Talk:Valencia, California

Archives

Requested move 13 March 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a consensus that the cleanest organization of information on this topic would involve moving the proposed title. Whether this requires a change to the name or nature of Valencia, Santa Clarita, California is perhaps a subject for another discussion, but there is a clear absence of consensus for a merge of these topics. BD2412 T 04:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FivePoint Valencia → Valencia, California – article has expanded to include entire community, not a single housing tract. Fettlemap (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The existing commercial and industrial tracts that are north of this one project refer to themselves as located in Valencia, California. FivePoint has included this project in that definition. Everything thing west of I-5 is unincorporated and not part of Santa Clarita. This article includes that unincorporated area and so can not be named after the developer's moniker. Valencia, California, is distinct from the residential/ commercial neighborhood several miles away in the city of Santa Clarita. Fettlemap (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Valencia is not two distinct communities but rather a single, contiguous community. Most of this community lies within the city of Santa Clarita, but some portions spill into unincorporated Los Angeles County (FivePoint and Six Flags). If this article is about the community of Valencia, we could merge this article into Valencia, Santa Clarita, California and possibly move that article to Valencia, California. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 01:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A remarkable proposal. The existing Valencia, Santa Clarita article is distinctly about the neighborhood inside the city. It doesn't currently include the unincorporated Valencia. That will require a new type of article. Please provide an example where a community is not listed as a neighborhood but as some type of entity partially within a city and partially out. Please provide sources and a map showing how they are one community. This does not seem like a reasonable solution to me. Fettlemap (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this article in the Santa Clarita Valley Signal. It breaks down the SCV's COVID cases by region: City of Santa Clarita, Unincorporated Acton, Unincorporated Agua Dulce, Unincorporated Canyon Country, Unincorporated Saugus, Unincorporated Newhall, Unincorporated Valencia, even Unincorporated Saugus/Canyon Country. Each neighborhood in Santa Clarita (Canyon Country, Saugus, Newhall, Valencia) includes both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Are you suggesting that Canyon Country, Santa Clarita, California and Canyon Country, California should be separate articles?

Also: Please provide an example where a community is not listed as a neighborhood but as some type of entity partially within a city and partially out. Check out La Crescenta (split between Glendale and unincorporated Los Angeles County) and Bostonia, California (split between El Cajon and unincorporated San Diego County).

