Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Archive 1

Some fun

CA-3

This user is, like, able to, like, contribute with an advanced level of California English, as well as, like, the Valspeak dialect.

San Dieguito County Park

As a former resident of California, I would like to add a page for the San Dieguito County Park, in Solana Beach, California. Can you give me some pointers as to any templating you would like or other general format requests? I also have pictures I could contribute, and there is ample state documentation. Not sure whether works produced by California State Government are copyrighted or not. Thanks. Avriette July 1, 2005 03:32 (UTC)

As far as I know, almost all text from the State of California and its various departments and agencies are in the public domain, although it is best to check the website that you are getting the text from just to verify that. I just used a bunch of the info from the Dept. of Fish and Game website to help write the Grunion article.

The same, however, does not always hold true for drawings and photos because the state does use other people's images who retain the copyright, so those would require a separate permission to be used on the Wikipedia. However, if the image was produced by an employee of the State of California during the course of the work, then it is also in the public domain.

San Dieguito County Park, however is a County and not a Sate park, and the info on the the county website may not be in the public domain. In that case you just have to rewrite and rearrange the info from the County website. San Dieguito County Park - San Diego County.

Here's the webpage on San Diego County website policies. The info on their website is rather confusing, saying both that it can only be used for non-commerical uses (which violates the GFDL license which says there can't be restrictions of commercial use), but also saying it is in the public domain.

"Except for the third party materials described below, the materials and information on this site were generated, compiled, or assembled at public expense and are freely available for non-commercial, non-profit making use, provided the user keeps intact all associated copyright, trademark, and other proprietary notices. The materials and information on this site may not be "mirrored" on another server without the written permission of the CTO."
"Restrictions On Use Of Materials: Except as provided herein, no material or information from this site may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed except as authorized in this notice, expressly authorized within this site, or approved in writing by the CTO."
Copyright Notice: Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the County of San Diego Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used with the County of San Diego's permission. We request only that the County of San Diego be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits, graphics or byline be similarly credited to the photographer, author or County of San Diego, as appropriate."
" Using or modifying this site's materials and information for commercial or profit making purposes is prohibited and may violate the copyrights and/or other proprietary rights of the County of San Diego or third parties."

FYI:Many of the state parks already have articles created using the information from the State's Parks and Recreation website. I would, however, advise you to be cautious about the accuracy of their information. I found several errors in their information on Bolsa Chica State Beach.

For your own photos, when you upload them, just make sure that you add the proper template. You could release the photos into the public domain, or you could retain the copyright but license the images using the GFDL licence. If they are images that you think that might be used by the other Wikipedias written in non-English languages, you should upload the images to Commons instead of just to en.wiki.x.io.

As a former resident of San Diego county, I have found memories of dancing at the Belly Up Tavern in Solana Beach. BlankVerse ∅ 1 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

Deletion list

Hi folks,

I just wanted to let you know about a list of votes for deletion on articles related to California. You can find the list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California.

Since you're interested in California and improving Wikipedia's coverage of California-related topics, you might want to monitor this list.

If you find the list useful, please also help to maintain it by adding new items and archiving old ones. Thanks!

Cheers,

-- Visviva 16:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS New members are needed and welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Hope to see you there!

Contribution questions

Hi, I'm kind of new to this Wiki thing, but thought I might try and contribute a bit and try writing a few articles. More specifically, I was thinking of trying to write articles for the Uvas Canyon County Park, Rocky Creek Bridge, and Bixby Creek Arch Bridge stubs. I recently moved to CA from ND and came to Wikipedia looking for some info on those and found them lacking, so I'd like to try and gather info for an article to put up here.

Anyway, are there any templates or guidelines I should follow for this project to keep my articles consistent? --Deiussum 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The California WikiProject does not have any particular article guidelines, but if check, some of the related WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities do have guidelines and suggestions. There is also all of the material in the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

The other thing to consider is what is the basic information that a reader of the article needs to know. For example, for the bridge articles that you mientioned: I assume that there is a road or train track that crosses the bridge, but the articles make no mention of that (Rocky Creek Bridge mentions PCH, but Bixby Creek Arch Bridge doesn't). The articles also need to mention which county they are in, and which cities they are near or between. If you can find out the information, you should mention who maintains the bridges (state, county, or city), and if there has been any earthquake retrofitting done to the bridges (and when). If you know anything about Bixby Creek and/or Rocky Creek, you should add that info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlankVerse (talk • contribs) 2005-11-02 09:02

Category:People from California

This category is getting pretty unwieldy with a lot of people. I propose that we create subcategories for regions (North, Central, and Southern) and then furthermore create categories for major cities within those regions. Any opposition? Additionally, I've proposed renaming a few categories like Category:San Franciscans to Category:People from San Francisco (see discussion). --howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 23:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Category:People from San Francisco should be Category:People from San Francisco, California to be a little more global. As for splitting into North, Central, and Southern, I think it is problematic because not everyone agrees on what what defines those regions. Breaking out people from major cities or metropolitan areas from the main category doesn't sound like a bad idea, though. Mike Dillon 00:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; we probably don't need the regional ones, but I don't think there's a need to append ", California" to the category names unless there's the possibility of confusion with another city of the same name. --howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 16:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only suggested a name change because there is a San Francisco (disambiguation) page. After looking at it more closely, it looks like none of the cities there will ever be notable enough to have their own categories, so nevermind that suggestion. As for the regional ones, I don't think it's a bad way to split the main category, I just think the split will be ambiguous for some cases and possibly contentious in others. I actually think it works great for self-selected stuff like Category:Wikipedians in Southern California. Mike Dillon 17:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. Adding "California" to the end of the category names is a good idea, because invariably some will need it and some won't, so then we'll end up having a few that are Category:People from some city and others that are Category:People from another city, California. I remember the reason why I thought of the regions too -- there can't be a need to have a category for every city in the state, but there are going to be people from small towns that don't merit a category, and it would be nice to throw them in some other bucket besides "People from California." Perhaps we should have a breakdown by county first? --howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 16:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure the hugeness of the category is a big problem. The only problem I can see with it is that the subcategory navigation requires hacks like the leading space to show all subcats on the first page. Otherwise, I don't think that splitting is necessary except wherever there is a clear case for a city-based category. The county thing would be too confusing because it requires a lot of local knowledge to be useful. For example, it wouldn't be obvious that Category:People from Stanislaus County, California might have people from Modesto and Turlock unless you are familiar with the Central Valley. Mike Dillon 05:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you're right about that. What about categories for the major metropolitan areas then? I went through Category:People from California today and sorted a bunch of people whose last names started with A and B, and there were a number of SF Bay Area people or Greater LA metro area people that I didn't move to the more specific categories. Perhaps we have Category:People from the San Francisco Bay Area and Category:People from the Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area and then put SF and LA as subcats of those with the others just lumped in that category? howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 07:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Central California is known as CenCal here in the San Joaquin Valley (which is the very center of California), and I believe that there are also NorCal and SoCal for northern and southern California, but only know for sure of the wide use of "CenCal" here in the central valley.JadedHeart 07:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template:PD-CAGov

{{PD-CAGov}} has been nominated for deletion by User:SPUI. Plase join in the relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 13#Template:PD-CAGov. ^Blank ^Verse 13:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the assesment section. --evrik 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California

Many articles covered by this WikiProject lack photographs. As part of a subcategorization of the requested photos category, there is now a category for California articles needing photos - to use it, just add {{reqphotoin|California}} to the article's talk page. I have only added a few articles to the category so far, but it would be an easy way to make an extensive list California-related articles lacking photos. I hope you find it useful! TheGrappler 04:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History buff needed

Please check out List of current and former capital cities in the United States and make sure that California's capital cities are listed accurately. A word of warning: the page does contain quite a bit of complicated wiki formatting, so if you're not comfortable editing it, just post your changes on the talk page and someone more experienced will apply them to the article. JEK 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate articles for Portal:United States

I've worked for the past month to update Portal:United States and keep it better maintained. Though, I think the portal would be even better with broader participation. One way to do that is instead of choosing the "selected article" myself each week, if others would nominate articles and help make decisions. (same goes for pictures, though these are stocked up through July 29) If there is anything related to California (or anything else related to the U.S. - culture, music, literature, geography, history, politics, ...), please nominate. I'd also like people to weigh in on the nominations and help select what should be featured. Thanks. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New "People from [city]" Categories

Hello, everybody. I am the bozo who just recently created the new subcategories in the "People from California" category. I thought that some of you might want to know why they were created, and why they often have so few pages in them.

