Talk:California/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Universities

An anon user edited the list of universities to limit it to 4. I agree that we can't list all the univerisities in California; there's probably hundreds of them. However, I think we'll have a hard time listing only 4 "prominent" ones, because who decides which ones get listed? I have a couple of ideas. We can link to a separate article that just lists all the colleges and universities in California. We can not list separate campuses of the UC and Cal State systems, ie. Berkeley and UCLA would not be listed separately, as they are both UC campuses. Or we can just not list colleges and universities in California at all. Aranhamo 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. No one else has had an issue with the list; it's been stable for months. I don't think anyone can seriously argue with a straight face that any of the community colleges, Cal State campuses, or private colleges can rank with the four universities already illustrated at the top of the Education section. Yes, I know that some of the Cal State campuses, particularly Cal Poly Obispo, and San Jose State, are quite good, but when it comes to international reputation, very few people outside of California have heard of those campuses, while everyone has heard of Stanford, Cal, and UCLA for certain, and maybe USC. --Coolcaesar 05:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been stable at all; it's been growing and growing until the anon user (rightly, in my opinion) pared it down. The problem is that choosing any 4 particular schools is inherently POV, especially since California has so many internationally renowned schools that excel in various fields. But everything else on Wikipedia is POV, so why should this be any different? Aranhamo 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The four is sufficient in my opinion as they excel both academically and in their atheletic programs. The four also consistently top whatever school rankings there is, domestically and internationally. I guess they simply considered as the most "notable" schools in CA -888

Actually Coolceasar is right it has been stable for months even maybe a year, not until someone put an aditional school then everyone follows. Although I really think the four school are the most widely known school in CALI, I'm not betting this thing will be settled easily as everyone has each pride in their own schools

What about CalTech; U.S News and World Report rates it higher than MIT some years. -trer

No individual campus should be mentioned when it comes to the University of California, the California State University, or any of california's community colleges. As systems they should be mentioned and given appropriate links. If private colleges need be mentioned, Stanford, Caltech, and USC are all fair contenders. If anything a link providing a list of private colleges in California should also be given. Also, to say what universities are better known internationally can't really be proven. UCSF is highly recognized in the medical field, both nationally and internationally, and it isn't mentioned in this article.

Is this correct?

"Current trends show that by 2050 California's population will be 55-60% Hispanic, 20-25% non Hispanic white, 15% Blacks, Asians will constitute less than 5% of the population and 5% will be of mixed or Native American/ Pacific islander heritage." I thought that blacks were losing population and asians were gaining population. I think "blacks" and "asians" need to be switched in the sentence.

Yeah, the sentence does not jibe with the population data above it. I think there needs to be a cite or it should be removed. Aranhamo 20:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"California is known as the Richest State in USA, like this state contains more number of millionaires, Is this correct?"

We need more photographs in this article

I was looking at the California article in the World Book Encyclopedia and in Britannica today at the public library and it dawned on me that we could use more photos in this article. It's kind of ridiculous that the article neither mentions nor shows the Golden Gate Bridge, and it doesn't have a photo of Yosemite, when we have articles and photos of both elsewhere on Wikipedia. I will be digging up photos (only GFDL and CC licensed photos, of course) from other places on Wikipedia and adding thumbnails to this article soon. --Coolcaesar 05:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Can anyone make a vector image of this flag: ?

There's already this flag: in SVG format, but it is inferior in design to the png above. OzLawyer 14:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also not what the Cali flag looks like. Star's too big, and the font's wrong. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 03:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've made edits to the SVG flag to better match the PNG flag. Any feedback is welcomed. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Something peculiar happened, this article needs semi-protection

The California article has been heavily vandalized recently and the frequency may be exceeding the ability of us regular editors to keep up with it. WeggeBot just reinserted a whole ton of interwiki links to the other versions of this article in other languages. I didn't realize until I saw this on my watchlist that interwiki links had disappeared, so I traced the history to see what happened. It looks like we got hit with vandalism here [1], in which all the interwiki links at the end were lost and the lead was also vandalized. When Wars reverted at this diff [2], only the lead was fixed, but not the rest of the article for reasons that are not clear. The article may need semi-protection, or else the quality will begin to deteriorate rapidly if it keeps getting vandalized and then improperly fixed like this. --Coolcaesar 17:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming Information

