Talk:Santa Clarita, California

Santa Clarita, California was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 17, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

California: Los Angeles / Southern California High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External Links

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but I will try. ;) As a local resource to Santa Clarita, what is the appropriate way to suggest our site, SantaClaritaGuide.com? I also feel that the West Ranch Beacon should be added here. Rovingwriter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovingwriter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested photo

It would be nice if someone could get a panoramic photo of Santa Clarita, preferably including the spread of the city and Magic Mountain. My wife has taken some interesting pictures from the hiking trail above East Canyon off The Old Road, but they are too hazy and don't include Magic Mountain. Mike Dillon 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I took some nice photographs of the SCV when I hiked up Towsley Canyon in April. The city and hills are green after the spring rains. I'd love to upload or send you a few of the best ones. The only thing I ask is a link to my website in the Photo credits, is that possible with any of the accepted use licenses for wiki images? You can view the photos on my site www.scvtalk.com. Thanks. Jeff

Hi Jeff. Thanks for offering your image. If you're referring to this image, I think that would be a nice addition to the article. As for your licensing options, you should read Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For_image_creators. I generally license my own photos under {{GFDL-self}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} (for example, this image). Both of those licenses allow commercial use, but "cc-by-sa-2.5" (a.k.a. Creative Commons Attribution, Share-Alike 2.5) requires attribution to the original author. You can include your website in the attribution notice (under the "Licensing" section of the image description page). You would probably want to use just {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. If you don't want to allow commercial use or have other questions, you might want to ask one of the people listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Members. Mike Dillon 04:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. I agree to use cc-by-sa-2.5 with a simple hyptertext link to my website. Now, I have a higher res version of that photograph, I will upload it to my site. I'm not entirely comfortable editing Wiki pages yet; perhaps you could place the image in a good location and size it accordingly? I'll look for a way to email you. Thanks! Jeff --69.232.50.49 08:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind Mike, I figured out how to upload it after all. Do you think the placement/size etc are okay? Fun! --Jeff Wilson76 08:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the upload. I moved the photo into the infobox and shortened the caption a little to fit better in the box. The placement/size before were fine, but I think it looks cooler in the infobox. Feel free to move it back if you don't like it. Mike Dillon 15:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally sure how to comment this, but the featured collage includes Packard Humanities Institute which isn't in Santa Clarita, it's in Santa Clara. Are there any other landmarks that could be displayed there instead?

It is indeed of the Packard Humanities Institute, but not it's NorCal HQ (which is not in Santa Clara but nearby in Los Altos), this is its SoCal office in Santa Clarita. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clarita baseball team

In 2004, the Santa Clarita Express are a collegiate team, made up of semi-pro players. I don't know the league the Express was in, but had played that year against opponents from the L.A. area. The ball park was on a college campus in Canyon Country, but forgot the college's name (please tell me what it is).

I believe it was College of the Canyons...Baldwin91006 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local Media

There seems to be a long term trend of a company inserting promotional text about their website under the local media section. The problems here are twofold- one, if you take it upon yourself to add a designation under that section, keep in the spirit of the rest of the section and include all relevant media properties- not just one, and CERTAINLY not the one you own. Two, it's a core Wikipedia principle that entries have a neutral point of view (NPOV). These entries are anything but. I replaced this section with a simpler section that doesn't take favorites. Reggiejax 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some recent changes that added a list of links for online media without context or distinction. Some of these were dubious entries, but perhaps there can be a second paragraph covering the blogs, like the Santa Clarita Real Estate blog, that are still blogs but have original material as opposed to opinion-driven blogs or those that just paste a few lines from the latest stories. To benefit the readers, there should be a distinction between general interest local sites like scvtalk and mysantaclarita and blogs of local interest. Anyone know of others that fit this description? At any rate, the static portal and visitor guide type sites, as nice as they may or may not be, don't belong in the Local Media section. Reggiejax 18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggiejax - to your point I would say that SCVTalk falls into the "Blog" category. A large portion of the content does not provide objective journalism and many articles and content have the personal opinions and commentary which traditionally do not belong in news media journalism. If the community sees fit to break out another heading for these "blog" type of site then that would be an ideal place for SCVTalk, SantaClaritaRealEstateBlog and others.

Reggiejax - thanks for your recent undoings. I can assure you, these were not an inside job, as the newspaper is not known for its lack of NPOV or propaganda. On that note, I did think it fair that all local media websites be listed under "internet," even if it seems redundant. I moved the information about each organization's website to the Internet heading. SCVtv.com, though rumored to be shutting down, has an individual listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.49.253 (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete discussion stuff unless there's a real reason to do so, but since you're responding, I guess it was an accident. Anyway, really good re-write of the media stuff. BTW, SCVTV as a cable TV operation is confirmed closed now. I don't know if they were on long enough or had enough reach to warrant inclusion at this point or if it should just be deleted. At this moment it may be a worthy footnote but I wonder if in a year's time it would seem superfluous. Any thoughts? Reggiejax (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Safety

It has often been reported(and repeated) that at least 60-85% of all the sheriff's deputies in L.A. County live in Santa Clarita(of course, most deputies will try to publicly deny this fact, partly out of fear of embarrassing their city's image, or out of privacy concerns).

Can anybody try and verify this?