The majority of the states have "People from [state]" categories which have at least 200 entries, sometimes over 1,000. This is clearly an unworkably large number for anyone wishing to use the category for research purposes. In 8th grade in Rapid City, South Dakota, the social studies class asked us to write, over the course of the year, reports on two or three people who were or had been residents of the city. Because of that, I have reason to believe that they could be used and probably are used for research purposes. To make such research easier, I looked at the list of metropolitan statistical areas and basically entered in one new category for each metropolitan statistical area.

I know that many of these categories might well be, in the eyes of you who know more about the cities in question much better than I do, misnamed or otherwise faulty. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made along those lines, and I would welcome any corrections, including deletion, that any of the rest of you might choose to make. With that in mind, I have also generally populated the categories with only one or two names, to ease in the process of deletion or renaming.

I thought you all should know why these categories were created, and felt some degree of responsibility for letting your know. I wish you all the greatest good fortune in making the coverage of your state in Wikipedia of the greatest scope and quality possible, and I hope that I haven't annoyed too many of you by my recent actions. Badbilltucker 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll

There is a new poll on naming communities within cities at Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll. Since many of the communities that have had article naming disputes are located in California (including Hollywood, La Jolla, and Anaheim Hills) the participants in the California WikiProject should add their votes and comments to the discussion so that hopefully there will be a clear consensus and that will then stop most of the interminable debates on this issue. ^Blank ^Verse 11:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move, San Francisco, California -> San Francisco

It looks like Serge, who is unhappy with the current naming standard for cities, has embarked on a city-by-city effort of renaming them, starting with Chicago, and now continueing with San Francisco. My personal opinion is that the current system works fine, but you may have other opinions. Please visit Talk:San Francisco, California and register your opinion. There is also a more general survey on naming cities at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). ^Blank ^Verse 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Los Angeles USD

For the reasons that I stated at Template talk:Los Angeles USD, Template:Los Angeles USD has been nominated for deletion. The template is already huge and ugly. Imagine it populated with all 1,035 LAUSD schools. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ^Blank ^Verse 20:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CA-geo-stub sub-types proposed

There's a discussion here about how best to (further) split up the Category:California geography stubs. Ideally, we'd do this by generally-recognised regions consisting of a readily-identifiable list of whole counties, such that there's at least 60 existing stubs in each (but not so many as to mean we're likely to be doing the same thing again before too long). Comments welcome. Alai 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is over, see the new stub section on the project page. --Daniel Olsen 04:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua A. Norton

Joshua A. Norton is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Congratulations! --Daniel Olsen 04:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- That'll teach me to read things more carefully. --Daniel Olsen 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections? Subpages?

"This page is 33 kilobytes long." Seems like we have a problem here, I think this project needs subpages to store all the extra info. --Daniel Olsen 04:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page just needs to be archived. ^Blank ^Verse 10:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peer review requested - California Gold Rush

Peer review has been requested for the California Gold Rush article. All comments and suggestions are being accepted with an eye towards possible nomination of that article as a Featured Article. NorCalHistory 07:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to everyone who contributed suggestions and editorial comments during the recent peer review of this article, which has just closed and is available for your reading.

I would like to repeat here the following comment from the Discussion page of the article:

Excellent improvements

I first read this article in the early stages of peer review. The editors here have done a fine job of improving it. In my opinion you're safely into good article territory and possibly featured article quality. I've recused myself from awarding GA because I participated in peer review, but since that's about to close I recommend you open a good article nomination. Warmly, Durova 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this comment, I would like to suggest that this article be submitted for good article or featured article status. Responses please! NorCalHistory 10:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:California

Portal:California has recently been created, but it needs some filling out to turn it into a full-fledged Portal. ^Blank ^Verse 07:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of California

Nobody seems to have mentioned that California is still the #4 petroleum-producing US state, after Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana. California produces about 700,000 barrels of oil a day - down 40% from the 1985 peak, but still a goodly amount of the stuff. More importantly, 100+ years ago, the availability of abundant oil from the new burgeoning oil fields gave a huge boost to the California economy. California, and the whole west coast lacked one important item for a growing economy - fuel. The east coast had plenty of coal, California had only small deposits of low-grade stuff. Look at early photographs of the gold rush country. Something's missing - trees. Cut down for fuel and timber. Sailing ships used to carry coal in their bilges as ballast, along with regular cargo, when headed to California. That all changed when abundant oil became available in the late 1800's. Railroads, smelters, cement plants, all manner of industrial processes switched from coal to oil to fire their furnaces and boilers. Then came the internal combustion engine - where would California agriculture be without tractors? So, how about a mention of California's "real" gold - the black kind. By the 1930's, the total dollar value of oil produced was something like 100 times more than that of gold and silver.

rossab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossab (talk • contribs)

Invitation to new WikiProject

A new WikiProject has been started, and may be of interest to members here. It is WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. It covers all listings on the Register, in all states and territories. Should you be so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties. -Ebyabe 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Natural History Stubs and Subproject

I'd like to place the California Natural History articles all in one location, or get a list of them, or a place where stubs are, or make notice of them on the project page. Can there be a section added to the project page for California Natural History? This would then be a place to organize requests and categories for all natural history topic, including natural resources, such as our black gold, and our white gold: the borax mines, plant communities, plant stubs for endemic species, endangered species, waterfalls, national and state parks, and geology.

Would this be appropriate and useful for others? I do have pictures that could be used on many of the California Natural History pages, but don't have much talent for inserting pictures into articles, yet.

KP Botany 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are organized by categories. You can find all of the California articles under Category:California, and then California natural history under the subcategory Category:Natural history of California.

Natural history stubs are classified by type or topic, but not by region. The entire list of stubs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types with categories including numerous stubs in the Biological sciences, and the geology stubs under the Physical sciences. You could also tag some of the stub articles with the {{California-stub}}, but I'd only do that when the organism or topic is exclusive to California.

There are also overview articles on California topics, such as Geography of California and Ecology of California (which is highly inadequate for the size of the state, as well as the diversity of the state's ecology).

Does that cover what you were interested in? ^Blank ^Verse 10:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it doesn't cover it, certainly it is a big enough start. And, yes, the ecology is highly inadequate. Thanks. KP Botany 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 18:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

californian userbox

i'm not *in* california anymore, but i still consider myself a californian. ergo:

This user is from California.

it doesn't link into any categories or anything, just a plain userbox. if someone involved with the wikiproject wants to add it to that page, i just don't want to step on any toes.

Frijole 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of making a {{User Wikiproject California}} similar to what the {{User Wikiproject Pennsylvania}} and other WikiProjects have. It will perhaps be linked to a category so that we don't have to maintain a manual list on the WikiProject California page. I'd also market the category as a non-userbox option for ppl who don't like userboxes.

I'll wait a day or two for feedback, and if there aren't any objections I'll proceed. Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 10:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the userbox is a good idea ... there are some admins who might delete a new userbox on site. --evrik ^(talk) 15:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User WikiProject California}} - deleted by User:Cyde

that appears to have been deleted b/c of where it was placed, not for what it was. Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does that mean? --evrik ^(talk) 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The admin's comment was "New userbox created in template space; should have been created in userspace per WP:GUS". New userboxes should go in userspace. I don't see a history log or a talk page log so I can't tell if it was a summary deletion or if the creator was offered a chance to move it. But I'm a member of two other U.S. state (PA, VA) WikiProjects that do have associated userboxes so I can't imagine they are "illegal" in and of themselves. Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 17:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was summarily deleted. --evrik ^(talk) 17:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Userbox, rather then making it a template. WikiProject userboxes should be created as subpages of the project they belong to, not just randomly out there in template space. --Cyde Weys 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did exactly that. Thanks for the direction. Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 23:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly do userbox templates not belong in template space? What about {{MultiLicensePD}} and {{WikimediaTextLicensing}}, both of which are meant for the "User:" namespace (just like userboxes)? Making it a subpage is just as arbitrary as putting it in "Template:". The categories under Category:Wikipedia templates should be enough to differentiate templates that are and are not suitable for the main namespace. Mike Dillon 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baja California

So, does Baja California actually qualify for inclusion within this WikiProject? Before answering, consider the history of California, when all of it was a territory of Mexico, and what was Alta California back then is today the U.S. state of California. That should make it an article "related to the U.S. state of California" stated on the top of the project page. If it is, place the project notice template on the top of their talk pages? At least have some collaboration with WikiProject Mexico on the Baja California articles and the Alta/Baja border. --Geopgeop 14:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not ... --evrik ^(talk) 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot.

