Portal talk:San Diego County

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Portal:San Diego or Portal:San Diego County[edit]

There does not appear to be a consensus about the placement of city-specific portals in other cities that are in the same county. The Los Angeles Portal was changed to Portal:Greater Los Angeles with some minor wording change to take the focus off just the city, although a lot more changes are needed. The San Diego portal currently deals strictly with the city of San Diego. If the portal is going to be posted on cities like Carlsbad, I think a similar change in portal focus to San Diego County would be appropriate. If not, then the portal should only be used on the specific city. Thoughts? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Alanray: 1. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California#Portals_of_Los_Angeles_and_San_Diego - Posts 23:01 by myself, 00:05 by Butros, and23:29 by TorriTorri support, while 02:02 by Jojhutton opposes. I told him he was welcome to rewrite the portal.
2. This is what I say to Jojhutton: If you want to rewrite the portal, do so. Do not remove the portals under any circumstances. Let them be posted. Whether the portal is rewritten or not, the portals will be posted, and any removals will be challenged. The concensus was made at WikiProject California. You agreed to rewrite the portals.
He said he would rewrite the portal.
3. Either "San Diego" or "San Diego County" are fine. By "San Diego" I mean the metro area, which is the same as the county anyway. I do not oppose a name change to San Diego County.
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me of that thread. When only a few people respond about the San Diego portal there, it's hard to establish a real consensus. I think adding content beyond the just the city and then changing the name may meet everyone's needs. It just takes a little more work, which I will try to do very gradually. Hopefully those with experience in making portals will help out. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Example 1: Appropriate Geography portal for the city of San Jose, CA.
Example 2: Inappropriate geography portal for areas that are not in the city of San Diego, CA.
Example 3 Inappropriate geography portal for any area outside the city of Los Angeles, CA.
Any Questions??--Jojhutton (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I think Example 1 is a model we should try to emulate. The current portal does not really work, IMO. Let's try to add content to the LA and SD portals to make them similar to the Bay Area one. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the reason why the Bay area has been that way from the start because there isn't really a dominant city (San Francisco may be the closest, but San Jose and Oakland have so much pull and are actually larger than SF) - Anyway for LA we already have "Greater Los Angeles"

- Somebody needs to assign a picture to this one, though.

