Template talk:California

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 91 days

Harmonizing Template:California

Finish harmonizing Template:California BigBang11 23:27 Pacific Standard Time, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Regions

What criteria is being used to determine what regions should be on this template? I do not want to see an edit war over this section similar to what happened with the metros section before we decided to strictly use Census MSAs. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no reasonable criteria other than something larger than a city and less than a state. Actually, that isn't even correct, since the ambiguously named Harbor Area article is all part of the city of Los Angeles. Personal opinion: Anything in the regions section that is a subset of one of the other links should be removed. There may be a dozen links that all fit under Southern California for example. ^Blank ^Verse 12:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree with you on that, except that if we take that to its ultimate conclusion, then all we need are three region links: Northern California, Central California, and Southern California. But regions like Silicon Valley and Wine Country should be significant enough to be mentioned in the template! So I am really not sure what is the best solution. What does everyone else think? --Coolcaesar 00:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there was some official, credible source to copy, it would make life easier. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted a bunch of 'regions' that are just parts of LA or LA County (e.g. Palos Verdes Peninsula). I also deleted some of the minor valleys such as Conejo Valley. I think that even with my deletions the regions section is still too large, but every criteria that I can think of would probably eliminate too many regions.

The list that User talk:Geomeister seems to be following is List of regions of the United States#California. ^Blank ^Verse 10:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that list suffers the same problem in that there is no official, credible source. Both that and the template seem to be listing arbitrary regions. Therefore, I am removing it from the template until this matter is resolved. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Geomeister is adding a bunch of links that aren't regions. How are Salton Sea and Santa Ana Mountains regions of California? Are we going to list every mountain range and lake as regions? —Kenyon (t·c) 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think listing the San Andreas Fault as a "region" is also a bit of a stretch. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just purged some of Geomeister's original research again. SanSan and Tech Coast are both science fiction fantasies that have never come into use outside of very small geek communities; that is, they are not known or used by most of the people in the areas which those terms describe. Including them on the California template is nearly as stupid as putting the U.S., Canada, and Mexico on a North American Union template. While some North American intellectuals, myself included, believe that a North American Union is a laudable long-term foreign policy goal, it is currently a science fiction fantasy among a relatively small community of intellectuals which has little hope of becoming a reality in the foreseeable future. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of random information per official policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If Geomeister wishes to push SanSan or Tech Coast, he or she is welcome to build their own site on WikiCities. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such must conform to certain content policies (otherwise it would not be an encyclopedia). --Coolcaesar 05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "Upstate California" because it is a hoax region and citations about it lead to a perhaps non-profit entity which cannot be found in the IRS non-profit lookup service. Wiki is not a place for hoaxes or original research. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mircoarea

The section about microarea's is a bit ridiculous and likely needs to be removed. South Bay (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "ridiculous" when the information was gathered from the United States micropolitan area and Table of United States Micropolitan Statistical Areas articles? Is there something wrong with the United States Office of Management and Budget defining these types of official areas around the country? Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metro areas linking to cities?

Why do the metro areas link to the cities in those areas? If we're going to have a list of cities, then we might as well call it "major cities". But if we're going to have metro areas, then let's link to the metro area articles. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the decision to link to the cities was made well before almost all of the metro area articles were ever created. And so, it hasn't yet changed since then. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we dont have major articles on the metro areas, then we should include the names of all major cities in each area. im thinking berkeley should be added to the string for hayward/oakland/fremont. problem is, thats not the metro area, i think sf/oakland is the metro region. Oh, heres a category: Category:Metropolitan areas of California, we already classify the entire bay area as one metro area. So, I wonder if we should have a section for metro regions as defined here, and ANOTHER section for major cities. just a thought.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mess

the metro stat and micro stat sections are a mess. too much original research. not that the research is inaccurate, its just not supported by external refs. I think i need to tighten it up. some helpful links: California census statistical areas, San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA, Los Angeles metropolitan area, Greater Los Angeles Area, San Diego metropolitan area, Sacramento metropolitan area, Metropolitan Fresno, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reorganize