Your bot has added Inspector General to your wikiproject, aswell as several other articles that I've come across in my travels. I'm just not sure why it would be part of this wikiproject so thought it best to let you know. The bot is 'MetsBot'. If I've missed something and it's perfectly reasonable for that article to be in your project, then you have my apologies.--SGGH 18:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have it right. Check out the comments at User:MetsBot. --evrik ^(talk) 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obliteration of Scouting articles related to California

Earlier this year, there was a mass killing of articles about Boy Scout councils and Boy Scout camps. Many of the articles were of poor quality, but the real reason that the articles failed to be saved was lack of a coordinated defense on the part of the Scouting WikiProject. In response to that, there was a move by one user to merge as many Scouting related articles as possible into ‘state’ articles like Scouting in California rather than a push to expand the smaller articles that existed.

In term of California, these articles no longer exist.

I’m pointing this out to you, because WikiProject Pennsylvania has made a concerted effort to save our articles, which is why ours are most of the few that still exist. --evrik ^(talk) 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on "California Least Tern" should not have been destroyed

The article "Californian Least Tern" was obliterated in a merge into least tern. the article covered an important subspecies in california and was focussed and well written on that subject. click Here to see the article that was destroyed. that article should be restored. Anyone interested in this matter may comment Comment Here Covalent 17:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So fork that off into a new article. In the edit you've given us, the Least Tern article was focused on the California Least Tern when there are two other subspecies, and I see no article ever having been at California Least Tern. howch e ng {chat} 17:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad -- Californian Least Tern ("Californian") has never existed. Still, there's nothing preventing you from writing a new article at California Least Tern. howch e ng {chat} 17:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article existed for most of 2006. Just click Here to view it. The article doesnt need to be rewritten: just restored to the form it was in before it was moved to "least tern"...but the history should be moved, which needs an admin assist, which is why concensus is needed here. Covalent 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the history can only be attached to one article, so I can't take a partial edit history and move it to another article. The only way you can do this is to do a copy-paste from the old version in the history of Least Tern and in your edit summary, do something like, "Content split from Least Tern". See Wikipedia:Summary style for more information. howch e ng {chat} 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion - California State Normal School article

As part of the WikiProject California, the article on the California State Normal School should be undeleted. The California State Normal School was the first public institution of higher learning in California, and the campaign to delete this article was lead by a San Jose State University student in an effort to censor and suppress references to that school's original name. The article did share some text with the SJSU article, but I personally pledge to make sure the two articles do not share any text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.98.197.66 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see how the SJSU article attempts "to censor and suppress references to that school's original name" since it seems to discuss this extensively in both the introduction and "History" sections. It could be possible to make California State Normal School a separate article that deals with the school as a teacher's college, but this discussion should be taking place on Talk:San José State University, not here. howch e ng {chat} 20:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California roll

I wonder if the addition of this is obvious or not, but is the California roll under the scope of this project? Considering its origins... --Geopgeop 11:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It even gets a mention in the Cuisine of California article (which really needs lots of work).

On the other hand, the article seems fairly good to me, although it would be nice to have a close-up photo of a 'typical' California roll.

Is there a specific reason that you asked about that particular article? ^Blank ^Verse 13:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch necessary on the Eureka, California article.

Hello, I am new to the community. I was motivated to become a member when I read for the second or third time the artical showcasing Eureka to the world.

I discovered a laundry list of messes in the local police department and a diatribe focusing far too much on a slaughter of local natives that occured in 1860. Yes this 1860 nightmare occurred as did many others accross the nation. But what I found unacceptable is that it took the lionshare of the space of what was printed in the article. When I compared this focus with other cities, I found no such focus on the negative in light of a glaring absence of /focus on of the basics one expects in an encyclopedic reference.

This vitriol was in place of what could be a rich article on one of California's gems, the micropolitan center, Eureka, CA. This little city is living expression of the State Motto "Eureka: I have found it." And its rich history and ongoing revitalization deserves better.

Being new to this community, I unwittingly began an overhaul of the article to get to a foundation and then to rebuild the article in a way that showcases cultural attributes, resources, and history. I was amazed I could do this. But being an historian whose expertise in California history is even more focused on the North Coast, I determined I could right a wrong.

Organically I began the process, not realizing the hornets nest that could be stirred.

I bring this to your attention after my mistake of understanding Eureka and the Redwood Emprire and a sincere desire to focus on a star of California.

I may end up in a political quagmire here as a result of undoing the ridiculousness of the now (today) removed section on Law Enforcement and the lopsided area on History. I am tempted to walk away, but felt since Eureka is on the WIKIPROJECT CALIFORNIA that I would bring it to the attention of the project first.

So far a monitor has allowed my changes to remiain. I can only imagine the hurt individuals who were responsible for the odd extensivity of the negativity in the old sections I removed will not go away so easily.

So I present this simple idea. Why not leave the text of the slaughter of the Wiyots in the article under that name. Why not leave the mess with police misdeeds in a separate article on police problems and misdeeds.

All I ask is why should such a great little city in the midst of its rebirth as a revitalized regionial center be subjected to any continued torture for its shady past and current problems, especially as outlined regarding police. Not Even the Los Angeles listing has this negativity, though its police are certainly often deserving of such notation. I found reference to methamphetamines in the Eureka article overview, but in Oakland and San Francisco no such notation exists for "crack" and "methamphetamines," respectively.

I believe these issues need to be in the public perview, but not in the lopsided way, I found in the Eureka article. I realize I should have made this point before I made sweeping changes in the article, but it was ridiculous as a social historian to allow it to remain. And it was only later in the process that I discovered the protocol herein for change.

Again a monitor of the site allowed my changes to occur as of today, but I ask that those interested in this project monitor for the reaction and what may occur.

I apologize for not understanding how article editing is suposed to occur. But clearly Wikipedia is not a place only to bash a locale for its past. We can do better and I expect all the dirty laundry of every other city to receive its own section, if all the negativity returns to the Eureka article. Fair enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norcalal (talk • contribs)

It looks like all of the POV problems in the "Demographics" section were introduced by 67.113.144.26 (talk · contribs) in a single edit on August 30, 2005: link. Because of the amount of text added, I suspect it may actually be a copyright violation (of which most of the text is still there). This was certainly not a concensus change to the article, but it looks like subsequent editors have been content to leave it in the article. You are definitely right that this article has serious problems. There are verifiability problems all over the place, not to mention a nearly complete lack of sourcing (a common problem). Mike Dillon 22:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you look at this user's contribution history, they have a serious vegan/animal rights POV problem... Mike Dillon 22:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing- your changes have POV problems in the opposite direction, which is probably why they were reverted (and likely will be again). Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. While you're at it, read Wikipedia:Verifiability for the core policy about what sort of additions should be made to an article. Mike Dillon 23:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Northern California

There already is a WikiProject Southern California. Is it time to also create Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern California to handle Northern California topics, and leave California WikiProject for statewide issues? ^Blank ^Verse 10:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who would deal with the Central Valley? Mike Dillon 16:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a WikiProject Great Central Valley. Or do what is often done, the San Joaquin Valley south of Merced is Southern, and Merced and North plus the Sacramento Valley is Northern. Or we could divide it by the rocks. I don't think it's that big a deal. Fresno is Southern, Modesto is Northern, everything in between a blur for much of us. Maybe we need a great confusion buffer zone, WikiProject Central California. Ultimately, will it matter, will confusion arise? What's the point of dividing the state into separate projects anyhow? KP Botany 20:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject is for gathering together individuals interested in editing similar topics and who are willing to help other editors with those topics (and help work on things like Portal:California). You don't want the project to be too narrowly focused so that there aren't enough editors interested in the topic to keep the project active (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Santa Barbara County). You also don't want the project's topic to be so broad that most members are only interested in parts of the project.

There are already Portal:California Central Valley and Portal:San Francisco Bay Area, so creating WikiProjects to match the Portals is one possibility. A Central Valley WikiProject, however, might not have the critical number of editors to keep the project alive.

My personal opinion is that it may be best to start off creating a Northern California WikiProject, defined as everything not covered by the already existing Southern California WikiProject, and then creating 'daughter' WikiProjects for the Central Valley and the Bay Area when there is enough demand for them. ^Blank ^Verse 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections: Treasure Island and Alameda NAS

I was looking at the entry for Treasure Island [1]and noticed it had information about being used for location shooting for several movies. Specifically, it states the freeway scenes in The Matrix Reloaded were filmed there on runways. I do not think there are any runways on Treasure Island. The true location for this information, which is also listed in the Wikipedia entry for the location, is the Alameda NAS.

Can this information be corrected? It is misleading.