Do you have any citations suggesting that Valencia west of I-5 and Valencia east of I-5 are two distinct communities? - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this page to Valencia, Santa Clarita, California, and move back to Valencia, California. Another one is Newbury Park, California that is partially within a city (Thousand Oaks) and partially out. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move back to Valencia, California, an unincorporated community. Several basic issues are involved here. 1) Should unincorporated Valencia have an article.? Yes. It is both necessary and appropriate for a recognized community that is expanding. The name meets Wikipedia naming conventions for settlements. I won't repeat the lead of the article here but please read it. Renaming FivePoint Valencia and moving it back to Valencia, California is the simple, clean, and quick. All other proposals require significant changes. 2) Oppose merger with Valencia, Santa Clarita, California. Current article does a reasonable job of describing a neighborhood within a city. It does not describe the large unincorporated community. Having two articles is the simplest way to handle the similarity with hatnotes and clarification in each article. For over 15 years, editors have neglected to include the unincorporated area while claiming exclusive use of the name. The lead description includes, "Valencia was founded as a master-planned community with the first development" which then continues to describe the residential/commercial Santa Clarita neighborhood and excludes the unincorporated Valencia. Please read the article. The freeway makes a clear division between the two communities so there is very little overlap of issues and concerns. No reason to force a merger into one article. Readers are smart enough to understand that two areas, one within a city and one outside have a similar name. Creating some kind of ungainly hybrid that will require extensive editing including renaming so it will no longer a name as one of the four neighborhoods. The infobox will be awkward. 3) Should the article retain a developer's name that is not consistently used? Of course not. FivePoint Valencia is already about more than this one development and should not be named this way. Currently the article contains details about that project, but citations and neglected content about unincorporated Valencia will continue to be added. As the Valencia project gets built, it automatically merges with unincorporated Valencia. So should the article title should include unincorporated Valencia and the process has already started in the article which was already named Valencia, California before acquiring the new title. The existing commercial/business/industrial tracts, that are north of this one project, refer to themselves as located in Valencia, California.(Google map) --- This article (provided as an example above) clearly separates the City of Santa Clarita from the unincorporated areas. Data is not merged across city limits so each piece of data would have to be explained in a merged article if it applies to the city neighborhood or the unincorporated area. Merging the data could be considered original research. I have examined at least fifty articles that link to Valencia, California. While I have improved the wikilink on those that were intended for the city neighborhood, I have seen plenty that are about the unincorporated Valencia. While movies have been filmed in the neighborhood (and so noted), many have been filmed in the unincorporated areas of Valencia, California. The communities that are offered as examples are from situations where there are islands or strips of unincorporated and city intermingled in such a way that it is not obvious to be common person which jurisdiction they are in. None have a clear dividing line such as the freeway that divides the communities here. Both Bostonia and La Crescenta are both Census-designated place (CDP) presented as similar examples. The La Crescenta article is clear that no part of it is within an incorporated city and so does not provide an example of a similar situation. The Bostonia has a CDP infobox (no overlap) but within the article tries to explain how it is a neighborhood but fails to explain that two "fingers" of El Cajon extend into the middle of the neighborhood which is also handled poorly in the El Cajon article. Again, this is not an example we would want to use and both Valencia, Santa Clarita and unincorporated Valencia are better articles than these already. The Newbury Park article is an interesting pastiche of the community's thoughts about what was an unincorporated town before most of it was included in the incorporation of Thousand Oaks. This news item gives a bit of the flavor. Quote from article: "Most of it lies within the western Thousand Oaks city limits while other parts of Newbury Park such as Casa Conejo and Ventu Park remain in unincorporated areas." Again with these unincorporated small areas, which have their own articles, it is not obvious to common person which jurisdiction they are in. There is no clear visible distinction so it is not similar to Valencia. Because data is not presented the way the "town" is presented in this article, community boosters found some source besides the Census Bureau to come up with a population. That does not seem to be an example one would want to follow. So far, a merged article does not have a suitable example. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fettlemap has given this matter a lot of thought and has written succinctly about the geography and history of the area. I believe the closing admin should give Fettlemap's posting a good deal of weight. At any rate, if this change is made it can always be reverted in the future if the political situation changes on the ground. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unincorporated Valencia and Valencia, Santa Clarita are the same community. I-5 in Valencia does not separate two communities - rather, it passes through a single community. I live in Santa Clarita and I know from personal experience that there is only one Valencia (of course, personal experience cannot be cited). Do you have any sources suggesting that Valencia west of I-5 and Valencia east of I-5 are two distinct communities?

The existing commercial/business/industrial tracts, that are north of this one project, refer to themselves as located in Valencia, California. The Westfield Valencia Town Center gives its address as 24201 West Valencia Blvd Suite 150, Valencia, CA 91355. Valencia High School gives its address as 27801 North Dickason Dr. Valencia, CA 91355. Both are in the city of Santa Clarita.

Data is not merged across city limits so each piece of data would have to be explained in a merged article if it applies to the city neighborhood or the unincorporated area. Santa Clarita does not officially define its neighborhoods, so for census statistics, Valencia can be treated as the sum of the 91354 and 91355 zip codes. The 91355 zip code straddles the city boundary and includes the FivePoint Valencia project. Compiling separate census statistics for incorporated and unincorporated Valencia would be unwieldy and unnecessarily tedious and would require original research. And what about people who grew up in Valencia - how do we determine whether they grew up west or east of I-5?

And according to the Signal article, all the neighborhoods in Santa Clarita extend into unincorporated areas. That would require a pair of articles for each Santa Clarita neighborhood:

That is an extremely unreasonable proposal and it conflicts with locals' perception of the areas as well as zip code boundaries. Santa Clarita is an expanding city and has annexed numerous subdivisions in Valencia, Saugus, Newhall, and Canyon Country in the last decade alone. The neighborhoods did not change with Santa Clarita's annexation of the areas. In Santa Clarita, neighborhood boundaries are generally independent of city boundaries.

