Talk:Santa Cruz, California/Archive 1

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

UCSC Grading

Aren't letter grades now mandatory at UCSC, with no narrative evaluations provided any more? I was there the last year before they instituted mandatory letter grades, and I was under the sad impression that you don't get evals at all any more. - Lemuria

Narritive evaluations are still given by instructors, although some don't bother to write them up. - Tachyon

social activism vs liberalism and anarchism

i changed the title of one of the santa cruz sections from "liberalism and anarchism" to social activism; i feel the new title represents that specific section's content more appropriately for a few reasons... the section contains one sentence that relates to anarchism and a few sentences regarding liberalism. the rest of the section deals more with social activism in general (such as gay/lesbian rights, the war on iraq, etc). it may be true, viewed through some people's eyes, that human rights issues are "liberal issues"; however, i believe that the idea of liberalism is up for continuous debate...although i personally would most likely be labeled "liberal" by the mass public, i do not agree. i am mislabeled a "liberal" for believing in human rights; so was this section. ~~xnerdyx


I removed references to the above-mentioned guy in pink, as well as a section on 'famous people' who were presumably the same users who added information about the pink man, who they apparently beat up regularly. If the guy in pink is actually something of a fixture in Santa Cruz, I suspect he could be returned to the page, but the other section was irrelevant.

He has never been attacked or beaten up. He is a fixture of downtown. His photo should be a part of the article. Kingturtle 04:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The pink man is a fixture. Though I don't know about being beaten up (I certianly hope not!), I do yell "Hey! Slow down!!!" at him whenever I see him. XSG 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Likewise. I actually came here to see if there was any info on him. What is his name? Is he homeless, crazy, or just eccentric? There are other questions that come up about him that I bet somebody on wikipedia knows the answers to too.--CallmeNiel 07:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoa... that guy's still around? I left the area over a year ago, and didn't expect to see him again... He almost made me cause a traffic accident... his whole being is so...distracting. Glad to know he's still wierding up the place.--DarthKobold 03:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He is around but hardly note worthy. If someone wanted to add a section on Pacific Garden Mall characters that included the Accordion Man, the Balloon Guy, the Swerving 'Witch' on the a Bicycle, and the old fellow from the 80s who played the saw and was missing the ends off a number of fingers, maybe a single word reference would be appropriate.

Michael first started walking the mall in early 2003.

At first, he just carried an umbrella and walked very slowly with a smile on his face. He has stated publicly that he considers it part social experiment, part performance art. The wildest thing about his dress back then was his large collection of Hawaiian shirts. He gradualy "evolved" into what you see now. I don't really know what precipitated the change, but he seems happy with it.

I've seen him shop for food at Trader Joes, and I've also seen him show up for a dentist's appointment at Dientes. Both times he was in full regalia, down to the umbrella. If you say hello to him, he always says hello back. Actually, you can engage him in a brief conversation - as long as it's friendly.

Unfortunately, it IS true that Michael has been assaulted. I don't know how many times it's actually happened, but I know for a fact that it happened once. I know this because it was actually my housemate that assaulted him (when my housemate was experiencing an unmedicated manic episode - very out of character).

I don't know Michael outside of the occasional wave or hello, but another one of my housemates does. According to my housemate, he's a nice, intelligent guy.

The highlight of my halloween was seeing Michael walking down one side of Pacific Ave., and a guy DRESSED as Michael walking (a bit too fast) down the other - neither one aware of the existence of the other across from them.

As an off-and-on resident of Santa Cruz for 20 years, I consider Michael to be the last bastion of "freaks and weirdos" who kept Santa Cruz fun and different for many years. They were too numerous to mention - from ranters who would literally stand on a little box to espouse their views, to the all-purple lady, to folks who would hand out flowers or trinkets every single day on Pacific Garden Mall.