Requested move: Anaheim, California -> Anaheim

Having failed at other requested moves, including Los Angeles, California and San Francisco, California, and not gaining any consensus with a mass change in the naming convention for US Cities, the same group of editors is back proposing changing individual cities. The latest example is Talk:Anaheim, California#Requested move. Please go to that section and express your opinions on this latest proposed page move. ^Blank ^Verse 10:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: "The San Francisco Mime Troupe" --> "San Francisco Mime Troupe"

I have began editing the much more extensive article on the same topic, but instead entitled "San Francisco Mime Troupe". I would suggest combining the articles and tagging the larger "San Francisco Mime Troupe" under this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiaheroyet (talk • contribs)

I've put a {{mergeto}} tag on the The San Francisco Mime Troupe, and a {{mergefrom}} tag on the San Francisco Mime Troupe article. This is an uncontroversial merge, so I would suggest going ahead and merging any unique information, and then turning the "The San Francisco Mime Troupe" article into a redirect page. ^Blank ^Verse 12:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA nomination for California Gold Rush

The California Gold Rush article has been nominated for Featured article status. If you would like to comment on this nomination, please go here to leave your comment. To leave a comment on that page, click the [edit] link to the right of the title California Gold Rush.NorCalHistory 20:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To go directly to the Featured article candidate page for the Calif Gold Rush article, go to this page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Gold Rush. ^Blank ^Verse 08:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted to report that the California Gold Rush article has been given Featured article status. Many thanks to all who contributed to this success. NorCalHistory 08:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Article?

Can anybody verify anything in the article on the Sydney Ducks?

Colinlieberman 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted the nonsense, and unencyclopedic information. Added External Link. NorCalHistory 06:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, it was so good the way it was. Oh well, I guess that we can't yield to the trolls just 'cause they're funny. --Hjal 08:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is really funny can be sent to WP:BJAODN. ^Blank ^Verse 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panavision FAR

Panavision has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Sandy (Talk) 21:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mulholland and LA Water and Power articles

Recently synced a few facts, particularly the number dead from mulholland's st francis dam disaster i 1928, between wikipedia's articles on william mulholland and on LA Department of Water and Power —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.63.100.166 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject:California assessments

There is currently a discussion underway about articles assessments for this WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Assessment#Importance scale. Project participants are invited to join the discussion if they are so inclined. Mike Dillon 06:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alta California / Alta, California

A user at talk:Alta California pointed out that there is also a place named "Alta" in California. It might not be notable but for completeness sake it'll probably get an article anyway. So we'd have "Alta California" about the old Mexican state, and "Alta, California" about the modern community. Though it's a very subtle difference I don't think it'll be a problem. Of course we can put disambig notices on each page to help anyone who picks wrong. Does anyone see a problem? -Will Beback · † · 09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mall Merging

There are an awful lot of California shopping centers with articles, and a number of them appear to be rather non-notable (see Simi Valley Town Center and Broadway Plaza, for example.) Could these (and others) perhaps be merged back into the localities where they are located, per WP:LOCAL? --Brianyoumans 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief, a professional mall spammer. Can't we just block the spamdress, rather than speedy delete every single page? KP Botany 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought I would ask the Project before starting to merge and redirect, or just speedy; I got scolded for AFDing a bunch of Ohio library stubs without consulting the Ohio folks. People can get tetchy about things like this, and mall articles frequently survive AFD. --Brianyoumans 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam shouldn't though. Still, you're right, you should ask. Glad the user is blocked, though. Would like to see many of them, probably most, go. KP Botany 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw a long description of a mall (in Terra Linda, San Rafael, California), I stripped much of the content. Later when I saw the mall categories, they first struck me as spam. Then, I realized that 1) malls and their major tenants are important to lots of people (shoppers, realtors, developers, potential small business people), if not to me, and 2) having a good category structure and separate articles (or merged articles by company or region) keeps details that are superfluous to many off the main page for the locale. I think that mall articles should be kept or merged depending on the amount of content. And excessive shopping content in city and suburb articles should be moved out to a mall article. --Hjal 04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even defunct malls are hard to eradicate from the Wikipedia at AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000), so I doubt that you can get consensus to delete even crappy substub mall articles for existing malls. ^Blank ^Verse 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dead malls are harder to get rid of, because the article usually includes the history of the mall and its failure. And the AFD you cited was trying to get rid of a whole raft of articles - always difficult (although I have managed it several times.) About the malls I want to merge (or delete): I don't think any of them have more than basic stub articles, they won't add much length to locality articles when merged. --Brianyoumans 08:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Flag in SVG

Hi, I have modified the SVG flag to more closely match the PNG flag. Please review my changes, I welcome any feedback. If you find the newly edited SVG version accurate enough, please start replacing use of the PNG flag with the SVG flag. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. The colors look way better than the old one. I've changed {{California-stub}} and {{California-geo-stub}}, since the different font isn't an issue for the tiny thumbnails. We should wait for more feedback before replacing the larger versions. I personally think it is good enough to be used across the board, since there isn't actually an official font for the flag. Mike Dillon 17:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the font is "condensed gothic", per §420 of the California Goverment Code:

The height of the condensed gothic letters, as shown on the representation, is one-half of the red stripe width and they occupy a lineal space of two-thirds of the fly length with the beginning and ending letters of the words equidistant from the fly ends.

It also lays out the official colors in the following paragraph. This PDF from the California State Military Department has Pantone equivalents. Mike Dillon 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, "gothic" is an old name for sans-serif, and a condensed font is one that is taller or narrower than usual. I think what we are using qualifies. I adjusted the size and position of the grass, the text, the star, and the red strip according to those specifications and re-uploaded. According to the specs I found online, those pantone colors are significantly different than the colors in the SVG and PNG (the one currently used is first, the spec is 2nd):

██ "Old Glory Red" - Cable 80108 - Pantone 200
██ "Irish Green" - Cable 80120 - Pantone 348
██ "Maple Sugar" - Cable 80153 - Pantone 729C
██ "Seal" - Cable 80192 - Pantone 462C

I'm not sure the above colors are accurate (I just found them online), so I don't know if we want to switch to them or not. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may just want to stick with the current colors, since they are pretty close. I found the same RGB values as you for these colors, except Irish Green, which I found as #008751 (█). I actually like the "Old Glory Red" better than the current red, but I think the browns would not be as nice. I also think the current green is better. I did a Google search for site:ca.gov state flag and there are two images of the flag on the first page. The first one has a more true-to-life bear and the colors are indeed lighter. The second one looks pretty much like what we have now. All that said, I think it's best to go with what people have said they like in the past, since the colors probably won't look the same on everyone's monitors anyways. The one thing I would like to see is a slightly lighter border on the upper part of the flag, since it isn't actually part of the flag anyways; the gray in the PNG version would be fine.

As for the font, I know that "condensed gothic" is a generic term. I looked around for a font that was a little bolder, but had the same boxiness and couldn't find one (even if I did want to pay for it). According to http://flagspot.net/flags/us-ca.html, the image you're trying to reproduce seems to have been created by Mario Fabretto in February 1998. Here it is on his website. It's possible that it is hand lettered, but given that most of his work seems to be digital versions of flags, the font is probably available somewhere. Like you said, though, I think the current font meets the specs. Mike Dillon 02:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. About the border, it seems that a solid black border is the standard. See commons:Category:SVG flags with border. But it also seems that flags without borders are also standard. See for example Image:Flag of Japan.svg. Changing to no border. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, no border is the standard, with recommendations to use the {{border}} template when necessary. I think that category is specifically for bordered versions of flags that don't officially have a border as a convenience when sizing. Otherwise, you have to drop by two pixels in width to accomodate the border. Mike Dillon 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the different thumbnailed versions:

Size	Image:Flag of California.png	Image:Flag of California.svg	Uses
30px			{{California-stub}} {{California-politician-stub}}
35px			{{California-geo-stub}}
40px			{{User California}}
65px			{{Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Userbox}}
75px			{{California}}
125px			California (infobox)
250px			Flag of California

I think it definitely looks fine for the 75px and smaller sizes. I'm not sure about the 250px size, because of the font. Mike Dillon 17:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I've changed this everywhere that it was 40px or smaller. The remaining uses that I can see are:

Templates
- {{Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Userbox}}
- {{California}}
Articles
- California
- Flag of California
Other
- Old sigs

I'm still not sure that this version looks better at larger than 40px, so we can wait on those. Mike Dillon 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the font a bit thicker at the suggestion of Khoikhoi (t c). At this point I think it can start replacing the larger PNG images. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the flag in California, Flag of California, and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Userbox}}. Someone else had already done {{California}}. Mike Dillon 21:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate colors

Mike pointed this out to me after I did my color change of the flag. Well, what I did is I used the official color codes given out by the California State Military Department and I used Adobe Photoshop to get the actual Pantone colors. I am not sure what program was used to get the Pantone, but I felt it was very off from what I used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your colors looked very much like the ones Chris demostrated in a previous comment in this section. We avoided using the "exact" colors because of previous opposition to the introduction of the SVG images due to differences in color from the PNG.