Is there any precedent for splitting two portions of the same community (with same zip code, same schools, same name, etc.) into two articles? - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 22:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We have separate articles on Las Vegas, the Las Vegas Valley, the Las Vegas Strip, Paradise, Nevada, and Winchester, Nevada. And the last two unincorporated communities share a police department and a school district with the incorporated city. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those communities (Paradise and Winchester, NV) have different names and they are both unincorporated towns (under Nevada state law) and census-designated places. These communities, though unincorporated, have a limited form of government (in the form of a town advisory board). Unincorporated Valencia has no form of government and is not a census-designated place. So finding population and demographic statistics would be a pain in the neck as it doesn't have its own zip code, but shares the 91355 zip code with much of incorporated Valencia. Also, Paradise and Winchester have their own names, while unincorporated Valencia shares its name with the adjacent Santa Clarita neighborhood. There's no qualifier (ex. "West Valencia") to distinguish unincorporated Valencia from Valencia, Santa Clarita. They are the same community.

Speaking of Las Vegas, here's an example of a split community in the Las Vegas area: Summerlin, Nevada. To quote the Wikipedia article: It is partly within the official city limits of Las Vegas and partly within unincorporated Clark County. The only difference is that in Valencia the boundary happens to follow a freeway. It's still the same community. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is general agreement that Valencia is one community. There are references that regard the development of the area by Newhall Land in the same way. The difference becomes apparent to residents when they go to vote for mayor or get a building permit. Residents in unincorporated Valencia do not get to vote for the mayor. Building permits must be obtained from the office in proper jurisdiction (county or city). I am not proposing splitting the community into two articles as this has already occurred. The Valencia, Santa Clarita article makes it very clear it is just about the neighborhood within the incorporated limits of the city. The article acknowledges that unincorporated Valencia exists. Under the Community section it says all incorporated portions of Valencia are east of the freeway while unincorporated portions are west of the freeway. Under the Attractions section it says Six Flags Magic Mountain is located in unincorporated Valencia. So the article on Valencia, Santa Clarita already anticipated the current article under the naming discussion, Valencia, California. The only edit I made to the Valencia, Santa Clarita article was adding the hatnote template so people could find the article about unincorporated Valencia. I did not create the split into two articles, it has occurred over the past 15 years. ~~You should know that it is also possible that an article could still be written about the entire community of Valencia.~~ There is a lot of history between the time Newhall Land conceived of the development and the incorporation of Santa Clarita that is not covered in the Valencia, Santa Clarita article. While articles generally do not duplicate much information, they do overlap so a reader can find the information that most interests them. And to follow up on some of your other questions, ZIP Codes are used for delivering mail and do not need to conform to city boundaries which is certainly the case in the Santa Clarita Valley. Likewise with school districts. Once their boundaries are established, they do not change with the incorporation of cities in California or when additional territory is annexed. ~~As far as people being born in Valencia, I would have them check their birth certificate and ask their parents opinion.~~ As far as the other unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita valley, I have not researched them so I cannot comment on the other neighborhoods that were incorporated into the city of Santa Clarita. As I have mentioned before, the proposed name conforms to Wikipedia's naming policy for settlements. No suitable alternative name has been suggested yet. Fettlemap (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I am proposing that we keep the entire community of Valencia within one article. We do not need separate articles on incorporated and unincorporated Valencia. We can move this article to Valencia, California, and merge Valencia, Santa Clarita, California into that article. (Or move Valencia, Santa Clarita, California to Valencia, California and merge FivePoint Valencia into that article - same end result.) And now even Fettlemap concedes that "Valencia is one community" after stating that "the freeway makes a clear division between the two communities" in an earlier post.

