Talk:The Villages, Florida

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merged "The Villages" into "The Villages, Florida"

This merge had been proposed for some time, and seemed a very obvious and unobjectionable merge. Firstly, the overlap between "The Villages" and "The Villages, Florida" content was enormous. Secondly, the use of these two particular monikers to make a distinction was confusing and unclear.

Therefore, even though I'm something of a newbie at this, I tried my hand at performing my first merge. I chose "The Villages, Florida" rather than "The Villages" as the site of the merge, because this format (City, State) is used for almost all unincoporated cities / towns on Wikipedia.

Most of the important substance from the former "The Villages, Florida" article has been re-worked and is now under the "Census Designated Place / Micropolitan Statistical Area" section at the end of the new article. In that section, I attempted to clarify the 3 different uses of the term "The Villages". These 3 uses are 1) the enire retirement village / unincorporated city, 2) the census-designated place (only the part of The Villages in Sumter County), and 3) the micropolitan statistical area (which is identical to Sumter County). Since the second and third uses of the term seem would seem to be fairly unimportant to most people that would look up the article, I left this section at the end of the article.

Redundant material was removed. Also removed was the detailed Census statistics which correspond to use #2 above. Since these statistics refer to only that small section of The Villages that is in Sumter County, I felt they were at best not especially significant, and at worst somewhat confusing. However, if someone else thinks it is important that those statistics be placed in the new article, and knows a way to clarify the purpose, than they can certainly re-add it.

Imput and feedback is encouraged. Thanks!

Article and external links clean-up

Please do not add in-text or external links to your personal web site, to sites designed to advertise your business, to sites with extensive advertisement, or to sites created "to help local businesses promote themselves to the audience most likely to use their services," etc., etc. Such links are considered spam as per Wikipedia policy "Links normally to be avoided" and considered impropriate as per Wikipedia content guidelines at WP:SPAM. (Please see the section "How not to be a spammer"). Links mainly intended to promote a website, links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising, links to social networking sites and discussion forums/groups, and links to sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject will be removed. Afv2006 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to add this book, Complete Guide to The Villages Florida for consideration for the external links section of this article. Does sell a product (book) on the site but also has a pretty good reader's Q and A section about The Villages. Web address is http://www.thevillagesfloridabook.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.15.29.27 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book mentioned above seems to be a promotion "to the audience most likely to use their services" so I would vote that it should not be an external link on this page. If it is an independent media source about The Villages, the unsigned person could break the Media section into 2 sections, Promotional Media and Independent Media, and reference it there. Just a thought. Anne9853 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Population

The article included a statement that the population of the Villages was close to 60,000 (I just removed it). The population of Lady Lake in 2005 was 13,244, and a good part of that is not in the Villages, so we might say 7,000 in the part of the Villages in Lady Lake (and that side is largely built out now). The Villages CDP had a population of 8,333 in 2000. We have no idea how many have moved into that area since then (and the Census Bureau does not provide updated estimates for CDPs), and no idea how many now live in the Marion County portion of the Villages. So, unless someone can ome up with a reliable published source for a population figure, we should avoid speculating in the article. -- Donald Albury 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An estimate of population is available at http://www.thevillagescommercialproperty.com/ which puts the number of residents at 68,000. I've been there, this seems reasonable. MatthewEHarbowy (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a promotional site for the developers, and does not strike me as a reliable source. I have been there as well, and it is big, but we require verifiability from reliable sources, and do not permit personal observations as sources, which would constitute original research. -- Donald Albury 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the developer's numbers should be considered any less reliable than those of the census bureau. In fact, the developer would conceivably have at least two strong incentives to deliver the correct numbers: First, to avoid legal liability for fraud in the promotion of real estate sales (who wants a lawsuit from someone who expected 70,000 neighbors and ends up living in a deserted development?), and second, to target its products and services to the appropriate market (who wants a disgruntled buyer who expected a small town from the census numbers and got a massive development with 70,000 neighbors?). The census numbers are not as current as the developer's, and they are not subject to these reliability incentives. Also, note that MatthewEHarbowy's (talk) personal observation that the developer's numbers are reasonable is being used in support of the reliability of the developer as a source, and not as a source per se, and is thus not subject to Wikipedia's ban on original research. Wtroopwept (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would include both because the CDP boundaries are not the same as the overll development boundaries. Say "the developer said A, the CDP had B people" WhisperToMe (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