As for the font color, the law is pretty clear that it's the same dark brown as on the bear (called "Seal" in the law). It may be that this part is ignored by flag producers and that black is used instead, as you said in your comment on Commons, but I'd lean toward keeping it the same color as the bear's dark brown. Mike Dillon 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is that the PNG will look different from the SVG, I could export the SVG file into PNG, so we could the design I had, but I will change the colors back from black to seal. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was more that there were users who objected to the SVG looking different from the PNG we currently have, so it wouldn't help placate those people to simply replace the PNG ;) Mike Dillon 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i told Mike on my userpage, I want the state flag to look proud. As a vexillologist and Californian, it is my duty to get this right. Might take a while, but it is a goal I want to shoot for. I looked at the law again and Mike is right, the text color is in Seal, not black. I made that correction. I hope I could make it to Sacramento in the next few months so I could try and get an official flag there and see if it looks similar to what I have. I won't make the image change now, I will wait and see what yall say first. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this reference on the official state website for a PDF that has on page six the official colors described in terms of cable numbers: Flags Over California. This came off the state website search: Search Results For: state flag. It says, "Seal 80192 462C" with the first number being the cable number and second the pantone number. Ronbo76 00:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the two versions for comparison:

	Current	Alternate
		File:Flag of California (alternate).svg
Colors
"Old Glory Red" - Cable 80108 - Pantone 200
"Irish Green" - Cable 80120 - Pantone 348
"Maple Sugar" - Cable 80153 - Pantone 729C
"Seal" - Cable 80192 - Pantone 462C

I uploaded User:Zscout370's version locally as Image:Flag of California (alternate).svg, so please make changes to the proposed version there while we discussed, after which we can delete the alternate version if any changes are made to the version that's currently live. Mike Dillon 02:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the alternate version still has the black text. That has been changed (in a version I will upload now), so if there is anything else, please let me know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The colors I used above for the color swatches came from the earlier discussion, so please make them match your SVG if you're interested. Mike Dillon 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the two side-by-side, I think that the red should be changed. As I said in my earlier comments, I think it looks better than the current red. However, I think the changes to the browns make the bear look a little washed out. Mike Dillon 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about the green color? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either green is fine with me, but for that one Chris and I found different RGB values for "Irish Green". I guess I'd trust the value from Photoshop for the Pantone conversion more than the random pages Chris and I found on the Internet, though. Mike Dillon 15:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so combine my red and green with the bear and text on the original version? If so, I can live with that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I don't think those changes will upset anyone. The bear's colors can be dealt with later if need be. Mike Dillon 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bear is fine from the older version, so I kept that. I also kept the seal from the old image, so the only colors I changed were the green and red. I am happy with this result, now it looks like a table flag I actually own. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Shared' counties

I'm not sure if there will be another use for this info, but I recently compiled the following info:

There are a few California counties that have names shared with other states, including eight different Orange Counties. There are two Nevada Counties, and two Sierra Counties. There is also one Irish, three US and three Canadian Kings Counties.

note: I didn't look at every California county—just the ones that looked most likely to me to also be used by other states or countries. ^Blank ^Verse 09:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only use for this is would be in creating a disambiguation page for these counties, so that people searching for articles can be prompted to go to the one they want. I think you answered your own question, since the links in your question already lead to disambiguation pages that lists all eight Orange Counties, etc. GUllman 02:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the data for explaining why I thought that California needed to be in all of the category names for a group of categories for California counties. Instead of creating an if-then-else naming scheme, I felt that it would be better to use the wordier, but totally unambiguous naming scheme of including California in the name of every category, rather than only those counties that weren't unique. ^Blank ^Verse 10:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across another shared county: Trinity County. Blank Verse 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of California 1800s to mid 1900s

Any suggestions to improve the article, users. Anything anybody can do to help? I would really appreciate it. Showmanship is the key 01:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope project members will have a look at it: perhaps stubbifying it and starting over will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked very hard on the article, please don't restart the article. I would like the acting section, Literature section, and Food & cuisine section revised. I wish the article not be the article. I habe just copyedited. Please keep the article the way it is. Showmanship is the key 02:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the references, I have some concerns about copyright status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualcomm Stadium

I feel that there should be at least one picture of Qualcomm Stadium before it was fully enclosed. The article does reference that the enclosure construction began in 1997, and was a direct result of selling the naming rights, but a picture of the unenclosed environment would better depict the physical difference between the old Jack Murphy Stadium and Qualcomm Stadium.

The stadium's name was changed to San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium in 1981, the year following Jack Murphy (sportswriter)'s death.

There should also be a note about when the second JumboTron was added to the western side of the stadium.

A date for when the inner outfield wall was installed should be added, rather than just leaving it as "later" - This is a very important statistic for home run totals.

"The local architect selected to design the stadium, Frank L. Hope and Associates, had never designed a stadium before. Yet in 1969 San Diego Stadium became the only stadium to win the First Honor Award from the American Institute of Architects. The Hope firm also received a commendation award from Governor Ronald Regan." [2]

-R "Axion" M —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.116.250.245 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Featured article James W. Robinson status?

With some clean-up, this article, James W. Robinson, should perhaps be nominated after being considered for inclusion to the California Wiki-Project. Robinson reads like he belongs in the Who's Who of San Diego history. I have begun clean-up on the article as I found it in an orphan abandoned status. After placing a bio tag on it, a Texas Wiki Project bot placed that project's tag on it. I believe the California Wiki Project tag should also be placed on it. Any ideas? Ronbo76 17:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another article for consideration should be Louis Rose. Ronbo76 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements?

Do Californians think of their cities as settlements? Well, check out Category:Settlements in California that's as of today in your category hierarchy. I reverted it out for Kentucky, and I recommend all states do it as well. Kentucky uses "Subdivisions" and Massachusetts uses "Administrative divisions" (both reasonable). "Settlements" are for pioneer days, not for contemporary political subdivisions. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole hierarchy of settlement categories, based on this working definition in Category:Settlements:

A Settlement is a specific human habitat that may include: hamlets, villages, towns, and cities. It may also refer to an archaeological site of previous human occupation.

I do not think that it is advisable to separate ourselves from a sensible structure when any article can be placed in multiple categories that fit it into different hierarchies, and it would be a very large task to merge the subdivision and settlement structures. In the US (or, at least, in California), "Subdivision" means "lot split" or "housing tract" unless it is prefaced by "Political" or something similar. "Settlement" is the term that I remember from social geography for any type of human residential area, from a seasonal encampment of a few tipis to the BosWash or megalopolis. Finally, it would be nice to include important information when passing out advice, such as the fact that the new Category:Subdivisions of Kentucky is currently proposed for speedy deletion.--Hjal 08:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Category:Subdivisions of Kentucky was proposed for speedy deletion by the same editor creating all these "Settlements in {state}" categories. I put a hangon in the category.

While "settlements" is dictionary-correct, it is also not the best term that could be used for contemporary locales. We need something like "political subdivisions" across the board. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, all or most of these "Settlements in {state}" categories are new. It actually would not be much work to create more appropriate categories and linkages. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all "settlements" are "politcal subdivisions." For example, the Mill Valley, California article is about both an incorporated city, with an elected council and a full-service local government, and the larger area referred to as "Mill Valley," which includes some unincorporated CDPs, such as Strawberry, California, and other unicorporated neighborhoods that are not CDPs. They all share the same ZIP Code, telephone exchanges, and shopping areas. Their kids all go to schools in the Mill Valley School District. (It is not always clear in a city article where the various editors think the boundaries are, but it is inevitable that the unincorporated areas associated with a city will be addressed in the city article; many residents are not aware of the political boundaries in the first place.) Similarly, some notable neighborhoods are not political subdivisions of the cities in which they are located, but they may sensibly fit into the settlement category, either because of their history prior to annexation or incorporation into the city, or because of some differing pattern of development that sets them apart from their city. Similarly, rural villages are usually not political subdivisions of the county or township in which they are located, at least in the U.S. If you think that somebody is introducing a whole categorization scheme that is impractical or that will lead to constant struggle, I suggest taking the upper-level categories to discussion, rather than lobbying at the talk pages of all of the members of the sub-categories.--Hjal 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image for David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy

Hi, I was hoping that any of you guys in the L.A. area would be able to get and image or something which could go in David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy. If you can help, please reply on the talk page of that article. Thanks!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California Republic citation for the Bear Flag

Here is what I wrote on Talk:California Republic:

Here is a reference, The California State Flag, although I remember being taught differently. My teacher said it was a reference to the North Star and the possible influence of emmigration from the Bering land bridge. In essence, the bear is looking towards the field of honor (towards his right) that has the [North Star]] painted red which is the color of blood which can stand for historic or future bloodshed. Here's another reference, Raising of the Bear Flag which uses the terms some say in solidarity with Texas (my emphasis on "some say") because over time that probably became the more acceptable urban legend. The Flag of Texas was presented to Congress in 1838 which means Todd may have been aware of it prior to leaving on his historic trek to Oregon followed by California. Almost any reference you will find on the Bear Flag will mention Texas in it.