Today, you can hardly even find a truly homeless person on Pacific Ave. - though the Homeless are still a sizable number. There have been many ordinances that have effectively forced a lot of people off the mall. Also, I noticed that a lot of the more colorful folks of Santa Cruz picked up and left after the earthquake. Some (like the Mexican fiddler) died. Still more (I talk to a few) left because they simply couldn't support themselves here.

It's a sad thing, in my opinion, but a reality. NinaEliza 06:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Santa Cruz Wikipedians?

I'd like to get a list together of Wikipedians who live in or around Santa Cruz. It'd be nice to get together once in a while. Kingturtle 04:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. Kingturtle 04:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. KingTT 15:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Andy M. 00:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC), during the school year
  4. Luspari 00:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Tachyon01 19:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jeiki Rebirth 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Funkyj 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. SeANMcBAY 23:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC), my MySpace profile is:
  9. Techgeist 12:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC).
  10. NinaEliza 06:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC) leave a note on my user page and say hello!
  11. Wjhonson 17:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. SluggerBugger 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Attended UCSC but now stuck here!
  13. XautumnsXhabitX 20:08, February 2008 (UTC). hit me up on MySpace:
  14. Lantana11 (Nick) 10:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC); a note on my user page or talk page is always welcomed.


The article claims Santa Cruz has had droughts in recent years. I don't recall any recent years having droughts, so I suspect I have a disparate definition of "recent". I'd recommend re-wording it. What do you think? XSG 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember there being a week or two in 2004 with 100 degree temperatures near the end of summer... and it did rain a little less than I was used to that year... but other than that... I don't know what "drought" is referring to.--DarthKobold 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "recent" refers to a geological timescale! I lived there from 1977-1998 and there were several times when we had water rationing in the city-county area. Nevertheless, CA has been referred to as a "desert" area based on the normal rainfall. I suggest "in recent times" or "during the late 1970s."
Lmcelhiney 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

History or something else?

This sentence bothers me: "Although the Victorian inner city area around the Louden Nelson Center and the vast majority of the city is gentrified, the Beach Flats area next to the boardwalk have a high crime rate." Should it say "are gentrified"? or does the "inner city area" get its own object? If both the inner city area and the "vast majority of the city" are gentrified, then I think maybe we should simply say the vast majority of the city is gentrified and not mention the inner city, which would be redundant.. Also, given that this sentence is more about the present state of the city than its history I'm not sure it belongs in under the History heading. Rlitwin 14:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Steffen

Robert Steffen aka the pink umbrella man should have his own article. I really see him popping up around random places. I think he's enough of a celebrity to have one.

All things considered, I don't. First, as far as I know, there are no confirmations that pink umbrella man is Robert Steffen, though it's highly likely. Second, the qualifications for receiving a "celebrity" Wikipedia page are stringent. As cool as he is, I don't think Robert Steffen or the pink umbrella guy would pass. XSG 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There are less than 100 articles found by google for "Robert Steffen" "Santa Cruz". There are 16 hits for "pink umbrella guy". He's not notable yet. Kingturtle 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm changing my mind on this one. Searching for "pink umbrella guy" or "Robert Steffen" is disingenuous, as few know of the pink umbrella guy's identity, and searching for the word "guy" as part of the search term limits people who refer to him as the "pink umbrella dude" or, more commonly, the "pink umbrella man". Searching for "pink umbrella" and "santa cruz" results in 720 references, almost all of which are direct references to this particular person. While I still question whether Robert Steffen (if this is his identity) warrants a biographic entry on Wikipedia, the standards for a well-documented mention regarding some of the local color are much less stringent. I'm adding a brief reference in the article, indicating that such color exists and nothing more. XSG 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Caffe Pergolessi

I may be months late in noticing this, but who removed the image of the Caffe Pergolessi and why? It occurred to me after I saw it was gone that it might have appeared to be some kind of attempt to use Wikipedia as a means of advertisement, against regs, but I had no such intention. It seems to me that in a town as small and yet as nuanced and bohemian as Santa Cruz, the Caffe Pergolessi is not only notably characteristic of the Santa Cruz brands of intellectualism and sociality, but also relevant as it is characteristic of the proliferation and popularity of small-business non-chain enterprise, which is again something specifically characteristic to Santa Cruz. I didn't post any actual information on the Caffe because I couldn't think of where to find publications from which to cite about it, and wasn't about to violate the ban on original research, but I can't figure how the picture alone was causing any harm to the page. Please advise. Techgeist 16:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

left wing politics

if you had to compare santa cruz ca to burlington vt in terms of left wing politics, who is more to the left?

