Talk:Tampa, Florida

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeTampa, Florida was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

GA Review[edit]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tampa, Florida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mcorazao (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm beginning the review. Here are some initial observations:

  • Overall looks like a very nice article.
  • Lead section:
    • The lead section doesn't really comply with WP:LEAD which says the lead should summarize the article. There is nothing about the history, the culture, or most other sections.
    • It spends a fair of space giving stats on the metro area even though that is not the topic (see WP:TOPIC).
  • References:
    • There are a few paragraphs that are missing citations entirely.
    • The references have several bare URLs (URLs with no other information). Several others have very little information. The best thing is to use the {{cite web}} and fill in as many of the fields as possible (see WP:Citing sources for minimum requirements).
    • There are references to whole books without page numbers.
    • Some duplicate references.
  • The History section is really long. I would recommend creating a separate article for the history and summarizing the history in this article. I would recommend reducing the whole section to perhaps a dozen or so paragraphs.
  • Avoid trivia (e.g. the tidbit on the Wikipedia servers is interesting but does this imply that Wikipedia is one of the largest players in the Tampa economy?).
  • For the "surrounding communities" it is best to use the {{Geographic Location}} template. This is normally used at the end of an article.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional concerns:

  • Fair use image violations: Tampa Snow.jpg. Additionally some images have incomplete information for proving fair use: Hernando de Soto 1881.jpg (no publication details on Young Peoples' Cyclopedia and since the claim is based on the author's lifetime there is no information about the author); Fortbrooke.jpg (author is claimed to be a Wikipedia user and the source is claimed to be Wikipedia); TampaFranklinStreetNorth.jpg (since the date publication can't be stated with certainty how do we know it is before 1923); etc.
  • Inline URLs like [1]. This is not allowed. External links must go in the External Links section at the end of the article (excepting the URL for the entire city).
  • The economy section feels a little light in its coverage. Some business sectors are listed but are these the largest or are these simply some arbitrary list of some of the larger sectors. Ideally the section should give a more concrete picture (e.g. the n largest business sectors are ...; the n largest employment sectors are ...).
  • Be careful about statements such as "St. Petersburg has earned the distinction as the 'Birthplace of Scheduled Air Transportation'." The statement implies that this is a widely recognized distinction rather than just something the Tampa Bay area takes pride in. If that is true then it really needs to be backed up clear with references (or else rephrased).
  • "Since Tampa Bay was first spotted by Spanish explorers in the 1500s, sailors have admired its wide, sheltered beauty." This a very broad, peacock statement. The statement would seem to imply by and large most sailors coming through the area have considered the bay unusually beautiful. If there are really sources that indicate research has been done to assess the opinions of sailors throughout history this should be included. My guess is that this is not the case making the statement OR.
  • Why is there a "See Also" link to Small Business Development Center at the University of South Florida? That article doesn't exist (and seems a little trivial anyway).
  • See if the images can't be moved around a little so that they don't cross between sections as much (makes the layout better).
  • Be careful about statements such as "In March 2003, Condé Nast Traveler magazine ranked the airport #1 in the US and #3 in the world for its creativity and interior design." in the Infrastructure/Airports section. It is good that you are citing opinions of an authoritative source. Nevertheless, what is the point of having this statement here? It seems like its only role is promotional (such statements might be appropriate in a section on architecture of the city or some such thing).

I'll hold off further reviewing since I think that gives enough to work on. The biggest concerns are the referencing and fair-use rationale for the images. If these things can be addressed in the next few days I'll take another look.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though there have been a few improvements in the last few days it looks like none of the editors is available to spend the time to bring it up to GA standards right now. Hope the above comments at least help. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tampa Town?[edit]

It was claimed in the Etymology section of this article that Tampa used to be called "Tampa Town", but I find very little reference to even the word "Tampa Town" outside of what appear to be facsimiles and quotes of the book From the Earth to the Moon (1865) by Jules Verne, which is a work of science fiction... Any good sources for this claim? I cannot view the nearest reference (at time of writing, ref number 15) because Google Books has it on preview unavailable... PseudoSkull (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While it wasn't an official name, it was commonly used as a nickname before Tampa suddenly grew into a city in the 1880s, and you still hear it thrown around occasionally when somebody wants to sound either hip or oldfangled, lol. Tony Pizzo, the (late) official historian of Hillsborough County, used "Tampa Town" in the titles of several books about early Tampa since that what the little place was called at the time. (I own this one). It's a real thing. Zeng8r (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

indigenous peoples[edit]

@Magnolia677 The cultures who lived on Tampa Bay before Europeans arrived should absolutely be mentioned in the history section of the article on the city of Tampa. Each of the peoples in question (Tocobaga, Pohoy, and Calusa) lived in the area for centuries and are notable enough to be the subject of their own Wikipedia articles. Here, they are summarized in only a few sentences. You'll note that I did not simply revert your earlier edits; I condensed the section a bit while restoring vital info. I even left off the map, as I could buy an argument that it was better suited for History of Tampa and Tocobaga, where it's still featured. At this point, that subsection is about as short as it can be while still giving readers a glimpse of the relevant information.