That period of California history intrigues me. Ronbo76 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alta California#Ranchos of California - Four not listed

This article (Novato, California) lists four ranchos that were very important to the history of Northern California: Rancho San Jose, Corte Madera de Novato, Rancho Olompali, and Rancho Nicasio. It is very notable that one, Rancho Olompali was awarded to a Miwok chief (as per the article and my dim recollection of California history). It is probably one of the few, if not the only, to be awarded to a native. Ronbo76 17:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested images for this project

Hello, I will begin to upload some requested pictures that I noticed talkpages wanted. If you check my contribs later within the next two hours, I should be done. I am not sure if I got the fair use tag correct on the first picture, Image:Crocker Art Museum main entrance.jpg right. Here is what the upload page reads:

This image was uploaded under a fair use rationale, but may fail Wikipedia's first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information.

I am the one who took the picture and release it for free usage here on Wikipedia. I will upload one of each picture I shot (there are 42 pix total with some getting two or three shots). Cheers! Ronbo76 22:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you took the image and release it for free use, you should change the image copyright tag to use something other than {{fair use in}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for your options. Keep in mind that Wikipedia discourages licensing of images solely for Wikipedia's use, since it makes that part of the encyclopedia undistributable by other parties.

Personally, I use {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} which combines {{gfdl-self}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. This allows anyone to use the photos for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as attribution is preserved and any modifications are made available under the same license.

Also, if you agree to license your images under a sufficiently free license, you might want to upload them to Wikimedia Commons to allow them to be used transparently on other language Wikipedias. Mike Dillon 23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, "fair use" is for cases when images are used without copyright holder permission. Since you are the copyright holder and you're willing to license the image, fair use doesn't apply. Hope that clears things up. Mike Dillon 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That begins to clear it up to me. I just finished the first part of the upload and need to take a break. I will see if I can find a link for the Wiki Commons area later. Please check my contribs to see the others. Ronbo76 23:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a trial upload of two files to Wiki Commons. Here are the two pixs: Theodore Judah monument and Crocker Art Museum modern addition. I am really new to adding pictures just to Wikipedia. I really don't know how to link them back from Wiki Commons. The monument picture could go in the Old Sacramento where it is described and the museum pic to the Crocker Art Museum. I wish there was a way to link them automatically back here to this project.

Also, a preview of the pix I uploaded this afternoon appear on the Wiki requested photographs in California page at the bottom of the page. Thanks. Ronbo76 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded to Commons can be linked as if they were uploaded to English Wikipedia itself, except when there is an image with a conflicting name here. That's what I meant by "transparent". Mike Dillon 02:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "transparency" does not seem to be working in either direction. I tried to leave a link back to this project and that did not work. When I tried to edit this page with just the image description ala the uploads here, that did not work. I am so confused? Somebody help a padawan learner? Ronbo76 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Commons can be linked from any Wikimedia project, but images on a specific site (such as English Wikipedia) can't be linked outside of that site. When a Commons image (such as Image:Flag of California.svg) is used, the image description page that you see on English Wikipedia is a combination of the description page on Commons and any local additions (such as local categories). If you attempt to edit the description page on the linking site (not on Commons), you're only editing the local part of the description. If an image is hosted on Commons instead of locally, you'll see a little box under the image that says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below."; click on the "description page" link to edit the main description.

As an example, here is a link to the local image description page for one of the images you uploaded: Image:Theodore Judah monument.jpg. If you click on it, you'll notice that the "image" tag at the top is a red link, which means there is no local image description. If you edit it, you'll see that it is empty. However, if I want to include it, I simply link to it by name, just like a local image (see right).

As for linking back to English Wikipedia from Commons, you can use links in the form: [[:en:THE PAGE NAME|LINK TEXT]] (that is, prefix the page name with ":en:"). As an example, I fixed the links in the description of the Theodore Judah image. Feel free to ask here or on my talk page if you have more questions. Mike Dillon 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, really cool! I am learning a lot from you and others by being on this project. I will practice what you have taught later today. My only question concerns the description you spoke about and how it fits in with the link example you provided. My question is: if I want to want to put in a different local description, i.e, put the text Theodore Judah monument in Old Sacramento, in your picture (instead of the description, Image on Commons, how do I do that? Thanks, Ronbo76 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the wikitext for the image link I made in the edit box, it reads something like:

[[Image:Theodore Judah monument.jpg|thumb|Image on Commons]]

Simply change the text "Image on Commons" to whatever you want the caption to be; the caption is not tied to the text on either the Commons description page or the local description page. The "thumb" designator puts the image in a captioned frame using either the default or user specified thumbnail size (the default is 180 pixels). By default, it is right-aligned, but you can make it left aligned by sticking "left" in the link. See Wikipedia:Extended image syntax for exhaustive details. Note: the "<nowiki>" tag that can be seen in this comment is just there to allow the syntax for an image link to be ignored for the purposes of creating a link and displayed visually. Mike Dillon 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That worked! I changed the title during the football commercial. Way cool! Ronbo76 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker Art Museum and five other articles to this project?

This article should be part of the project as well. This image, Image:Crocker Art Museum main entrance.jpg, available for page. Ronbo76 23:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More articles to add? Mark Hopkins and Charles Crocker who were members of The Big Four. Also, Theodore Judah should be considered. Essentially he brought "the Big Four" together and died on his trip home from California. He has a pillar with his head bust dedicated in Old Sacramento. I got an image of his pillar that can be uploaded. Also, after reading Huntington's article, his nephew, Henry E. Huntington, who also was a railroad magnate should be included. Ronbo76 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to add Arabella Huntington the "force behind the Huntington Library."

One definite article for the project - Leland Stanford

Here I am stumbling all around The Big Four and when I looked at Leland Stanford's talkpage, I noticed he is not listed on our project. Wow! Ronbo76 05:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Since Stanford was Governor of California, among other things, he should definitely be part of this project's scope. Someone should probably go through the entire list of Governors and make sure they're all covered. Also, feel free to add the WikiProject banner to talk pages yourself. You can add it without an assessment if you don't feel comfortable doing that part (I didn't assess the Stanford article). Mike Dillon 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, thanks. I will add it to the ones I am sure of. The Governor's list is a good idea (after the football game). Ronbo76 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is only the first and third governors were not on our project. The bad news is most of the early ones are stub articles. The terrible news is most can stand cleanup and wikification. Some of the current living past governors' articles should be reviewed prior to them becoming deceased. Ronbo76 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, as I got into some articles it was easy to rate them as some had been rated by other project. I think I got the hang of the ratings but need to look more into it. If I had to rate the current living in the order of needing most work: first would be Deukmejian, followed by Brown, Wilson, and Davis. Ronbo76 00:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sacramento, California now with requested pix

Thanks to BlankVerse and Mike Dillon's tutelage, this article now has some required pictures that show the historical aspect of Sacramento, CA. Ronbo76 13:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alemany Maze proposed for deletion (prod)

The WP:CAL article, Alemany Maze, has been proposed for deletion. When I used to travel in San Francisco, I always heard this maze in the traffic reports but did not have a reference to it other than the reporter saying the "Alemany Maze to 280 is" blah, blah, blah. It is on the list of requested photos for our project and linked to California State Route 82.

This interchange is very well known to San Franciscan residents trying to escape gridlock on the freeways leading into and out of the city and this article is probably one of the few that explains online how the name originated. Ronbo76 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see it remain on its own standing because it is well known in a large city. The KCBS (AM) traffic reporters (and other area stations) use maze as a shortcut for all the interchanges that connect to the major freeways leading into and out of SF. There is even another shortcut listed here as the MacArthur Maze and that article describes almost exactly in the first paragraph what I am trying to discern here. Perhaps in a day or two, another project member can wordsmith these words into the Alemany Maze project. They have maze shortcuts for the Coldicot Tunnel, Golden Gate bridge connectors and each of the bridges leading in the south part of the SF penisula.

