Talk:First Coast

2004 edits

Would Flagler County be considered part of the First Coast? Mike H 23:24, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yes :) I added it NamcoFL 16:06, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

When the term was first coined, Flagler was most definately not part of the so-called First Coast. At that time, it was Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Clay, and Baker. This appears to have evolved, however, probably with the growth of Palm Coast. Palm Coast, which today probably encompasses 75% of the population of Flagler County, was essentially non-existent 25 years ago, when the term was coined. Unschool 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The map shows Flager, but not Baker County. The information should match. (I never think of either county as part of the First Coast, but I guess the consensus is to include them.) 207.203.80.27 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Baker county

Why is Baker county (the red one furthest to the west) part of the first coast? It is awefully far away from the coast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.188.130 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Map!!!!

That map is wrong! Baker County is not part of the First Coast and Putnam and Flagler Counties is. Can someone please get the right map? --MPQzy (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Marketing campaigns

I edited the article to remove the statement that similar marketing slogans were created at about the same time, because that is not really true (and the cited journal article doesn't really say that). "First Coast" dates back to the 1980s, but "Gold Coast" is much older (I have found cites in The New York Times in the 1940s, and there are undoubtedly more), and some of the other terms ("Space Coast" and "Sun Coast") also predate "First Coast". "Nature Coast", "Fun Coast", and "Forgotten Coast" are of newer vintage (no earlier than the 1990s). Horologium (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What I was trying to get across there, without too much unnecessary detail, was the source's lines saying that many of the regions seem to have originated with tourism, and that "The age of these regions vary. Their creation appears to coincide with the initial population boom of the area". IE, these popular identities have emerged in a similar period in an area's growth. However, the article does not specifically tie the First Growth to a particular population boom. It may be best to leave it out the timeframe bit entirely if it's confusing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

New source

For disclosure, I recently added a bit of new material attributed to an article I wrote:[1] I've cited it only for the point that the "First Coast" regional identity has spread and references can currently be found elsewhere. This is similar to the statement in the already-cited Florida Times-Union article; the only real addition is the names of the communities. Hopefully this isn't controversial, if so, I'm happy to discuss it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Historial info

I don't think this info is an improvement. The article is on the "First Coast" name and concept, not necessarily the history of the region. What historical info is there should be concise and relevant. The new addition is just copy-and-pasted from History of Florida, which already covers the material better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The same information has been re-added. Considering that it seems far too long and redundant compared to treatment at the dedicated History of Florida and History of Jacksonville, Florida articles, I've reverted it again for the reasons given above. Please address concerns about it here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If this page is about the First Coast region then the information is completely relevant. It is relevant to the history of (this part of) Florida, hence its inclusion there and it is relevant to Jacksonville/Duvall County, hence its inclusion there. The First Coast Region as a whole obviously includes that, therefor it should be included here. Why should it not be?174.70.83.194 (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We can discuss adding some more historical info, but we don't need 5 paragraphs of historical information (in addition to what's already here) in an article on a term created in the 1980s. In addition to being overly long, lengthy sections are not sourced or are sufficiently sourced. General information on Florida history outside the First Coast, such as the Turnbull colony, are not needed here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

So is the article on the term, or is it on the region? For instance, the article begins by stating "Florida's First Coast, or simply the First Coast, is a region of the U.S. state of Florida, located on the Atlantic coast of North Florida.". This left me with the impression the article was on the region itself, not the history of the term referring to it. Thoughts?174.70.83.194 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's both. There's already historical info here. One of the issues is there wasn't a concept of this area as a distinctive region until relatively recently, so sources often don't elaborate on the history. There are histories of Florida in general, and histories of the individual communities, but it's comparatively rare to find a work that deals specifically with the history of the First Coast/Northeast Florida. As such it makes more sense to give a shorter account of the early history and spend more time on the development of the concept of the region. As I say, we can discuss expanding the historical material, but simply copying a bulk of material from History of Florida isn't the way to go about it, especially when the quality of the sourcing isn't up to the standards there now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Coast. 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/20111216100938/http://www.soflo.fau.edu/course/report.pdf to http://www.soflo.fau.edu/course/report.pdf

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) 11:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)