Also, recent edits have also made it less clear that the citations already present covered all the material. I'll add another; several books have been written about the cultures that you're trying to cull for the sake of extreme and unnecessary brevity. Zeng8r (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zeng8r: As I mentioned in my edit summary, please follow the manual of style, do not add unsourced content, and do not unbalance the article with irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this article. Also, this is not a history of South Florida, it is a history of Tampa, so unless the sources cited explicitly state they lived in what is now Tampa, then that information should not be included. I have seen the indigenous histories of an entire state shoehorned into too many city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added no unsourced content; you may be confusing me with another editor who tweaked that subsection last week. As I mentioned above, all info was already supported by a source, and I added another citation as well. And as mentioned in the article text, these peoples lived on the shores of Tampa Bay, not "South Florida", and are thus quite relevant to the history of Tampa. Thanks for leaving content decisions to those who know the topic. Zeng8r (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect 坦帕 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 5 § 坦帕 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 20 September 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Tampa, FloridaTampa – The word "Tampa" is really well known by most people. In fact, when you hear the word, instantly, you will realize that it's the city in Florida. Can we move the page so that the title will say "Tampa" instead of "Tampa, Florida" as it is known really well? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose, and probably speedy close. WP:USPLACE is a well-established naming convention, and American cities always keep the extra disambiguation. 162 etc. (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now per current naming conventions for major cities at WP:USPLACE. I agree that having only the major cities indicated by the AP Stylebook is a bit too restrictive for a guideline that is an exception to normal article title policy, specifically WP:QUALIFIER and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; in other words, there should be more exceptions to the exception. But as it stands, Tampa seems on par with the Nashville example. I think what is needed is an RfC or something about revising that aspect of WP:USPLACE, and then having normal primary topic requested move discussions like this one for major cities on case by case basis. But for the moment, the current title follows the current naming convention. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There have been many such discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) (see the box at the top of the page), most recently an RfC in February-April, that incidentally included Tampa, resulting in no consensus to change the current guideline. Station1 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, yes I would imagine this has been discussed before, and it would difficult to find a new consensus. Thanks. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As mentioned above WP:USPLACE requires the state. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose (strongly) per WP:USPLACE. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The WP:USPLACE guideline is also explained on Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Remove state from US placenames. The main takeaway is basically this: a majority of reliable sources published nationally in the US would usually first refer to this city, like most other US cities, as "Tampa, Florida", appending the state as if it was common usage in American English, before later referring to it as "Tampa" like it was some sort of abbreviation. And always appending the state produces a consistent and predictable set of titles (see also WP:TITLECON), because repeated or otherwise ambiguous placenames are very common in the US, and thus most would require disambiguation regardless. The only cities that do not seem to have this peculiar convention seem to be those 28 or so cities (like Miami) listed by that AP Stylebook. But take almost all other cities in Florida, and nationally published reliable sources would still refer to them as "[X, Florida]" regardless of any unnecessary disambiguation here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the claim that "the word 'Tampa' is really well known by most people ... when you hear the word, instantly, you will realize that it's the city in Florida" is sometimes questionable, because you have its major sports teams Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Tampa Bay Lightning using "Tampa Bay" instead of "Tampa", and it therefore sometimes gives the misconception that the city's name is the former instead of the latter. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, and speedy close. WP:USPLACE is a well-established naming convention, we used to close noms like this immediately. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing citation under Civil War and Reconstruction - Unable to find full source[edit]

On the Citation Hunt tool, I volunteered to add citations for the Civil War and Reconstruction claim that federal troops stayed in Tampa until 1869. I spent a good, long time trying to find sources for this, but I was ultimately unsuccessful. I think I'm going link the internal page for "Florida in the American Civil War" and call it a day. I will add the sources I was able to find on the page for "Florida in the American Civil War". Galactiger (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]