Talk:Berkeley, California

Clarity on the Trivia exercise

We're deciding on keeps and tosses, but it is not clear to me that we've decided to dispense with the trivia section altogether. If we have a keep, and it doesn't fit into any other part of the article without disrupting the textual flow, how else do we keep an item? Should we rename the trivia section "footnotes"? Create new sections? Yes, we could shoe-horn in all these items, and say we've "integrated" them, but at what cost? Is the idea of getting rid of trivia sections on Wikipedia already settled? I thought it was still only a guideline, and still up for discussion. Tmangray 04:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How about if we at least try to integrate all that stuff into the article? If, after attempting that, there's some material left over, then we can decide what to do with it. But it should be possible to get all the relevant material to go in somewhere; after all, that's the role of a good writer and editor, no? And yes, the whole matter of trivia sections is still a pretty hotly debated issue here, and not settled policy. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I tired to integrate the information but IL2BA removed it from the history section claiming I didn't try to integrate it and that integrating it was wrong, I say keep.Cholga^talK! 22:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Integrate" does not mean "toss back into the article at some more or less random place without working it into the text". Look up the meaning of that word if you're unclear on the concept. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the patranization its always appreciated. I hope somthing nice happens to you today and you cheer up! =) but getting back to the point I fail to see how the element berklium being named after the city doesnt fit into the history section.Cholga^talK! 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no element "berklium". Or was this a joke? Leobold1 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the trivia stuff could be listed under "See Also" Leobold1 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Cholga. I appear to have spelled it wrong when I looked it up and didn't try it with different spellings. Leobold1 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Marine recruiting brouhaha

Berkeley is currently going through a current event (not listed) where it voted to send a letter to the local Marine Corps Recruiter Office that they were unwelcome. The story is getting a lot of play in the press. Its already under the article for Mayor Tom Bates, but since the Berkeley City Council voted to send this (9-1). This is also on the page for Senator Jim DeMint. Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Center controversy Should this be included? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327466,00.html Leobold1 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the section on the Marine recruiting controversy be reduced to one or two sentences. Otherwise, this article may become cluttered with details about every single news event in Berkeley. It is sufficient to mention it briefly as other historical events in Berkeley are mentioned, with a link to the article dedicated to the details of the event. Tmangray (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but if you do it, add the info on this page to the linked page. A lot of the info on this page is better.User:calbear22 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good source

Berserkeley has been that way a long timeUser:calbear22 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable stores

I just reverted a list of "notable stores" including Power Bar and others. I don't think such a list is necessary here. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

These were all iconic stores in Berkeley and as the article lists numerous points of interest, I'm curious as to the logic of reverting my edit. At least two of them are historic since they are defunct. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Another business, Chez Panisse, though in a different section, was not removed. Whole Earth Access is at least as notable and of the three is the one that should be restored for historic purposes, perhaps in another section. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your list wasn't supported by mainstream, established, critical observations about how notable the stores were. If such a list were allowed free reign, it could easily take on a life of its own as every interested party added their favorite example. Me, I would have nominated Uncle Ralph's, a defunct electronics store... My stereo bought there is still working perfectly — that's notability.  ;^) Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough for the list itself. I'd still like to restore Whole Earth Access to an established section - the same as Chez Panisse- and actually add Cody's Books as well also for historic reasons - it's surprising to not see it in the article already. These are not random stores (of which granted there are many in Berkeley and I can think of a few that match Uncle Ralph's but also would not suggest due to lack of notability) but rather are historic Berkeley icons. The article as it stands reflects Berkeley as it is now but still lacks a stronger sense of its history and I think many would agree that these two stores are part of it. So, if there are no objections I will add both of them. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a more in-depth presentation of businesses that are or have been important to Berkeley, as long as each and every business's mention is well-referenced. The bald list is what I reverted. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Archives need to be created for this talk page. If there are no objections, I will add the User:MiszaBot I which automatically archives talk pages. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I added User:MiszaBot I. It will archive all but five posts older than five days (in other words, the last five posts will always be left on the talk page). -Classicfilms (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

IPA

I'm pretty sure that /ˈbʌrkli/ more closely represents pronunciation of Berkeley than /ˈbɜrkli/. I've always heard the former pronunciation, never the latter. KCS Lavi (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As a native Californian and sometime Berkeleyan, I should offer the observation that the 'berk' part is pronounced to rhyme with 'lurk', 'dirk', 'work', 'berserk', etc. Not like 'bark' or 'shark'. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I just got my B.A. in Linguistics from Cal, so here's my two cents: I think the best IPA transcription for Berkeley is actually /'bɚkli/. The rhotic schwa (or schwar) strikes me as the closet description of the first vowel. (I consulted this IPA chart, recommended by a Cal linguistics professor, that has recorded versions of each symbol.) Sarichkaa (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Put it in! Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I'm not so sure about my answer above. Based on my preexisting knowledge of IPA I would say /'bɚkli/ is the best transcription, but according to Wikipedia:IPA for English (the article that any IPA transcription links to), it seems /ˈbɜrkli/ is actually correct. (This article reserves use of the schwar for unstressed syllables, such as perform /pɚ'fɒrm/.) So, in the interest of making sure the linked Wikipedia guide to English IPA is actually useful to readers, I rescind my suggestion and say we should stick with /ˈbɜrkli/, as the article currently stands. Sarichkaa (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Stockyards

It seems inappropriate to specially mention only one part of the city here. There are several sections of Berkeley that were once apart from it. The area mentioned was mostly in what is now Emeryville and was more commonly called "Butchertown", despite what the post office may have called its branch thereabouts. If you look at some old Sanborn maps, for instance, you'll see this. The area was directly "descended" from one of the original cattle landings of the Peraltas' ranch. Perhaps a more appropriate place for mention of it is with reference to West Berkeley, and/or in the neighborhoods subsection. Tmangray (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Length of Dellums aside in Berkeley in the 1970's

I notice that the sub-section on Berkeley's history in the 1970's has an extensive aside about Ron Dellums activity in the late 1960's and early 1970's, including his time on the Berkeley City Council. While I think that Dellums certainly merits mention, I think that according the Neutral Point of View Policy on Weight, this section perhaps could be removed or pared down, or would be more useful in a section on prominent figures in Berkeley politics. Any input would be very helpful and appreciated. Mountrue14 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely. The Berkeley page should not be Ron Dellums v.2. All of that is covered in his bio page.--Chimino (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Chimino. In that case, I propose that the information on Dellums be moved from the page. I would propose adding it to his personal page, but there is no source material provided. If this is amenable to all, I will move forward with this edit. Thanks. Mountrue14 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Tmangray (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)