I just stumbled over some information in a reputable book I got saying that California was named after "a mythical Spanish island, ruled by a queen named Califia, which appeared in a Spanish romance (c. 1500) called Las Sergas de Esplandián." I think this little bit of information should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but I'm not really sure where the best place would be exactly, so someone bold enough should do it. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 23:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's already there, not presented in the way that I'd do it, but certainly done in a quite acceptable manner. Check out the name section of the article. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 23:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How did I miss it? RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the info wasn't quite accurate -- though in the ballpark. I tweaked it, added a little more. The main article on the naming of California needs to be fixed in similar manner -- but I don't have the time or patience to do it. I've also uncovered some interesting information that points to the fact that nearly the whole state was actually first settled by blacks -- in the American sense of the term. (See my comments below about California's history.) deeceevoice 03:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

unsourced

Template:unsourced allows two arguments: section, and article, depending on whether it's used to mark a single section of an article, or indicate that the entire article lacks cites to sources for verification of content. It's appropriate on the article, as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR require that you cite sources for all encyclopedia content. Talk pages are not encyclopedic content, and citing sources is unnecessary here. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

ClairSamoht, you are correct on the appropriateness of putting {{unsourced}} at the top of the article. Whenever possible, I personally prefer to put the template at the top of the unsourced sections (as {{unsourced|section}}) so editors no which sections are in violation and what they need to find sources for, and so readers (non-editors) know which sections to be more skeptical of, rather than the whole article. But for California, though, I think the template is most appropriate at the top, as most of the article seems to be lacking in sources.

Yath, I don't think I've ever seen the {{unsourced}} template on a talk page, but I've seen it (and added it) to many unsourced articles. I think it is appropriate in this case. Ufwuct 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Black presence in California history

There is some interesting and useful information included in the following links that really should be included in this article in the section treating California history.

• AfriGeneas, "African American Genealogy - California"
• San Francisco Bay View, "Wanda's Picks."

I also have a book somewhere in my personal library called They Seek a City by Arna Bontemps and another author whose name escapes me, published in 1945 (just checked online). I'm sure it holds some very useful information, too. Maybe I'll get around to adding it, maybe not -- but that's the name of the book, in case anyone is interested in reading/researching the African American migration out of the South and their impact on California. deeceevoice 03:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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 07:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

History - Flags of California

I have recently visited Santa Barbara and Monterrey and found out to my surprise that there have been approximately 12 flags raised in California (From the Russian Empire to Argentina -see Hippolyte de Bouchard) It's a neat piece of history, can someone include it?

Culture

Shouldn't there be a "Culture" section in this article? California is usually considered mainstream and many trends popular in the United States and even in other western nations make their start in California. Could a more knowledgeable person perhaps add the section? Thanks for the consideration. --71.98.1.20 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. This article definitely needs a Culture section.--Plainsong 04:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

thirded. It definitely does--thats why I, and many people I know want to move there. And if it causes people to move then I'd say the article needs oneTrevorLSciAct 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to ditch some of the richest and poorest places

We need to ditch some of those lists. I suggest trimming them to the richest 10 and the poorest 10, which should be enough. Neither Texas nor New York have such long lists occupying so much space in the middle of the article. I also agree with the suggestion above that California needs a Culture section. Texas has one, and I think we can all agree that California has a lot more culture to talk about than Texas! --Coolcaesar 04:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Coming from someone who knows nothing about California - I find it very odd that there is even such a list of the poorest and richest areas. I am from the U.K. and to put such a list on the London or other major city/county seem very strange - and seems like snobbery. Maybe they should be seperate lists or each area in the list should meniton where they are in terms of poverty/riches.
• It just gives a new reader the impression that the USA/California thinks to much about money. Think about it! --Lethaniol 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha that is probably because we do think too much about money!!! (from California) --Stacey Doljack Borsody 21:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm taking care of it now and trimming to 10 and 10. No one's defended having such long lists. --Coolcaesar 08:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Modification of 'ecology' section

I have edited some of the text in the ecology section.