County or Counties

My understanding is that The Villages (the census-designated place) is encompassed in more then one county in addition to Sumter, i.e. Lake County and parts of the outlining of Orange County can anyone confirm this and if so shouldn't it be included like it is with other CDP i.e. Poinciana which is located in both Osceola and Polk County. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if you look at the map included, the CDP is in one county. But the Villages Community itself spans many communities. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live in The Villages. We span 3 counties, Lake, Sumter & Marion. The Marion portion has roughly 5000 residents. Add Lake County (where it all began) and Sumter (which has the largest population) and we are now closer to 70,000 residents. The area is not easy to define in size as it's shape is uneven, but from North to South covers from CR42 to CR44, a distance of about 15 miles. East and West is trickier, but probably another 15 miles, so maybe 30 square miles.

We have 2 downtowns and are building a third. Both downtown areas have restaurants, shops, a village square, and a movie theatre. We have our own newspaper, The Village Sun, our own TV station, VNN and our own radio station, WVLG. 8 Country Clubs each having 2 to 3 golf courses with restaurants, pools and tennis courts. Add 24 Executive golf courses, 24 recreation centers, 46 swimming pools, 2 softball pitches (4 games each) a polo field, 2 picnic areas, bocce, shuffelboard, and much more. So you see, your figures are woefully inadaquate. When The Villages is fully built out, estimations are that it will have approximately 125,000 residents.

There is a book "The Villages Then and Now" by Lee King, written in 2006 that gives a wealth of information, also the website "thevillages.com" shows the towns.[1] Flars (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reformat the introduction to cover The Villages as a master-planned retirement community, as it is impossible to discuss the CDP by itself without discussing the community as a whole, and added the counties in which it is located. I did leave the CDP and statistical area information in for historical purposes. If the Census Bureau has any brains, it would enlarge The Villages CDP to include the entire community regardless of county, but I believe most of the Lake County portion is now part of Lady Lake. Quidam65 (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ resident

Notes about Education Section

If someone wants to write this section, please DO NOT talk about zoned K-8 schools - that is not relevant as the community forbids children - High schools *could theoretically be relevant (if the community allows 20 year olds and they may not have completed high school yet - I need to check) - Community colleges are certainly relevant. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • EDIT: Some exceptions: There is a charter school for Villages employees, and I believe there are some sections where families are allowed - but in terms of K-8 only mention the charter school and the schools servicing the "family areas" - Since I believe the cutoff is 19 and under you can mention high schools for non-family areas if those high schools admit 20 year olds. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole issue is confusing to me. I see on the Villages website where it specifically states that persons under age 19 can only visit for 30 days per year. But if one looks at the specific Articles of Declaration for any development, nothing is mentioned about prohibiting children in a residence (I've looked at several of them, though not all). Also, some of the areas are listed as "Family" areas, thus implying that children can live in those particular sections of the development. But can the Villages legally prohibit a child from living with a resident, regardless of where the resident lives, if the resident is the child's parent or legal guardian? Maverick9711 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Villages is a 55+ (senior citizen) community and yes, it can restrict a child under the age of 19 from living in that portion of The Villages. There are surrounding areas where children can live and are within golf cart access to shopping and downtown areas. There have been cases where a grandparent became the guardian of a minor and The Villages helped them move to a child allowed area. Children are not "outcasts" in The Villages, as it seem from what people are writing. We have programs for visiting grandchildren and local children are welcome in our towns. They dance in our village squares,go to the restaurants, shops and movie theatres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flars (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted this section to add a note stating that the zoning is mainly for tax base purposes (even people living in retirement communities have to pay school property tax), but added those family unit neighborhoods (from the Villages CDD website) located in the various counties. There is a section in one of the Articles of Declaration that I read, which states that the developer can grant an exemption for an under-19 person to reside in the non-family unit area (I presume this would allow for a hardship case, such as a grandchild who's parents are deceased or declared delinquent, who would otherwise be placed in the foster care system). I also mentioned the specific rules for the charter school. Hopefully this will clear up lots of the confusion. Quidam65 (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Brochure