To the left with respect to what, exactly? There are segments of Santa Cruz that are extremely conservative, particularly where community growth is concerned. XSG 04:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

when i think of left, i am thinking about a lot of social programmes, anti death penalty, pro abortion, anti racism, elimination of religion, restrictions on businesses, anti military. and what exactly do you mean by conservative?

A few points:

  1. Wikiepedia is not a forum. We should be using the discussion tab of this page to talk specifically about the article. If you want to know more about Santa Cruz with respect to content that has no place in the article, I can point you to another forum. This does beg a question, though: does this information belong in the Santa Cruz article? We should talk about this!
  2. Your definition of "left" or "left wing" does not match mine. Living in the area, I know many people who I would consider to be "left wing", including myself. Of them, not a single one has any desire to eliminate religion. I know that elimination of religion is one of the tenets of Marixsm, and Marxism is considered to be extremely left-wing, but it's dangerous to simply lump all beliefs into a single group. "Left wing" communists are not the same as "left wing" wiccans.
  3. My definition of conservative is "the opposite of liberal".
  4. When you add a comment to a discussion page, place four tildes (~~~~) after it, and it will stamp the entry with your logged-in name or IP address and a timestamp. I really don't like talking with anonymous commenters because the anonymity usually indicates a lack of any commitment toward Wikipedia progress, and I suspect that this is true for many people as well.

So... to what end are we trying to define "left" or "right" wing? Should we categorize left- and right-wing stances and add entries to each city's articles with a gauge to how liberal or conservative they are in these categories? While an intersting project, I don't think that sort of information really has much value... XSG 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree very heartily that an encylopedia page should not attempt to evaluate residents' socio-political views, although a reference to the city's forty-year history of social activism is right to be included--it's fact--and so with the on-going debate between those supporting and opposing new development. There are plenty of other venues that support political discussion. Lantana11 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Community collges?

Are there any community colleges in Santa Cruz, it doesn't say on this article? -ChristopherMannMcKay 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

None in the city. UCSC fills that need. In Santa Cruz County, there is Cabrillo College. --Lmcelhiney 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to your question, however, ChristopherMannMcKay, I've added a section on Colleges and Universities to the Santa Cruz County, California page. XSG 03:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Cabrillo College should be mentioned in this article. The college serves city residents as well as the areas residents. SluggerBugger 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Loma Prieta earthquake

I find it interesting there is no mention at all of the Loma Prieta earthquake in the history section of this article. The earthquake had a significant impact on the city, especially the development and redevelopment of the downtown. shouldn't it be mentioned? there was a mercury news article recently about some of the downtown history [1] Minnaert 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be mentioned. XSG 01:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Climate & Geology

I've been redistributing catergories and information into locations that seem more suitable for easy viewing. What's missing from this page, when compared to other city pages, is information on climate and geology of the region. Also, perhaps there needs to be a pre-history section on the Ohlone (Pre-contact) and natural history of the area. Please feel free to add liberally to the Education, Parks, and Recreation areas! At this point, it doesn't matter about verifing the facts, we can edit them later. What we need is content overhall! SluggerBugger 02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


What is the weather like? --Remi 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty darn good -Roofus 04:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Perfect, except for too much fog in the summer; many a day planned for the water and the beach is spent shivering in the misty overcast. Lantana11 (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

development issues

I recall that there have been some heated controversies over development in the city, which might be worth mentioning. In particular, there is tension (iirc) between different segments of the "left"; on the one hand, pro-development folks who see the construction of more apartment housing as the best way to make the city more affordable for working families to live in, and on the other hand, anti-development folks who oppose most/all new construction as environmentally unfriendly and dangerous to the look, feel, and character of the city. --Delirium 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that to the history page under a new header. I would use specific examples like the Coast Hotel Debauchal, La Bahia Project, and UCSC town-gown fights. 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

no mention of homeless?