I took out the mention of redwood as an endemic species and put it in a later sentence - its status as endemic is shared by both the sequoia genus and metasequoia genus, the latter of which is found in China.

San Francisco Population Change

I changed the population of San Francisco in the Important Cities and Towns sections to match the 2005 population estimate. - DJDavis92

The footnote at the bottom of the second table states "Note: table was compiled using California State estimates from 2006 for population and Census 2000 for area and density" so I would think the data that was already there would have been even more accurate. Mikemill 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then, why wasn't that changed on the San Francisco page? The information stated in this article should be relevant to information stated in other articles, dontcha think? :-P DJDavis92 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

JUST HOW IN THE HELL IS CALIFORNIA 70 SOME PERCENT WHITE, CHANGE THIS STUPID STAT and all others that have been changed

That's because most Hispanics are White. -Will Beback · † · 09:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Article too long

OK, per Wikipedia guidelines perhaps 2/3rds of the article needs to get moved into subarticles, or edited away. Let's talk about how best to do this. BruceHallman 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the sports section can be moved to a subarticle? Do we really need voting and population statistics, listed by decade, to the hundredth of a decimal point? Etc.. BruceHallman 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a straw poll might help figure out want to move to subarticles? BruceHallman 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is way too long, and several sections need paring down. I would even say that there might be a few sections that could be deleted completely (the religion section that has no references, for example). I think that there are a few other sections that could be completely moved to subarticles (the Sports section, as well as the Important cities and towns section).

If you want help, or suggestions, you might post a notes at the California WikiProject and the Southern California WikiProject. For ideas on what to pare down and how, you might look at the articles on other states (and the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states. ^BlankVerse 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, I also agree that it is a little long but, that is only becuase there is so much to learn about California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.135.100 (talk • contribs)

Something that I think would cut down on the amound of information and would be helpful in a subarticle would be the top 10 wealthiest places and poorest places. Its already been in this discussion, but they just cut down on the number of places. I personally think that putting it in Economy of California or California locations by per capita income would help, because right now it takes up a major part of the California article. Not to mention that it is already mentioned in 3 different places, all that are subarticles of the main California article. Just an idea. Chickyfuzz123 23:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I started the clean-up by eliminating a lot of redundancy, unreferenced statements, minor information, and NPOV in the first part of the article. Anyone want any of that back in? Also, the Climate section is full of interesting stuff, but almost all of it belongs in a daughter article. Anyone disagree?NorCalHistory 03:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Propose moving most of Climate section content to new daughter article - any objections?NorCalHistory 05:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing a Climate of California article, which will probably need a glossary section (Pineapple Express, Santa Ana Winds, etc.) to help people decode TV Weathermen shorthand. ;-) ^BlankVerse 10:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved bulk of Climate section content to new daughter article Climate of California, and spiced the new article up a bit. Article is now available for additional material, such as the suggested glossary!

Next, how about doing the same with the Transportation section of this too-long California article - that is, create a daughter article for the bulk of the text material here. NorCalHistory 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to moving bulk of Transportation section to new daughter article? NorCalHistory 04:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, creating new Transportation of California daughter article.NorCalHistory 15:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Next, I propose moving most of the Education section to a new daughter article - any objections, reactions? The current list-education article which is refered to is non-substantive. NorCalHistory 02:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Second call - any objection to moving the bulk of the Education section to a new daughter article?NorCalHistory 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Creating new Education of California daughter article, and moving most of the text in this article to that new article.NorCalHistory 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The cities and towns section and the demographics section might be candidates for daughter articles. The geography section already has a daughter; more material should be moved to it and less material left in this main article. Hmains 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The cities and towns section and the demographics section might be candidates for daughter articles. The geography section already has a daughter; more material should be moved to it and less material left in this main article. Hmains 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmains, I agree with you about moving additional material (see section below). The system we're doing is addressing each section one-by-one, and then making changes as a consensus (or at least lack of objection) develops. At this point, the Education section is under consideration. Demographics andCities and Towns will be getting their turns shortly!NorCalHistory 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