This street and maze take their name from Archbishop Joseph Sadoc Alemany who was the first archbishop of San Francisco. I probably should have mentioned this in conversation above but was strapped for time earlier. There is something else about this "maze" that is historic that escapes me. I remember one traffic reporter waxing long on a report about the area but it escapes me right now. Ronbo76 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alemany Boulevard (which is mispelled in that article) could be linked to the maze article by correcting the spelling article and mentioning the maze. I am not the Wile E. Coyote to wordsmith the Joseph Sadoc Alemany and Alemany Maze articles.

File:Alemany Maze planner.jpg

Alemany Maze planning 'shortcuts' to other freeways

I just released how the reporters used to emphasize maze in the classic sense of a traffic shortcut. They would say, "Take the Alemany Maze (meaning 'traffic shortcut') to blah, blah, blah." Here is a screenshot I just created on the KCBS] traffic website. If the project approves, it can be linked to the Alemany Maze article.

WP:AfD and our participation as WP:CAL

I am not sure how many members of our project participate in the WP:AfD process. The prod article above has a great comment on its talkpage from user:BlankVerse that this article could easily go to the AfD process and probably would not survive. I try to participate in the AfD process because I have nominated a number of articles for deletion. In essence I feel that I nominate, I should also debate as that shows I have stake in the process. The WP:CAL should also participate so that way our users are recognized there in the event a project article is nominated for deletion. Granted, the AfD process should look at a user's contributions as a factor but often is swayed by who participates in the AfD daily. Just a thought. . . Ronbo76 20:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but this project is not particularly active, so you're probably not going to get much of a response. As for AfD, I rarely participate in it because I don't want to constantly butt heads with people whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to delete other people's work. The "deletionists" make up a majority of the people you cite as participating in AfD daily. Sometimes it is justified, but I find that more often than not the deletion is a waste of everyone's time and could just as easily be left as is. Mike Dillon 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of noticed that the deletionists tend to dominate. I strive to be a moderate although some users probably see me as a deletionists (especially self-created user articles) but I have been advocating for Keeps as well. Ronbo76 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, which would sort the various nominated articles into subpages, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California, which you could use to check on article deletions related to a particular topic. Unfortunately, the amount of human effort required for the project resulted in it fairly quickly becoming out-of-date, and then un-updated. IFF the articles were properly categorized at the time that they were nominated for deletion, it wouldn't be too hard to get a bot to do that work. ^Blank ^Verse 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed category merge: Category:Towns in California into Category:Cities in California

This discussion could benefit from the comments of some active Californian editors. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 13#Category:Towns in California. ^Blank ^Verse 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geolink tag, Wikimapia, California State Indian Museum and GNU Free Documentation License question

Hi! I learned something about geolink tags and am using it in some of WP:CAL articles that were in stub statuses. I have a question about the Wikimapia. Is a screenshot of a Wikimapia map and/or satellite image considered releaseable to the Wiki projects under the GNU Free Documentation License? If so, this would really help our project in terms of being able to put quality maps of noted interchanges, desert locales, etc. Cheers, Ronbo76 15:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Screenshots in general are considered "derivative works" under copyright regimes. This means that it can only be licensed under the GFDL if the original content was GFDL (or in the public domain). Incidentally, this also applies to your traffic shortcut screenshot above, which you marked with GFDL/CC-BY-SA; you don't have any rights to relicense that work, since you didn't do any creative work to create it. Moreover, if you had modified it, the licensing of your modified version would be subject to the restrictions placed on modification in the license of the original work (i.e. the KCBS website). Most of these things are licensed with "all rights reserved", which means you can only use it under fair use and there is no compelling fair use argument for these screenshots. Hope that helps. Mike Dillon 15:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this being said, much of the U.S. Government's original satelite imagery is in the public domain, so it can be used on Wikipedia. In particular, the USGS Urban Areas imagery is in the public domain and would be a good source for interchange images (not so much for desert images, since they aren't covered). The problem is that it's a little convoluted to get the desired images if you don't have experience with the USGS systems (particularly http://seamless.usgs.gov). Mike Dillon 15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rats! Every time I think I have that fair use/GNU issue settled, another thorn pops up. Now, if I could just get my mitts on the USGS site. At least I spruced up the California State Indian Museum article. I will pay USGS a visit later today. Ronbo76 16:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geotags for stub articles requests

If you know of a stub article that needs some improvement, I can help by putting a geotag on it. The geotag opens a link to Wikimapia, Google or Yahoo Maps. The article's visitors can then open the appropriate satellite imagery to see what the article is describing or where it's located. If you know of an article, please append it to this message or on my talkpage. Ronbo76 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:California

There is a dispute on Portal talk:California about whether Portal:Mexico is acceptable in the Related Portals section of Portal:California or not. One position is that Mexico is uniquely relevant to California given the historic, cultural, economic, and political relationships between the two regions, and therefore deserves inclusion more than, e.g., Portal:Film, which is related to California but not exclusively or specifically enough. The other position is that Mexico's relevance to California is NOT unique or special enough to warrant inclusion over, e.g., Portal:Film, and therefore should be left out. I noticed that the WP:CAL#Related WikiPortals section includes Portal:Mexico, which seems to support the first position.

In any case, I would like to request a straw poll here to resolve this dispute and definitively either include or exclude Mexico from the related portals section of Portal:California. eae 03:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alemany Maze rewrite

I just rewrote the Alemany Maze article. Please review and wordsmith it at your earliest opportunity. Brownie points if someone finds the misspelled word. Ronbo76 04:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new source of Nasa images for our project

Hello, while reading an article, I came across an image that was in that article. It had been downloaded from a Nasa site and uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. The Nasa website search is pretty easy to use but so far, I have only been able to obtain the larger maps and not a detailed map of say 4mile by 4mile picture suitable for bridgespan. Cheers Ronbo76 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge from Wassama Roundhouse into Indian Grinding Rock State Historic Park

Please see referenced articles.

Change to San Diego - climate reassessment

Hello, another user who seems to be a weather wizard (no kidding), reassessed San Diego about 180 out from what I remember it as. Could someone else check? I asked the user if he was certain and on my talkpage, he says he used the chart referenced in the change. I agree with the previous article that it is a Mediterranean climate with a CsA or CsB if you go by the chart. Ronbo76 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some research into this matter. On my talkpage, the user who made the assessment based it upon this chart, Köppen climate classification, which he said, "barely clipping the extreme southwest tip of California." San Diego has been described as having a Mediterranean climate which according to the values listed on the Köppen climate classification would be a CsA or CsB. In fact if you look at the Mediterranean climate article, it has the image I have included as a thumbnail.

San Diego Fast Facts on the city website lists the following:

Average Temperatures

July 70 degrees

December 59 degrees

Average Annual Precipitation

9.5 inches

US Extreme temperature records lists:

San Diego

Low - -3.9 °C (seasonal)

High - 43.9 °C (seasonal)

All that checks with a CsA which the Mediterranean climate article states that the greater Los Angeles area (which I will include San Diego into. Ronbo76 15:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Cal WikiProjects

Recently there has been both WikiProject San Francisco and WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area created. Now there is a proposal to merge both projects into the Bay Area version. If you want to contribute your two cents to the discussion, please see Poll: Merge WikiProject San Francisco into WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area?. ^Blank ^Verse 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Cemetery FAR

Oakland Cemetery has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ~~:Oakland Cemetery is in Atlanta, Georgia, not California.~~ howcheng {chat} 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I just left SandyGeorgia a message about that on her talkpage.~~ Ronbo76 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks - sheesh - I'm catching up from a trip, and goofed that one! Please delete the entire section here if you'd like? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me to delete this section - Sandy's entitled to a flub now and then! NorCalHistory 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to automatically add like on Talk:John D. Spreckels

Maybe we can get a bot like on John D. Spreckels's talkpage and adapt it for the WP:CAL project. Somehow, it was able to cull the article for Hawaii and added it to their project. Ronbo76 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Route FAR

Me again :-) I've overcome my jet lag, my trauma from the Oakland airport, and this time it's the real thing :-)

Ridge Route has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New stub type approved for creation: California-gov-stub

See here for the administrative discussion.

I'm not clear on the process for creating a stub -- do we just go and edit the Template:California-gov-stub article? There's a Template:Oregon-gov-stub page that could be used as a starting point... Auros 09:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the Stub-sorting folks will go ahead and create the stubs and categories they approve, although sometimes they take awhile, and ocassionally they forget. It's best if they do it, because they will make sure that the template doesn't have any extra lines or spaces, or any wonky formatting in it (very easy to do if you don't create templates regularly). They will also make sure that the new category gets all the proper parents categories and the proper description is added to the top of the category page.

