![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I just removed a well-intended but brief statement regarding potable water supplies. This is a complex topic, not appropriate to an article describing a state agency. Other articles are available that seem more appropriate: List of environmental issues, Resource depletion, Conservation, etc. Tim Ross (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Student7. I wanted you to know why I'm about to rvt your statement, newly added to Florida Department of Environmental Protection about half of Florida's waterways being rated as poor. As far as I know, the statement is true, and you have a reasonable ref for it. I'm reverting it because the DEP article is the wrong place for it. One could stretch things, I suppose, and add a section to the DEP article on "Important findings or decisions", but, really, this sort of information belongs in the state article or some article dealing with the state's environment or waters in general (if there is such an article). Tim Ross (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)(ref)"I agree with you entirely, that this information is worthy of being spread around, Student7, but I still don't think it fits very logically into the history section of the FDEP article. My choice would be Environment of Florida#Energy, water, and waste management. Tim Ross (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)(ref)
Student7 (
talk)
02:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)---
Okay. You win. I lose. I would like to learn something from this, if you don't mind giving lessons!
I infer from the above that the reviewer might, just might, accept a paragraph or two in here that explicitly states, not just points, to a lot of parameters they used to evaluate the rivers.
1) So my first question is: Do you agree that is what he said?
I hate putting WP:UNDUE in any article regardless of length. And IMO, this article is already too short for such gigantic "pronouncements" to say nothing of the fact that the reviewer still might not "like" it after all that (unnecessary) work. (Never mind that the original material was from a WP:RELY source and was not questioned by you.
2) So my next question is, why does this tiny summation issued by the organization itself (and not a critic, for example) require elaborate "justification" as to their research? There is nothing here that implies that it was a top-of-the head pronouncement from some politician.
3) In general, where should important statements and findings made by an organization go? If they can't be coupled with the organization itself?
3a) Forked?
3b) I think you are saying, find some analogous organization and stick it there, maybe? But nothing that an organization does or says may be coupled with that organization? This is a novelty to me. I do not understand why what an organization does or says, fundamental to the organization, cannot be coupled with the organization itself. Why is that?
This sort of thing implies that nothing that an organization does or says can be coupled with that organization. The "state senate 2008-1010" (if there is such and article) would only treat its internal organization and nothing about bills it passed or debated, right? Student7 ( talk) 14:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, of course, Student7, that this "is merely FDEP doing its job", but that's not actually my point. The quality of water in the state is an important and quite complex issue, and just dropping this kind of extreme "summary" into the article is not at all encyclopedic. Such a significant issue needs and deserves, at the very least, a discussion of cause and trends, of natural and man-made sources, and of several other related issues. Someone looking for that kind of informations is, I think, more likely to go to one of the other articles mentioned above than to FDEP. If you really, really want it there, I would not especially object to a new section addressing, for instance, "Major Actions and Findings" of the FDEP. Tim Ross (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Not too well hidden, Student7, if it's the 2008 305(b) report ("Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008"), which I suspect is the source. Check here. Tim Ross (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
agree with WQUlrich's merge proposal (from 2013) to merge the unreferenced stub Bureau of Park Patrol that has no stand alone quality with this site.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 14:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Bureau of Park Patrol page were merged into Florida Department of Environmental Protection on 20 September 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm following this subject and suggest the inclusion of a sub-section for the 4/25/21 Piney Point Incident, and a mention of the incident on the History sub-section. Supporting points:
I've already suggested same-topic edits for the Piney Point Phosphate Plant article, which has a sub-section for the incident. Xin Jing ( talk) 19:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Crime 🎤 microphone being used against citizen help Report location Dayton Ohio to traveler State of Florida 70.60.56.30 ( talk) 12:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I just removed a well-intended but brief statement regarding potable water supplies. This is a complex topic, not appropriate to an article describing a state agency. Other articles are available that seem more appropriate: List of environmental issues, Resource depletion, Conservation, etc. Tim Ross (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Student7. I wanted you to know why I'm about to rvt your statement, newly added to Florida Department of Environmental Protection about half of Florida's waterways being rated as poor. As far as I know, the statement is true, and you have a reasonable ref for it. I'm reverting it because the DEP article is the wrong place for it. One could stretch things, I suppose, and add a section to the DEP article on "Important findings or decisions", but, really, this sort of information belongs in the state article or some article dealing with the state's environment or waters in general (if there is such an article). Tim Ross (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)(ref)"I agree with you entirely, that this information is worthy of being spread around, Student7, but I still don't think it fits very logically into the history section of the FDEP article. My choice would be Environment of Florida#Energy, water, and waste management. Tim Ross (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)(ref)
Student7 (
talk)
02:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)---
Okay. You win. I lose. I would like to learn something from this, if you don't mind giving lessons!
I infer from the above that the reviewer might, just might, accept a paragraph or two in here that explicitly states, not just points, to a lot of parameters they used to evaluate the rivers.
1) So my first question is: Do you agree that is what he said?
I hate putting WP:UNDUE in any article regardless of length. And IMO, this article is already too short for such gigantic "pronouncements" to say nothing of the fact that the reviewer still might not "like" it after all that (unnecessary) work. (Never mind that the original material was from a WP:RELY source and was not questioned by you.
2) So my next question is, why does this tiny summation issued by the organization itself (and not a critic, for example) require elaborate "justification" as to their research? There is nothing here that implies that it was a top-of-the head pronouncement from some politician.
3) In general, where should important statements and findings made by an organization go? If they can't be coupled with the organization itself?
3a) Forked?
3b) I think you are saying, find some analogous organization and stick it there, maybe? But nothing that an organization does or says may be coupled with that organization? This is a novelty to me. I do not understand why what an organization does or says, fundamental to the organization, cannot be coupled with the organization itself. Why is that?
This sort of thing implies that nothing that an organization does or says can be coupled with that organization. The "state senate 2008-1010" (if there is such and article) would only treat its internal organization and nothing about bills it passed or debated, right? Student7 ( talk) 14:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, of course, Student7, that this "is merely FDEP doing its job", but that's not actually my point. The quality of water in the state is an important and quite complex issue, and just dropping this kind of extreme "summary" into the article is not at all encyclopedic. Such a significant issue needs and deserves, at the very least, a discussion of cause and trends, of natural and man-made sources, and of several other related issues. Someone looking for that kind of informations is, I think, more likely to go to one of the other articles mentioned above than to FDEP. If you really, really want it there, I would not especially object to a new section addressing, for instance, "Major Actions and Findings" of the FDEP. Tim Ross (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Not too well hidden, Student7, if it's the 2008 305(b) report ("Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008"), which I suspect is the source. Check here. Tim Ross (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
agree with WQUlrich's merge proposal (from 2013) to merge the unreferenced stub Bureau of Park Patrol that has no stand alone quality with this site.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 14:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Bureau of Park Patrol page were merged into Florida Department of Environmental Protection on 20 September 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm following this subject and suggest the inclusion of a sub-section for the 4/25/21 Piney Point Incident, and a mention of the incident on the History sub-section. Supporting points:
I've already suggested same-topic edits for the Piney Point Phosphate Plant article, which has a sub-section for the incident. Xin Jing ( talk) 19:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Crime 🎤 microphone being used against citizen help Report location Dayton Ohio to traveler State of Florida 70.60.56.30 ( talk) 12:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)