This Wikipedia article reads like a sales brochure to me. Shensey (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a criticism section, which in my opinion is warranted, given the amount of criticism The Villages has indeed received from some outside observers. --Skb8721 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciated that the structure was already there when I needed to move information around appropriately. Anne9853 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to clarify parts of the article to make it more neutral and based on factual content. However, the vast majority of the information on The Villages is only available on two sites: 1) TheVillages.com website (which is clear advertising), and 2) the CDD website (with the main CDD's controlled by The Villages developer). So there is not a whole lot of information which can be obtained from a truly neutral site. Quidam65 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's quite a bit of information available. Here's a Google Scholar search, at least one book has been written about it ("Leisureville"), and it's been covered in the news, including by NPR. tedder (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest tasks which I cannot take on myself? 1) It seems to me that "Leisureville" should be at least a secondary reference source cited in this article. Be bold. Is the decision that there should not be more external sources getting in the way of legitimate additions? Or has there been a history of reversions? 2) It should also be noted within the page that the Media section contains 3 sources that have the appearance of being promotional house organs for The Villages (TV, radio, newspaper). 3) Add more suitable research from the Google Scholar sources. 4) Remove 'peacock words', if any.
Since this subject is controlled by the management, it is particularly important that Wikipedia present neutral and accurate information. Just sayin' Anne9853 (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highest std rate?

Supposedly a gynecologist was quoted in the Orlando Sentinel as saying that the villages had the highest std rate in Florida back in 2006. I don't know if a more reliable ref can be found or even if it is true. But it's "all over the place" on the web in unreliable notes. So, at best, it needs to be refuted as an "urban myth" if false; or reported with a good cite, if true.

Discovered another ref that claimed that it was in the "New England Journal of Medicine!" I could not verify this either. Student7 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not the Sentinel or the NEJM, it was just WKMG-TV channel 6 news [1]. Personally I'd want better sourcing than that before putting something like that in the article; it's basically one doctor who says she's treated more STDs cases there than in Miami. Not any kind of "official" statistics, just someone's anecdotal evidence from practicing medicine in two separate cities. 28bytes (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some more info from Ocala's Star-Banner: [2]. Basically, yeah, it is an urban legend picked up by a bunch of websites because of what one doctor said to channel 6. Putting something about it in the article would seem to go against WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: medicine-related claims: note Wikipedia:RS (medicine) sourcing is stricter than most subjects. I support the decision to exclude the information. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Blossom Hills

Orange Blossom Hills was the name of a development off of 441 next to what is now The Villages that I believe is the same development referred to in the article as Orange Blossom Gardens. The lots were intended to be for mobile homes, but many residents bought multiple lots and built houses on them. I think it'd be useful to define these two names/entities in the article, as I've also seen Orange Blossom Hills referred to as the name of the property company that owned Orange Blossom Gardens, and the name of a present-day golf club/community. I'll do some more research on this, but perhaps someone else has some information on this as well? Rjhatl (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Census 2010 Results

From the USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/FL

The 2010 population of The Villages CDP is 51,442, a 517.3% increase since the 2000 census. Still, it's less than the estimates, which:

1. May include areas outside the CDP boundaries;

2. Count part-time (seasonal) residents;

and

3. Falsely assume that past growth rates will continue at the same speed in the future.

This new information should shed some light on the The Villages...clearly, with more than 50,000 residents now, it's grown tremendously since the year 2000. At the same time, estimates that it will soon catch Gainesville or Clearwater seem to be overstated.Ryoung122 21:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dated quotes on politics

Extensive quotes are included in cites about the political leanings of residents. These are quickly outdated by the next political campaign and election, and seem overweighted for an article about a growing community. I would recommend that the quotes be dropped; the sources are cited.Parkwells (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parkwells, who someone votes for president changes every ten years, but political leanings may take longer than that to change. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Villages, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a separate page for The Villages (Company) - Holding Company of The Villages, Inc.

Back in 2007 the Wikipedia article for "The Villages" was merged into "The Villages, Florida" and I'm proposing we make a page for each to avoid confusion. One page for the private company and one for the Census Designated Place (CDP). Thoughts? Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Villages, 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing status to B

I've checked the article against B-Class status.

| b1 Referencing & citations = <yes> | b2 Coverage & accuracy = <yes> | b3 Structure = <yes> | b4 Grammar & style = <yes> | b5 Supporting materials = <yes> Whoisjohngalt (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

@Whoisjohngalt: Re: this edit

Hi! I would like an explanation of how this is original research. I don't see how citing a published source like this would be OR in any way as I would be merely repeating the conclusions of an academic journal author.

  • {explanation or other readers) Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Original research states: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."- This means citing someone else's research - meaning the two links I posted, is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. OR in a Wikipedia environment means something a Wikipedian does himself/herself, not based on any sources/references.

Additionally I do not believe any serious challenges were made to the source's contention that the "histories" on various The Villages plaques are false. This isn't like the STD claim (note Wikipedia:RS (medicine) sourcing is stricter)

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial article about an event at The Villages

Should the event described in this article from Time be documented here? Title: The 'America First' Revival Tour Throws a Trump Rally Without Trump[1] 2603:6010:4E42:500:A0A4:6545:E82:4576 (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what that has to do with The Villages, other than it happened to be where the rally was held. - Donald Albury 01:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article has interesting local color and is a reputable source. Perhaps the first writer could use it as a reference within a section on demographics, especially given the amount of space given in the page to presidential visits? Be bold. Anne9853 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://time.com/6046996/america-first-tour-matt-gaetz-marjorie-taylor-greene-the-villaages

Criticism of The Villages

Following the precept Be bold, I moved part of the Entertainment section to Criticism. It seems to me that a matter discussed as aesthetic or philosophical criticism (Faux history) should not be under Entertainment. Anne9853 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need a bit more specific clarification on what portions of the article would be considered "Advertising"? I would be more than happy to fix any issues, but to just tag the large article with no explanation of what is advertising is not helpful. The article has a total of 1,175 edits by 399 individual editors over 18 years. Just give me some guidance or I will remove the tag.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize for not mentioning anything on the talk page first. In retrospect I should have added the tag only to the recreation section. Some of the wording of the section, even if the content is perfectly objective gives a tone that sounds a bit more like a brochure than a an encyclopedia entry. Feel free to disagree though. I could help in rewriting it. This also isn't particular to this article; many articles for places, especially master-planned communities in Florida, have wording that tends to talk-up amenities and I have seen other similar articles or sections receive advert tags. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some examples; sentences like:
    • "The centerpiece of The Villages is its numerous assortment of golf courses."
    • "The Villages offers various venues for the performing arts."Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first statement is a bit fluffy. I suggest changing it to "The Villages has many golf courses located throughout the community." The second statement strikes me as fairly neutral, and I don't see any need to change it. Is there anything else in that section that you think is promotional? - Donald Albury 12:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the sentence was fluffy and the word, centerpiece really does not work. I made the change in the Golf courses section. I see no problem with "The Villages offers various venues for the performing arts." and do not think this is promotional. Thanks for giving examples.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 01:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Will review this, but there seems to be some obvious issues (History section being too short and mostly uncited, large tables and lists, etc.) that need to be fixed. SounderBruce 01:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Lead does not adequately summarize the history section
  • Overuse of "The Villages" in the lead
  • WP:LEADCITE issues; I recommend removing them entirely if they can't be consistently sourced here.
  • The metropolitan area's boundaries should be mentioned before the factoid about its growth.