With a very similar template already existing which can be used as a template, it becomes easier for non-stub experts to create new stubs and categories. If you think that you can do that, I'd say go ahead and create the stub and category. Otherwise, I would suggest asking for help from one of the Stub-sorting WikiProject regulars such as Grutness or Alai. ^Blank ^Verse 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: Culture of California 1800s to mid 1900s

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of California 1800s to mid 1900s. This deletion discussion would benefit from the input of some more editors familiar with California. ^Blank ^Verse 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemite National Park FAR

Yosemite National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to the naming conventions for US cities

Once again there is a proposal to change the Wikipedia's long standing naming convention for US Cities.

There has been a small, but very vocal, and very persistent group of editors who have been trying, without much success, to overturn the "city, state" naming convention for US cities. First they tried at the naming convention level, but failed to achieve consensus for their views. They then changed tactics and tried to change the titles for several US cities, including three failed attempts to move Los Angeles, California, and one each for San Francisco, California and Anaheim, California. The only city that I know where they succeeded (after a couple of different surveys) was Chicago, but even that city has recently been moved back to Chicago, Illinois.

Now there is a revival of a fairly recent proposal to have the article titles for a small number of cities violate the very long-standing "city, state" naming convention. The discussion and voting are currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Associated Press. Since the past debates have ended up involving a large amount of time for California editors, I hope that they will weigh in on this latest proposal. ^Blank ^Verse 11:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Sacramento Valley Railroad picture available

It's available through my Wiki Commons account (thanks to user:Mike Dillon who gets the assist). It is on the Sacramento Valley Railroad article and available for others such as Theodore Judah. Cheers, Ronbo76 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congressman Leo J. Ryan

I have been doing some work to attempt to improve the classification status of the article on the only Congressman to die in the line of duty, Congressman Leo J. Ryan. He posthumously received the Congressional Gold Medal. He represented California's 11th congressional district. Please let me know what you think, at Talk:Leo Ryan/Comments. Thank you for your time. Smee 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting note about copyright notice on California state website

I was browsing a CDF article and came across some maps. When I clicked on the copyright notice here is what that Conditions of Use website says verbatim:

OWNERSHIP

In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use. In order to use any information on this web site not owned or created by the State, you must seek permission directly from the owning (or holding) sources. The State shall have the unlimited right to use for any purpose, free of any charge, all information submitted via this site except those submissions made under separate legal contract. The State shall be free to use, for any purpose, any ideas, concepts, or techniques contained in information provided through this site.

I have no problems with pictures having copyrights but maps produced like for CDF fires seem to fall in the open domain.

I was looking for some info about Honeydew, California and found this URL: Honeydew and Canoe Fires - FINAL UPDATE Nice maps.

Any comments? What would be the Wiki Commons tag for these maps? Ronbo76 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this answers your question, but about a year ago, there use to be a tag on both Commons and here on Wikipedia named "PD-CAGov" for content from the State of California web site. However, after some debate on Template_talk:PD-CAGov 1#State of California Copyrights and the related Templates for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 13#Template:PD-CAGov, it was decided to have them redirect to {{No license}} because the Conditions of Use text is very ambiguous in terms of actual copyright and license. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried awhile back to get some information from my local state senator and state representative, but got absolutely no response from either of them (which made me so pissed off that I voted for third party candidates against both of them this last election—which didn't make a damn bit of difference since their jerrymandered districts are so safe that a convicted dead felon from the right party would still probably win in their districts). If anyone has any better political connections, you might try to get some better "official" information. Blank Verse 11:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the TfD debate and pretty much agreed with it up until the end when the last user tipped it. I can definitely see the problem with photos being copyrighted and would not consider using state photos unless it is very obvious that the pic is in the public domain. The map issue, however, is diffent especially with the CDF. At least one on the URL I cited appears to be developed by the CDF which should according to the conditions of use be PD.

I may have to buttonhole some people. Ronbo76 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Mammoth-Yosemite Airport into Mammoth Yosemite Airport

Please merge Mammoth-Yosemite Airport into Mammoth Yosemite Airport, since they both contain identical information, but Mammoth Yosemite Airport has some extra. The first should redirect to the second. Thanks Jay Buffington 06:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:California in the American Civil War

Does the talkpage for this category Category talk:California in the American Civil War get the WP:CAL banner? I just noticed it while on Recent Change Patrol. Ronbo76 02:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Talk:Ridge Route - what does it mean?

I am looking at the change and cannot decipher it? Any clues for the clueless? Ronbo76 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I missed the notice above. Sorry, Ronbo76 17:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to this WikiProject's template

See Template talk:WikiProject California#Please use another image. Initially, there was an {{editprotected}} request, because the image currently used is up for deletion on commons; now, however, it appears some people want the image changed regardless of a delete/keep decision on commons. Mentioning this here in the hopes of getting more eyes and ears involved -- do people like the current image? Would they like a different one? Speak up and let yourselves be heard, eh? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding obsolete images

Would anyone be opposed to me taking all these images to IFD? --Iamunknown 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bunch of highway signs. Too bad they cannot be associated with the right road/article or moved to Wikimedia Commons under someone's directory for the project's use. The highway project might want 'em. Ronbo76 05:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are no longer necessary. They were originally in List of county routes in California, but have all been replaced with SVG copies at Wikimedia Commons. I have a list of all those images on this page. --Iamunknown 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, if I may be WP:BOLD, delete away! Ronbo76 05:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà! Thanks for the encouragement (hope the mocha tastes good)! :D --Iamunknown 07:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California Gold Rush - Main page Featured article at midnight UTC, February 14, 2007.

California Gold Rush will be the Main Page Featured article at midnight UTC, February 14, 2007. please be on watch for vandalism and nonsense edits. Blank Verse 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks from California Gold Rush

Many thanks to all who offered so much valuable assistance during these past 24 hours when California Gold Rush was the Main page FA! Your invaluable assistance was very much appreciated! NorCalHistory 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some fun

San Dieguito County Park

Deletion list

Contribution questions

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

History buff needed

Nominate articles for Portal:United States

New "People from [city]" Categories

Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll

Proposed move, San Francisco, California -> San Francisco

TfD nomination of Template:Los Angeles USD

CA-geo-stub sub-types proposed

Sections? Subpages?

peer review requested - California Gold Rush

Portal:California

Economy of California

Invitation to new WikiProject

California Natural History Stubs and Subproject

Project directory

californian userbox

{{User Wikiproject California}}

Baja California

Your bot.

Obliteration of Scouting articles related to California

Other California articles threatened

The article on "California Least Tern" should not have been destroyed

Request for undeletion - California State Normal School article

Watch necessary on the Eureka, California article.

WikiProject Northern California

Corrections: Treasure Island and Alameda NAS

Requested move: Anaheim, California -> Anaheim

Requested move: "The San Francisco Mime Troupe" --> "San Francisco Mime Troupe"

FA nomination for California Gold Rush

Bad Article?

Panavision FAR

mulholland and LA Water and Power articles

Discussion about WikiProject:California assessments

Alta California / Alta, California

Mall Merging

California Flag in SVG

Alternate colors

Wikipedia Day Awards

'Shared' counties

Qualcomm Stadium

Featured article James W. Robinson status?

Settlements?

Image for David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy

California Republic citation for the Bear Flag

Alta California#Ranchos of California - Four not listed

Requested images for this project

Crocker Art Museum and five other articles to this project?

One definite article for the project - Leland Stanford

History of Sacramento, California now with requested pix

Alemany Maze proposed for deletion (prod)

WP:AfD and our participation as WP:CAL

Proposed category merge: Category:Towns in California into Category:Cities in California

Geolink tag, Wikimapia, California State Indian Museum and GNU Free Documentation License question

Geotags for stub articles requests

Portal:California

Alemany Maze rewrite

Possible new source of Nasa images for our project

Possible merge from Wassama Roundhouse into Indian Grinding Rock State Historic Park

Change to San Diego - climate reassessment

New Cal WikiProjects

Oakland Cemetery FAR

Bot to automatically add like on Talk:John D. Spreckels

Ridge Route FAR

New stub type approved for creation: California-gov-stub

AFD: Culture of California 1800s to mid 1900s

Yosemite National Park FAR

Proposed change to the naming conventions for US cities

Historical Sacramento Valley Railroad picture available

Interesting note about copyright notice on California state website

Merge Mammoth-Yosemite Airport into Mammoth Yosemite Airport

Change to Talk:Ridge Route - what does it mean?

Proposed change to this WikiProject's template

Regarding obsolete images

California Gold Rush - Main page Featured article at midnight UTC, February 14, 2007.

Many thanks from California Gold Rush