When moving material to a new article for the subject, a good thing to use to replace it is the Lead from the new article, and a link to that article. -- Fyslee 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving right along . . . the bulk of the Education section has been moved to a new daughter article Education of California. I propose next moving most of the material of the Professional sports teams section to a new article (other sections will be coming up for considertion in turn). Comments please. NorCalHistory 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Second call - propose moving most of the material of the Professional sports teams section to a new article. Comments please. NorCalHistory 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

good idea. When done, the article needs to also be in the Category:Sports in California. See also the article List of professional sports teams in California. Maybe that article and the content from the California article section could be merged/enhanced. Hmains 03:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hmains, for the heads-up on the category and the List article - both are valuable information! NorCalHistory 03:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion, moving most of Sports section to new daughter article.NorCalHistory 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Concluded moving most of Sports section to new daughter article and List article, and expanded scope of section in this article.NorCalHistory 16:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Next, propose removing tables of largest cities and counties - that information is available in daughter articles cited.NorCalHistory 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion suggestion (and no objections), I am removing the tables of largest cities and counties. That detailed information is available in the daughter articles cited.NorCalHistory 08:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to move along - next section up for consideration to create a new daughter article, and move most of the text there is the Demographics section. Reactions please. NorCalHistory 08:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Second call - propose moving some text of the Demographics section to newly-created daughter article Demographics of California. Any such move will retain consistency with the Demographics section of other states' articles. NorCalHistory 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Kafziel ^Talk 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. -Will Beback · † · 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Discussion, much of the Demographics section can now be found in the new Demographics of California daughter article. In light of the major re-write, I have removed the {{disputed}} and {{contradict-section}} tags. If you feel these tags should be re-added to the re-write, please feel free to do so - however, please describe your reasons on this Discussion page. NorCalHistory 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of tags, there's a disputed tag on the political section but I don't see a related discussion on the talk page. Granted, the section isn't sourced very well. But if that's the only objection there, it's easy to fix. Does anyone know if there are any other disputes related to that section? Kafziel ^Talk 13:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving material to the daughter article (see below) may resolve the tag issue. NorCalHistory 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeping up the momentum, the next section to consider moving material to a daughter article is the State politics and government (including the Political culture subsection). Again, reactions please. NorCalHistory 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Second call: Propose moving most of the text of the State politics and government section (including the Political culture subsection) to a daughter article. Reactions please. NorCalHistory 15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose removing POV check on Geography section

I propose removing the POV check from the Geography section. I'm not sure what caused it to be tagged in the first place, but I don't see anything in there now that would seem to cause a problem. Reactions? NorCalHistory 01:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I could see no reason for the {{POV check}} tag, so I deleted it per Wikipedia:POV check: "In order to ensure the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification, it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved."

Also, my personal opinion is that whenever any dispute template has been added as a "drive-by" edit without any comments left on the article's talk page, that is also grounds for removing the dispute template. ^BlankVerse 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Going to propose moving most of Demographics to daughter article

Before everyone gets too worked up about the text of the Demographics section, that section will be coming up for consideration in our movement of the bulk of each of these sections to daughter articles. Each of these sections is/has been too long for this main California article, and the main California article has benefited from moving the bulk of the text of sections to daughter articles. The Demographics section will get its turn in the next week or so to be considered for movement. NorCalHistory 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We should retain the same information as other state articles. Readers should be able to find similar information in each state article. -Will Beback · † · 18:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be sure to double-check other states' sites - thanks for the tip! NorCalHistory 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture of California integration

Someone created a Culture of California article, which, incidentally, needs some help. But it also needs to be integrated into the main California article. Any suggestions?--Plainsong 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)