I did not create the split into two articles, it has occurred over the past 15 years. Until recently, this article was about a specific development within unincorporated Valencia, which was called Newhall Ranch. Then User:Fettlemap moved this article to Valencia, California and expanded it to include all of Valencia west of I-5. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support move back to Valencia, California, for the reasons thoughtfully expressed by User:Fettlemap. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no suggestion that FivePoint-Valencia is an appropriate name or an alternative suggestion. The name change should proceed when this move discussion is closed, acknowledging the consensus on the subject of this article. As a second step, a new discussion could be opened to take a serious look at the more drastic, controversial merger proposal. Wikipedia guidance says that merging should be avoided if the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles. The articles only overlap a small appropriate amount. A merger would involve a complete rewrite of the Valencia, Santa Clarita article which seems odd to take a perfectly fine article and completely change the structure and infobox. The merger would disrupt the four carefully crafted articles about the neighborhoods of Santa Clarita. There has been no interest in covering unincorporated Valencia in the long time since these four neighborhood articles were developed. The sudden suggestion to merge is merely to claim the name. During the initial hurried change of the title, there was no interest in inclusivity of the unincorporated area. There has been no real discussion of how to include FivePoint-Valencia and the other developments in the unincorporated area. The forced merger is merely to make sure there is only one article with the name Valencia. The merging proposal seems hurried and not well thought out. The Valencia, California article can continue to cover the pre-annexation history along with the continued history of the unincorporated area rather than shoehorn the neighborhood article into it. Fettlemap (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to FivePoint Valencia because of my misconception that this article only covers that specific project (formerly known as Newhall Ranch). That being said, Valencia is not a sufficiently expansive topic to warrant more than one article. The combined size of the FivePoint Valencia and Valencia, Santa Clarita, California articles is 31,976 bytes. For comparison, the Santa Clarita, California article is over 140,000 bytes long. In addition, the Valencia, Santa Clarita article already mentions unincorporated Valencia: "It is located along Interstate 5; all incorporated portions of Valencia are east of the freeway, while unincorporated portions are west of the freeway" and "Six Flags Magic Mountain is located in unincorporated Valencia" (both statements were added by me). The only changes to the infobox would be removing the "city" field and replacing "Neighborhood of Santa Clarita" with "Neighborhood" or "Community." Area code (661) remains the same, GNIS feature ID remains the same, and population is simply the sum of the populations of the 91354 and 91355 zip codes. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 22:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear jurisdictional boundary between the two communities in Valencia. In this unusual case, there is also a physical boundary of the freeway. The vague, warm, fuzzy feeling of one united community can be expressed in the individual articles without trying to force them into an awkward, ungainly hybrid article with a questionable basis of data such as ZIP codes. Fettlemap (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia doesn't just feel like one community; it is one community. They not only have the same ZIP code, they have the same name. The city boundary and the 5 freeway do not separate Valencia into two communities; they pass through one community. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 07:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I again concur with Fettlemap's position. Again, the obvious counterargument is the Las Vegas situation. The Las Vegas Strip and Las Vegas may look like one community to tourists (especially because they share a police force and the postal addresses read "Las Vegas, NV") but that doesn't actually make them one community. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in Las Vegas Strip is Strip. The Las Vegas Strip is a specific portion of the Las Vegas metropolitan area. By contrast, Valencia is Valencia. Here is a map that shows the approximate boundaries of SCV neighborhoods, including Valencia. Note that Valencia (the green area) includes areas both east and west of I-5. (The Santa Clarita city limits are shown as a red line.) - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 06:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where does the Tesoro del Valle neighborhood belong?

Resolved

The Tesoro del Valle community (see map) is located north of Copper Hill Drive and includes Tesoro Adobe Park and Tesoro del Valle Elementary School. It is located just outside the Santa Clarita city limits.

Unlike the rest of unincorporated Valencia, however, Tesoro del Valle is east of Interstate 5, is in zip code 91354 (not 91355), and is within Santa Clarita's sphere of influence. It is about 3 miles removed from the rest of unincorporated Valencia, but is adjacent to populated areas of the city of Santa Clarita.