An article about Santa Cruz that does not mention the homeless - a huge issue going back decades - seems to me, incomplete. Dlabtot 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I put in a sentence under activism regarding homeless, AIDS, gangs that says yeah, Santa Cruz has these problems too like a lot of other cities but citizens have taken some action to correct them. Bikinibomb 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


What the hell happened to this article in the past year? It used to convey some sense of Santa Cruz's quirky culture. Now the prose reads drier than an instruction manual. I'm inclined to go back in history and mine some of the better text on Pacific Ave., if that's what people want. Slugmaster 19:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As a wiki article it needs to be fairly dry and matter-of-fact avoiding POVs and just stating what's verifiably downtown. -Bikinibomb 22:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SCLOGO.gif

Nuvola apps important.svg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

State Parks & Beaches

The article lists several parks and beaches that are in Santa Cruz County, but are not located in the city's borders. Should those parks and beaches outside the city's borders be listed in the City of Santa Cruz article? (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No they belong in Santa Cruz County, California. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable Santa Cruzans?

Is someone who lived in Santa Cruz until they were five really a notable Santa Cruzan? XSG 05:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be of historical value to know who was born here, who lived here for a little while and went to UCSC, who still lives here, etc. Which is which can be specified, I don't have a problem with it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe there should be separate listings to discern them. Kingturtle (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've divided the notables into those raised in Santa Cruz (i.e. in Santa Cruz not of their own volition), lived in Santa Cruz (i.e. chose to live in Santa Cruz), and Attended UC Santa Cruz (i.e. chose to live in Santa Cruz but solely for their education). I've also re-worked the sections so that the name comes first, followed by what they are notable for. I've also added that citations are needed for those whose biographies make no reference to Santa Cruz. XSG 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Prehistory & the Ohlone

The article barely scratches the surface of the Ohlone (Coastanoan) who used to live here. Also, we need to find historic photos to add to the History section. SluggerBugger (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be great if you could add Ohlone info! Kingturtle (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Careful... Ohlone information not directly related to the city or area of Santa Cruz should probably go in the Ohlone article and not here... XSG 02:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Surf City

Removing the "(contested)" from after the nickname "Surf City" is highly controversial. Unless you've got a reference showing that Santa Cruz has the legal right to call itself Surf City, please don't remove the "(contested)". XSG 22:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But Huntington Beach has no exclusive right to assert ownership over the Surf City trademark. Kingturtle (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
They do have Trademark on "Surf City USA", but you're absolutely right... they've got no claim to "Surf City".[2] I'll change that back! XSG 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Santa Cruz Notables

I think it would make the Santa Cruz page look nicer if the notables section became it's own page seperate from the main article. There just seems to be too many lists in this article; it makes it feel sort of tackey. Just my opinion. (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This article could use some carving up. Kingturtle (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of gallery