History

  • Second and third paragraphs are entirely unsourced.
  • Any pre-1960s history? A quick look at historic aerial imagery shows a lot of farms in the area.
  • Third paragraph includes promotional puffery, such as "well maintained" and "significantly upgrade".
  • No mention of events between the early 1990s and 2017.
  • Several stray sentences touting "best-selling" awards that should be bundled and cleaned up to remove promotional wording.
  • Some phrases seem to have been copied from this source, such as "one of only four communities to sell more than 1,000 homes" and "community of the decade, with 24,440 new home sales from 2010 through 2019".

Structure

  • This section would probably work better as a subsection of Geography, and should be expanded to mention the general subdivisions of The Villages and its architectural styles, among other points.
  • Unnecessary italicization of "Villages" in here.

Geography

  • Woefully underdeveloped section. At minimum, it needs to have more than just the boilerplate Census paragraph.
  • Mention the surroundings, where in the county/state it is located, nearby features, and fauna/flora if available.

Demographics

  • Any population statistics before the 2000 census?
  • This section should only use detailed statistics from a decennial census, not the yearly estimate. The 2020 data should be available and is much better than the mixture of 2016 and 2019 estimates.
  • Surely there has to be a mention of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases within the populace, which has been reported on in several reliable sources.
  • Forbes list is unnecessary.
  • Expand on the origin of emigrant residents, but the current sentence is in need of major cleanup.
  • Home ownership data should be condensed and include a cleaner in-text attribution.
  • Crime section is only sourced from a single news report that needs to be backed up with other sources (especially raw data from the FBI or Florida's databases).

Politics

  • Section should be merged into Government as a subsection.
  • Presidential visits section needs to be trimmed. The third paragraph in particular uses too many quotes that are copied from the source.

Business

  • Section should be renamed "Economy"
  • Exact counts of grocery stores are not necessary.
  • "Fastest growing area" is vague without a proper label.
  • No mention of where employees in these businesses commute from?

Government

  • Too much overlap with the Politics section, with repeated information on campaign visits.
  • State and county representation do not need their own subsections, and need to be better sourced.
  • The entire Local government section needs better sources.
  • The districts table is unnecessary.
  • Describe why and how the two HOAs are separated.

Recreational activities

  • Section should be renamed "Parks and recreation"
  • Golf section has undue weight and reads like a travel guide.
  • The 11 parks should be listed with some detail instead of being a quick, uncited mention at the end of a detailed section on Recreation centers.
  • The list of performing artists is unnecessary.
  • Merge the faux history subsection from below into the Entertainment or History section. Critical commentary is best when not relegated to a separate section at the bottom of the page.
  • "Some of the most popular are location focused and based upon where a resident grew up" can be trimmed.

Media

  • No citation for the first paragraph.
  • The documentary's title should be italicized.
  • Local media listings need more citations.

Transportation

  • Some phrases seem to have been lifted from this source and need to be reworded. For example: "trolley-style bus tour of the community" and "sales and information center located at The Market Square in Lake Sumter Landing".
  • The Pine Ridge Dairy purchase should be moved to the History section.
  • Before mentioning the overpasses, it would be best to introduce the golf cart culture of The Villages and statistics on ownership/use.
  • "Currently under construction" is likely outdated.
  • "Weekday loops" to where?
  • No citations for most of the Public transportation section.
  • "the vehicle will have a safety driver in the driver's seat and later the driver will be removed and the automobile would be monitored from a control station" is a mouthful.
  • "technology-rich" is not NPOV language.
  • Any updates on the autonomous taxis pilot program?