For SD County/Greater SD we can simply use an outline of the county or the San Diego skyline
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The "Greater San Diego" sounds like it would work. I have interest on working on this portal in the future as well, but it's going to be at least a few months. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's try to find the stupidest member of our community and get him (or her!) to express their consent before anyone proceeds. Ameriquedialectics 09:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Dang, that's a great idea, but where are we going to find him/her? Were you interested on commenting on the above choices or is there other name suggestions you think would work? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 14:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If there are no objections I will move the portal to "San Diego County" and redirect "San Diego" and "Greater San Diego" to the new name. I'm not sure how to change the picture of a portal, though.
As a note, cities outside of San Diego mentioned by the current portal are Coronado, Imperial Beach, and Encinitas.
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It needs a complete overhaul in order for it to be expanded. There are other city portals in the U.S. that have the same problems and should be overhauled in order to comply with the articles that you wish them to be in.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Then one should propose a draft and explain why the draft is better. In the meantime, it is inevitable that this portal's scope will be San Diego County, so whether or not it is revamped, we should begin adding portals to "San Diego County" ASAP. Do not remove the portals, because there is no good reason to do so. If you think the portal needs to be altered, let the links be added anyway. Do not interfere in the adding of the portal links. They will be there anyway, so why remove them? If you think the portal has a problem, fix the portal and do not interfere with the justifiable adding of portal links.
You advocated for overhauling the portal. Go ahead and overhaul it now, and let the portal links be added to all San Diego County articles. I do not care what name the portal has, and I do not care that much about the actual setup. There is a portal for San Diego County, and that portal must cover San Diego County. Go ahead and have the name changed, the picture changed, and the content changed, but do not remove the portals from any San Diego County articles.
"There are other city portals in the U.S. that have the same problems and should be overhauled in order to comply with the articles that you wish them to be in." - Which ones? Why? Do the people maintaining those portals believe that there is a problem with them? Should they? (Bring that up in those portal pages)
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Look......if you want to rewrite the portals to comply with the articles that "you" think they should be in, then do so. But do not suggesst that this is someone elses problem to rewrite. Do not add them until they reflect the proper information.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Jojhutton: You want a rewrite. It is your responsibility to show us what you mean by that, and it is your responsibility to prove and demonstrate that your idea is better. I do not have an understanding of exactly what you want.
When you try to get things done on Wikipedia, you have to work for your vision. When Cranbury School was up on AFD, I didn't simply say "Don't delete it!" I scoured the internet for as much as I could to prove the article's notability. I worked hard, and I saved the article.
I posted a message about my intention to use "Portal:San Diego County" on the California talk page. If I get a consensus or if I get no objections in 7 days, I will begin adding the portals again, and it will be understood that any reverts from editors who are aware of this discussion will go against consensus and be considered disruptive and in bad faith.
Because you are saying that the portal needs work, it is your responsibility to show us what a better portal looks like. And whether or not the portal needs work, the intended scope is San Diego County anyway. There is no point in fighting the placement of the portal. Use your energies to write the portal now.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No..........It is the responsibility of the editor (you), to make sure that the information (the portal) is correct and does not continue to reflect incorrect information. If you want the portals placed in those articles, then rewite the portals to reflect those articles. Don't be coy with your wording either, the intened scope of the portal does not reflect what you think you see. That goes for other portals, in other geographic locations. ie: the Houston portal and the New Orleans portal. Also clearly out of place in many articles. (Yes I looked it all up). The only thing stopping me from removing those innapropriate portals from those articles is the fact that I do not have enough actual geographic knowledge of those areas. But I would support any editor who decided to remove them as they now stand. So if you want to keep the portals in those articles, then please rewrite them and stop trying to pass the buck on others.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The scope automatically means that the portal must be in every SD County-related article no matter how "bad" it is. If the portal is bad, it needs a rewrite, but last thing it needs is for it to be removed. We don't help portals by removing them from articles. We help them by rewriting. And once the portal is "better" (no matter what it will be "better" as a result of this discussion) then you have to take the effort to put them back, so the removal of the portal is a waste of time.
"So if you want to keep the portals in those articles, then please rewrite them and stop trying to pass the buck on others." The buck does not fall onto me. I do not know exactly what you want, so I cannot work on the portal. I do not know how much San Diego-related stuff to remove, or what the intro needs to look like, or how much other cities need to be mentioned, etc. And by the time you try to explain it all, it would have taken a lot less effort for you to simply build the portal yourself.
I am not stopping you from improving the portal, so there is no excuse for trying to make me work to change the portal to a vision that you have. You need to articulate your vision.
As for other portals:
"The only thing stopping me from removing those innapropriate portals from those articles is the fact that I do not have enough actual geographic knowledge of those areas." Then learn about the geographic knowledge, or consult people who are familiar with the geographic knowledge and ask them their opinions. You need to explain why you think those portals are "clearly out of place," especially when considered that U.S. Government-defined metropolitan areas in most of the U.S. go on a county-by-county basis (i.e. even rural parts of Brazoria County, TX are in the "Houston area," so they and the places in them fall under the portal) - They start and stop at county lines.
If you really want something done, you will at least make a good effort to make sure it is done. Jojhutton, please stop arguing and just go and improve the San Diego portal to your vision as you see fit. Work hard, and present your draft so WP:California can decide whether the project likes it more than the current version. You can ask for help if you need it.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I just went ahead and renamed it to Portal:San Diego County - We just need to find an image for the portal WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for rewriting the portal :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to add an archive to the Selected Article, section of the main page of the portal, using the portal for the San Francisco Bay as a model, but so far I can't seem to get it right. That is why I keep testing, to see how it turns out.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I modified the formatting for the selected article, based on a similar format used at Portal:Film. To add new articles to the random generation, go to Portal:San Diego County/Selected article, look for the next available subpage number, and then create that subpage to include details about a San Diego county article. Then, include that link in the selected article subpage while also updating the "max=" field on the main portal page. This will ensure that it picks up all available selected articles. I've added one for Hotel del Coronado, and will add one more for Petco Park so you can see how the process works. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal image: Shouldn't the portal image be File:San Diego County Seal.png, not File:Seal Of San Diego, California.svg? Jim1138 (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_San_Diego#San_Diego_County_Portal_uses_City_of_San_Diego_seal. That should help answer your question! 08OceanBeachS.D. 22:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


This is sad, that the only photo is of shamu. thats definitely not the fact of SD right now. I may take the time to revamp this a bit. i know no one will read this, though. i dont like portals which lead a reader nowhere. worse than not having one is a really bad one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

minimal reviving to make it useful and not completely out of date. shamu is retired.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)