Thanks, Baldwin91006 18:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

I don't think the minor incidents at Valencia High School 2-3 years ago, involving 4 students justify mention under this category. Would someone please delete it? (or I could do it myself, but I prefer to add stuff, not delete) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.146.229 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Santa Clarita seal.jpg

Image:Santa Clarita seal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Newhall, Santa Clarita, California

The information at Newhall, California, can easily be combined with Santa Clarita, California. In fact, much of it is already posted there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sounds reasonable. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--RichardMathews (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Both Saugus and Newhall have illustrious histories of their own of extending over 100 years and long before "Santa Clarita" became a gleam in the real estate developers' eyes. Today the communities are often overlooked and are largely minimized by the promotional muscle behind the developed community of Valencia that shares the valley and traces its existence back to roughly 1967. - Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.224.10 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. As stated prior, Newhall is historically important and deserves to be treated as such. Boundaries notwithstanding, the area is most definitely separate from the present day product of developers, the all-encompassing “Santa Clarita.” Imveracious (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per my comments below. --Moreau36--Discuss 18:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Newhall has an established history; it is notable by itself. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Saugus, Santa Clarita, California

This community is now simply a neighborhood of Santa Clarita, and its population figures are now merged with the latter city. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we did this, we should also merge numerous city neighborhood articles on Wikipedia (which there are thousands of them). Besides, Saugus, Newhall & Valencia had distinct histories prior to merging to create the municipality of Santa Clarita in 1987. --Moreau36--Discuss 18:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sounds reasonable. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ageee--RichardMathews (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree As with Newhall, Saugus is historically important and deserves to be treated as such. Again, boundaries notwithstanding, the area is most definitely separate from the present day product of real estate developers, the all-encompassing “Santa Clarita.” Imveracious (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per other city neighborhood articles on Wikipedia (eg San Pedro, Los Angeles or Watts, Los Angeles). --Moreau36--Discuss 17:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Saugus has an established history; it is notable by itself. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesometown

Based on this article in the Los Angeles Times, the nickname "Awesometown" appears to be a marketing slogan for a housing development rather than an official nickname for the city. I'm just putting this out there in case anyone disagrees. Bahooka (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Santa Clarita, California. 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).

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) 19:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Districts

Could we add congressional districts to the infobox? Benjamin (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

libraries

Do you think we should add a section about the libraries, particularly the change from county to city systems? Benjamin (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

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

Add Cameron Ely to important people: 1st girl on vhs team English wiki ped (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Santa Clarita, California/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 06:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will review in the coming days. Sounder Bruce 06:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use an en dash instead of hyphens when dealing with dates or related terms (e.g. council–manager, Newhall–Saugus) per MOS:DASH.
Every paragraph needs an inline citation, and there are dozens that are missing them.
I suggest that you find a copyeditor (perhaps from WP:GOCE) once you're done correcting the sourcing issues, as the article isn't written with professional prose in some sections.
The first two subsections in History should be merged, as they are relatively short
The "first use of Santa Clarita" is contradicted by the paragraph above, which implies that the school district used it firsrt.
Much of the History section is choppy and needs better transitions between events. Beginning multiple paragraphs with "On X date, Y happened" with no transition is jarring for readers.
The earthquake's "devastation" isn't described all that well without numbers (e.g. deaths, injuries, homes destroyed).
Money magazine ranking should be moved to another section.
The Geography section is a mess, between the bolded city name, the lack of citations, no description of the actual city boundaries, and the inline navbox
Cityscape section is too detailed, especially if each area has its own article
ZIP codes section is very unnecessary and needs to be removed
The 1990 census section is unnecessary.
Too many tables in the Government sections; the city department directors are not notable enough to need their own table.
The shopping centers section needs to be trimmed down quite a bit, as strip malls and minor malls don't need to be mentioned unless they have something significant and notable.
"Daily News circulation numbers within the Santa Clarita Valley are not known." This gets contradicted by the next subsection.
Television section has an inline external link, which violates WP:ELNO
Highways section should be rewritten as a paragraph or two, rather than a list
Santa Clarita Diet should be a one or two sentence mention tucked under the rest of the Film section, not given top billing in the Culture section.
Old Town Newhall section doesn't quite fit the Culture section
Where's the local arts scene (murals, statues, museums, theatres, music) in the Culture section?

You've done well to expand this article, but it needs quite a bit more work before it's ready to be a GA. I suggest finding a copyeditor and perhaps trying a venue like peer review to get feedback before renominating. Sounder Bruce 05:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to elevate the article to GA status while keeping its size above 150,000 bytes (which is a pretty decent article size given the city's population). I'm aware that size doesn't always matter, but shorter articles tend to contain less information and less frequently qualify for GA status. Old Town Newhall is included in the culture section because it is a historic area of the city with a western theme, containing (among other attractions) the Walk of Western Stars. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 06:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZERULE states that an article over 100 kB should be split off. Shorter articles do pass GA with ease if they still manage to be comprehensive and thorough without being overwhelmingly detailed. Sounder Bruce 21:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles on major U.S. cities are well over 100 kB - even Everett, Washington, which has half the population of Santa Clarita and whose article was written mostly by you (and is a GA), is 205 kB. The article should be reasonably sized and detailed and should use professional language. I added the ZIP codes section after seeing a similar section on the Palmdale, California article (which is rated C-class) - I thought it would be useful information. The sentence "Daily News circulation numbers within the Santa Clarita Valley are not known" is not contradicted by the next paragraph because the next paragraph discusses the Santa Clarita Valley Signal, a completely different newspaper. Again, Old Town Newhall is included in the culture section because it is a historic area of the city with a western theme, containing (among other attractions) the Walk of Western Stars. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 23:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Racist

Alright, who removed the bit about Robert "Bob" Kellar being a "proud racist"? You're not gonna make me go through the whole edit history, are you? Benjamin (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]