did, so we can't compare it properly to other extremely damaging US storms since Andrew, like Opal, Fran, Georges, Floyd, and Isabel. It is, however, blatantly clear that it's worse than anything to hit Florida since Andrew. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I submit an error in fact. The article states that the median age is 64 years. For that to be true, there would have to a a resident of the city of age 128, since median means the midpoint between the oldest age and the youngest--and that assumes that there is or was a newborn in the city. I submit that the proper term is mean, meaning average. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.215.23 (talk • contribs)

Median means half the people are younger and half the people are older. You are thinking of the Midrange value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.124.210 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Storm damage can be calculated and measured by costs. While the economic value of the damage is only one perspective of such a disaster, it often has a source to support its claims. (Yapidka (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Charlotte County Fl Seal.jpg

The image Image:Charlotte County Fl Seal.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong name translation

Punta Gorda translation to spanish is not fat point. It is fat end. Point in spanish is punto with an o at the end. Punta means tip, end, like in a pencil for example. So really the accurate translation is fat end, so when Ponce de Leon named it he knews what he was saying. So, you should correct the meaning.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.76.35 (talk • contribs)

As no source is cited for the meaning of the name, the bit in the article looks like [[WP:OR|original research]. Pending a reliable source for the origin of the name, I'll just take that out of the article. -- Donald Albury 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

While I personally agree with context translations from native Spanish speakers who clarify that "punta gorda" should read as "wide point" or even "important point", the community consensus has widely accepted "fat point" as the direct translation from Spanish to English. Since we don't have Juan Ponce de Leon here to clarify for everyone what he meant, we have to go by what we know. I have provided a source for the direct translation. Rogueblack (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the definition in Spanish used in geography terms, cabo and punta are synonyms. Cabo translates to Cape in English, while gorda was used as a synonym for amplio or wide in English. Unfortunately, I do not have a source for this to change it definitely. La Fuzion (K lo K) 14:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Missing History and Murals

There ought to be some notable inclusion of the signers and backers of the incorporation of Punta Gorda as a city. Not a single mention is made of George Brown, despite his fundamental contributions to the community that helped Punta Gorda succeed. Additionally, Punta Gorda is treasured by visitors and residents for its murals. While some murals can be destroyed or even painted over (such was the case for School Marms on the Bay), some nod could be given to the Punta Gorda Mural Society, especially since these murals help tell the history of Punta Gorda. Rogueblack (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Punta Gorda, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013163122/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US12&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-format=ST-7 to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US12&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-format=ST-7
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2007/b07-01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131218140556/http://blanchardhousemuseum.blogspot.com/ to http://blanchardhousemuseum.blogspot.com/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605042703/http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070525%2FSPORTS%2F705250634%2F1021%2FFEATURES02 to http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070525%2FSPORTS%2F705250634%2F1021%2FFEATURES02
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsfeatureLink.cfm?link=%2Fyearend%2F2006%2Ftopareasports.cfm

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: 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) 16:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Zoning

In re: 23:09, 5 October 2017‎ Magnolia677 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,550 bytes) (-5,039)‎ . . (per WP:UNDUE; far too detailed)

I made an unorthodox edit to this page, describing Punta Gorda's zoning map with some level of detail. Magnolia677 characterized my edit as using too much detail. I had seen the town's zoning map, and it occurred to me that this is a good proxy for the built landscape of Punta Gorda. For example, a large chunk of the city limits prohibits most development of any kind, for example. Almost all retail is clustered near the causeway. To state the obvious, the City of Punta Gorda is a credible source for its development regulations.

Given Wikipedia standards of secondary sources, no original research, and neutral POV, I cannot think of another way to represent the built landscape of Punta Gorda. Thank you for your consideration, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed this edit per WP:UNDUE. The edit was extremely detailed and appeared to make the article lopsided with unnecessary detail. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia677:

I decided to reflect on your answer for awhile before responding. The central question should be: is the article better with the edit than it was before the edit? I do not understand how my edit made the article lopsided. This would make sense if somehow the built environment is minor subject matter within an article about a city.