OK im gonna try here. i think the region/metro/micro should simply be counties. i will consider other changes. see if i have the moxie to do this (although we californians usually dont have moxie, which is more of a NY thing)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the Metro Regions list is inconsistent. Metro Regions itself links to Metropolitan Statistical Area so I would expect the listings to link to those articles as well. However, San Francisco, Fresno and Sacramento link to their CSA articles, and San Diego links to an area that has no official (governmental) definition. Also, names are inconsistent. Either it's all CSAs (except San Diego which doesn't have one) over a million people (in which case Metro Regions needs to link to the CSA article):

Los Angeles-Long Beach; San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland; San Diego; Sacramento; Fresno

or it's all MSAs (again, over a million people):

Los Angeles; San Francisco; Riverside; San Diego; Sacramento; San Jose

I don't have a preference, but it simply needs to be consistent.

Dtcomposer (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largest cities in CA

Dividing the states into two halves (Northern and Southern), Stockton is the 5th largest in NorCal (with over 300,000 people) and Riverside is the 5th largest in SoCal (also with over 300,000). San Jose now has over a million people and Fresno surpassed Sacramento (state capital) as the state's 4th largest city. San Diego-Tijuana on both sides of the US-Mexican border should be the 2nd largest metro area in the state, then again Riverside-San Bernardino metro area has more people than San Diego if you go by only the US side. Only one city north of Sacramento, Chico has over 100,000. And recently, Indio in the fast-growing Palm Springs/Coachella area surpassed the 100,000 mark. About 80 cities now in California have over 100,000 residents. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific proposal? This is what is called in Wikipedia a navigation template, which lists links to a selection of articles pertaining to the entire state, not for Northern and Southern CA. Nor is it a general list for exploratory browsing of such topics in Wikipedia. Nor a list of with annotations, further details or notes (which it appears you attempted to add but was reverted by another editor). The is primary a template to navigate around related articles. For brevity, it is only listing the top ten cities, not 25 or 88 -- otherwise the entire navigation template becomes unwielding. if you are looking for actual lists with such annotations, further details or notes, there are actual detailed articles like List of cities and towns in California. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No proposal is really needed, keep the listing of California's largest cities at ten: From Los Angeles to Anaheim (10th) in Orange County, a very populous county which is among the state's and nation's most and highest population density outside of New Jersey. I noticed socioeconomically, cities 60-120 miles away from Los Angeles in the Inland Empire and Mojave Desert are notably low-income, higher unemployment rates and now has higher minority populations than inner-city L.A. Places like Lancaster-Palmdale, California City and Ridgecrest in Kern county (among the state's poorest counties in income level similar to Imperial, the lowest overall), Victorville area and Barstow along with Yucca Valley-29 Palms, and the highest poverty cities of Cathedral City and Coachella in the Palm Springs area. Gentrification, lower housing prices as well higher availability of section 8 housing, and dependency of cheap migrant laborers in agriculture and construction, is why there is such a demographic profile in those places. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the last decade, Desert Hot Springs is ranked the WORST place to live in California on 5 issues: 1. Crime incidence rates (higher ratio per city population than even Compton, Los Angeles and also New York City), 2. Poverty/Low-income percentages (including food stamps, welfare, disability, section 8 housing and medicare recipients), 3. High unemployment and underemployment issues, 4. Less high school grads with lower college degree holders in city population, and 5. Drug trafficking and production (Google search the number of news articles about DHS' thriving medical marijuana industry). Desert Hot Springs in the top 5/6 worst cities in CA competing with San Bernardino, Oakland, Stockton, Yuba City and El Centro next to the Mexican border. Adinneli (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the "regions" subsection so as to include the "Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta" as a region of California. 166.148.67.254 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]