Would Tesoro del Valle belong in the scope of the Valencia, California article or the Valencia, Santa Clarita, California article? - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 18:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The sphere of influence is a Municipal growth boundary that delineates the area that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) believes is the appropriate and probable future city limit." Fettlemap (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So would the neighborhood belong in the Valencia, Santa Clarita, California article or the Valencia, California article? Is the Valencia, California article about all of unincorporated Valencia, or just the part of Valencia west of I-5? - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 01:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the context in each article and what the sources say. I don't believe the Valencia neighborhood article discusses what Sphere of Influence means and the general reader probably doesn't know what the term means. Zip code is only a routing mechanism for delivering mail so is totally irrelevant. Being located east of I-5 is a significant element. Fettlemap (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the zip code field is added to the infobox should it say "91354, 91355" or just "91355?" In addition, Tesoro del Valle is also the only community in unincorporated Valencia zoned to Valencia High School, while the rest of unincorporated Valencia (west of I-5) is zoned to West Ranch and Castaic High Schools. When the "education" section is added to the article, should it say that Valencia is served by Castaic and West Ranch High Schools, or Castaic, Valencia, and West Ranch High Schools? - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 03:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Valencia, California article does not currently include any area east of I-5. If you have sources, please provide them. Being adjacent to the city neighborhood of Valencia does not make it part of unincorporated Valencia. The zip codes while mostly being 91355 includes small portions of 91381 and 91384 as these mail delivery areas are not defined in the same way as the subject of the articles. I didn't look at the schools but the same comments apply. All of the area east of I-5 per the Valencia Master Plan prepared in 1965 by Gruen Associates has already been incorporated into the city of Santa Clarita so none of the unincorporated area east of I-5 is considered unincorporated Valencia. Tesoro del Valle is far outside the original master plan. Fettlemap (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Valencia Master Plan prepared in 1965 by Gruen Associates only covers about half of what is now Valencia, Santa Clarita. Aside from Tesoro del Valle, areas like Northpark, Northbridge, West Creek, West Hills, Copper Hill, the Valencia High School area, and even Bridgeport weren't in the master plan, yet they are almost universally considered part of Valencia. FivePoint is also excluded. See the Gruen Associates map here. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1960s, the Newhall Land and Farming Company started a community named after a crop that was grown there, the Valencia orange. The master-planned Newhall Ranch development was also conceived in the 1980s by Newhall Land which not included in the original Valencia master plan. Although the developer is now called FivePoint after changes in ownership, Newhall Ranch is clearly a continuation of the legacy of Valencia and appropriately called by that name. Fettlemap (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that just because a neighborhood is not included in Valencia's original 1965 master plan does not mean it is not part of Valencia. Check out Gregory Real Estate Group's definition of Valencia (which includes all the aforementioned Valencia communities including Tesoro del Valle). Even the Facebook page of Tesoro del Valle (TDV) refers to it as part of Valencia.
The question is not whether TDV is in Valencia, but whether it would belong in this article or the Valencia, Santa Clarita article. It is the only unincorporated Valencia neighborhood that is east of I-5. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to wait till you have a reliable source. There is no hurry to add content to Wikipedia without reliable sources. FB and a realty website are not reliable sources. Fettlemap (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook page is not some random post on Facebook, but rather the page of the neighborhood itself.

The neighborhoods of the Santa Clarita Valley are largely a product of real estate developers (not officially defined by any government authority), so a realty website is one of the more reliable sources for determining neighborhood boundaries.

Some more sources: Tesoro del Valle Elementary School (which describes its location as Valencia) and Hometown Station (the main radio station serving Santa Clarita). (Pinging @Fettlemap:) - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Hometown Station: The potential annexation would add the Tesoro del Valle neighborhood and surrounding undeveloped lands in what is currently considered unincorporated Los Angeles County to the City of Santa Clarita. So it is not only within the sphere of influence but it is in the annexation process. It will become part of the city of Santa Clarita. Nothing to do with unincorporated Valencia. Fettlemap (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that even though TDV is currently still unincorporated (see the city map), it would belong under the scope of Valencia, Santa Clarita, California. (The Hometown Station article was written in October 2019, and as of May 2021, it is still outside the city limits.) - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]