I guess I should appreciate that you preserved some of the subject matter. This would only be a consolation if my own ego were the primary issue. The text is superfluous the way it stands, "As of October 5, 2017, Punta Gorda has eleven zoning districts, five overlay districts, and three planned development districts. Of the eleven zoning districts, six are designated for residential use, two for commercial use, one for governmental use, and two districts allow mixed-use." That's like saying, "There is a diversity of people: there are Catholics, Protestants, and Jews living in Punta Gorda." This just says that the zoning ordinance is complex. My version informs the reader that a good chunk of the city is limited to development for environmental protection. It also says that virtually all commercial development is clustered in two small areas, one next to the causeway. Much of the remaining area is reserved for residential use. My version tells the reader a little about what Punta Gorda looks like, relying mostly on a secondary source: the city's web site.

I understand that I was working somewhat outside the envelope. However, in context, it seems appropriate. Usually these physical descriptions of smaller communities are sourced from the local visitors' bureau, which lends itself to fluff. Of course, another reason I believe that you did not give the text serious consideration is the response time. You deleted the content the same day it was posted. So I asking you one more time, please give it another look. Thank you for reading, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: Your edit was so excessively detailed, it drifted into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Please see WP:USCITIES, which a consensus of editors have agreed upon as the standard for city articles. Adding paragraph after paragraph of legal text is not advised. This would be better placed on the city website. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Thank for your response. This is constructive.

I have made no argument so far that all of my material should have been retained. I have asked for your reasoning for why a bold, wholesale deletion without consultation was in order. You are a much more experienced editor than I. Is it common practice on Wikipedia to quickly and boldly delete a large block of sourced text? So far, your characterizations of my edit do not indicate that you read it carefully, which is evidenced by referencing "indiscriminate." Here is a blurb, which is essentially a characterization of the cityscape WP:USCITIES:

Most of Punta Gorda falls under two of these eleven zoning districts. An Environmental Preserve District is designated along a corridor following almost all of the western shore of Charlotte Harbor and also designated for most of southern Punta Gorda. This district is composed mostly of nature preserves, wildlife management areas, and water control infrastructure, but also permits development of single family homes up to a maximum density of one unit per ten acres. Several other land uses are allowed as exceptions, and others may be permitted with conditions.

This describes the landscape of almost half of Punta Gorda! And is it really that hard to understand what a maximum density of one housing unit per ten acres means? Do you mean to say that the article is not improved by informing readers that almost half of Punta Gorda is an environmental preserve?

Alternatively, here is a paragraph of unsourced text from Los Angeles#Cityscape:

Los Angeles is often characterized by the presence of low-rise buildings. Outside of a few centers such as Downtown, Warner Center, Century City, Koreatown, Miracle Mile, Hollywood and Westwood, skyscrapers and high-rise buildings are not common. The few skyscrapers that are built outside of those areas often stand out above the rest of the surrounding landscape. Most construction is done in separate units, rather than wall-to-wall. That being said, downtown Los Angeles itself has many buildings over 30 stories, with fourteen over 50 stories, and two over 70 stories (the tallest buildings west of Chicago-see List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles). Also, Los Angeles is increasingly becoming a city of apartments rather than single family dwellings, especially in the dense inner city and Westside neighborhoods.

This quote above represents original content. Perhaps it does a good job of characterizing the cityscape of Los Angeles. Or maybe not. I do not know about LA to say. What is your recommendation for a good source for the cityscape of Los Angeles? And this is the situation for writing content about the cityscape: if you can't find a source, just write original content. That seems to be the solution.

Again, I am not convinced that you read my edit carefully before you deleted it. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could trim your edit and include only the most important points which would benefit readers? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I will re-read the entire text and re-evaluate what is appropriate. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

References