Education

  • "The following school listings" should be reworded.
  • The list of school districts uses repeated technical phrases ("zoned", "family unit neighborhood") that need to be softened for readability.
  • The post-secondary section does not need its own subsections.

Annual events

  • This standalone section should be merged with a few others to form a general "Arts and culture section"

Other sections

  • Most comprehensive GAs on populated places include sections on local Arts (not just Entertainment, but fine arts), Utilities, Healthcare, and Libraries, among others.

Criticism

  • Criticism sections should be avoided, with the content instead merged into the appropriate sections.
    • I suggest moving the IRS audit (after significant trimming) to the Government section, and the "Faux history" into the Entertainment section.

Notable people

  • Knight needs a citation.

Popular culture

  • Redundant to the documentary's listing in the Media section.

Images

  • Already removed the gallery, but there needs to be more images distributed evenly among the sections.

References

  • Far too reliant on sources close to the subject, such as TheVillages.com.
  • Villages-News does not seem like a reliable source.
  • Formatting issues: Citations 6 (title need to be trimmed), 21 (missing data), 22 (missing title), 24 (missing details), 25 (missing data), 34/35 (incorrect publication name), 58 (missing title), 59 (missing everything), 60/61 (missing details), 101 (missing details), etc.
  • Citation 52 needs to be replaced with a secondary source.
  • Citations 75, 76, and 95 are duplicates.
  • Citations 96 and 97 are duplicates.
  • Citations 98, 99, and 100 are duplicates and seem to be sales listings, which are not reliable secondary sources.
  • IMDb is not a reliable source.
  • Citations 124 to 129 are all missing some details.
  • Book citations need to be properly linked and formatted

External sources

  • Entries that are used as sources should be merged into the References list. The rest should be in an "External links" section.
  • The documentary does not need to be linked here, and neither does the Newseum archive of front pages.

Given the number of issues that have been noted above, I'm afraid this article is unsuitable for GA status. It will take a lot of work to get this one up to an acceptable level. SounderBruce 04:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed analysis and I will start working on the list.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13
35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The large amount of STD's and the Loofah code

Will it be okay to add about the prevalence of STD's in The Villages, and the Loofah code? 70.104.196.98 (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the alledged STD rate, see the "Highest std rate?" section above, where the topic was rejected long ago as an urban legend. As for the "Loofah code", that looks like another urban legend, and you would need to find very good reliable sources to have any chance of getting away with adding that. Even if you can find quality reliable sources, you still need a consensus of interested editors that it belongs in the article. I, for one, would argue that inclusion of such an urban legend might run afoul of our policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. - Donald Albury 17:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable people"

This section seems underdeveloped or unnecessary to me, and furthermore it's unclear what it means. I assume it means "notable residents," in which case it should be titled that. RookWeaver (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, a "Notable people" section in an article about a place includes people who were born there, or lived there for a significant part of their younger life, even if they have not been resident there for a long time. Notable persons who were born in The Villages or lived there when young are obviously going to be rare. In this case, I don't see a problem with calling the section "Notable residents", but some editors may prefer consistently using "Notable people" for such sections across all articles. - Donald Albury 18:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Albury Fair, and I can definitely see how either way might be appropriate. I personally believe that since the community by definition is almost entirely limited to residents who haven't lived there for their whole lives, the section title should reflect that. But I'll hold off on making a change because I understand the consistency argument. RookWeaver (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said, unless I'm mistaken it seems everyone in the current selection of "notable people" are living current residents, criteria which are significantly more selective than simply all notable people. RookWeaver (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I don't see a problem with the change. Donald Albury 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Brian?

The article references Brian's thoughts multiple times and cites Brian's pages. Where are these pages from? What is Brian's last name? Filia Pirate (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry, I found the book in the citations. I wasn't looking at the right spot, but I'll edit the page to identify the Brian. Filia Pirate (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:The_Villages,_Florida"