I was checking out other city pages and most big cities/well developed pages don't offer image galleries on their page. Instead, they use many images throughout the page to keep the reader interested. Would this work for us? (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the image gallery works better. Helps avoid clutter. I wish other city articles would follow suit. Kingturtle (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I find the gallery to be non-encyclopedic. Due to copyright, pictures in articles are intended to illustrate or improve understanding of a particular topic. As such, I think the images belong in-line. I would be for the removal of the gallery.  X  S  G  08:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I am curious, if a gallery isn't valid here, when is a gallery valid? What is an example of an acceptable galley? Kingturtle (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the best example of an acceptable gallery is PicasaWeb or Flickr. I can't immediately think of any "appropriate" galleries in Wikipedia. This isn't a travel brochure, it's an encyclopedia.  X  S  G  07:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There has been some discussion of galleries at Wikipedia:Galleries. The article generally discourages the use of galleries. However, the target there is articles which are primarily galleries - they state that the article is "not concerned with the use of the gallery feature within pages that are predominantly text-based articles". My impression is that the gallery feature can be used appropriately in a predominantly text-based article as is done in the article under discussion. Perhaps the anti-gallery bias at Wikipedia:Galleries has been misinterpreted as "the use of the gallery feature is non-encyclopedic" or perhaps it's just a matter of style and taste.
At any rate, I find the gallery informative and appropriate. Photographs can be used appropriately to add value, illustration, and content. Whether they are displayed in-line or a a gallery is debatable. I would prefer each photo be displayed in-line at the point where it is relevant, if possible. So, I guess i'm agreeing with both sides of this issue. Keep the gallery until such time as the photos have been moved in-line. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the images that were in the gallery. We need to determine which of these photos provides a usefu, honest, and unique view of Santa Cruz and get them in-line. (For example, every location has sunsets... I don't think it helps the article and probably shouldn't be re-added. The views of downtown streets might be useful, however. The photo from Natural Bridges depicts something that can no longer be seen, so it's dubious whether it should be in the article unless it's in the "history" section.)  X  S  G  03:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Cross School

Should we add it to the list of schools? Here's the Website

Just wondering... sorry bout previous Vandalism... this IP is shared...-- (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Added.  X  S  G  06:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo Captions

I added some detail to captions on 17 June. If the "Victorian townhomes" photo was taken on Lincoln Street rather than Walnut Avenue please change it. Lantana11 (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


User:Kingturtle removed the external link to Cruzio ( referring to it as spam. Cruzio is one of the oldest and one of the first local ISP's and provides a ton of local info. In the recent spate of fires was the _only_ place on the web I found with timely and up-to-date info on where the fires were and what the threat to local residents was. I believe Cruzio belongs in this article. Seemed like under external links was appropriate. If not there, where ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source for external links. If you want to write an article on Cruzio, please do. Kingturtle (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
External links in Wikipedia articles can be appropriate. See WP:EL where the guideline states "Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". An external link to Cruzio in this article does not fall under the guidelines for "Links normally to be avoided" and satisfies the requirements for "What to link". The link is accessible, "proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)", and functional. Cruzio's website simply provides a greater degree of detail about the subject of this article than could possibly be integrated into Wikipedia.
We already have an an article on Cruzio. Someone should link to that instead of an external link, and perhaps flesh out Cruzio as well (They had a significant influence within the geek communities and early-internet communities when I lived there 1991-1995). I would do this, but I'm not sure where to re-add the link-- Kingturtle also removed the "Visitor information" which seem appropriate to me. Personally, I'm getting pretty jaded about the "not encyclopedic" argument, and I don't have the time or energy to engage in yet more negative debates, when some people have much more spare time then I have. "Keep the Santa Cruz page weird." -= Gigglesworth (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, I am fairly unimpressed with the over-used argument that something is "not encyclopedic". Especially with respect to an external link since, prior to the advent of on-line encyclopedias, such a thing did not exist and therefore traditional definitions of encyclopedia would not cover the concept. WP:EL is the best thing we have currently with regards to incorporating an external link into an article. That plus common sense - does the link add significant value to the article ? Yes, in this case, it does.
Finally, I sympathize with your effort to move this article away from a visitors guide sounding piece. However, an external link on a city's Wikipedia entry to that city's visitors bureau would be fine. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I also marked it as spam because the user's only edit was adding an external link. Kingturtle (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better (it shouldn't), I also think a bare link to Cruzio is spam. Linking to the Cruzio article, however, would be useful.  X  S  G  20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)