Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Southern California task force/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Is SoCal a clear subset?

Not knowing anything about this wikiproject, it has occured to me that southern califoria could be doing the exact same work as the california project only it's a division of labour--or, that while it is mostly a division of labour, the two projects could look at one article very differently.

The assessment scale, especially in terms of importance I would think to be very different depending upon what project I was in. Southern California might rate something of high importance, while California might rate the same article of lower importance, or vice versa. And, even if the assessments ranked close together, I'm presuming that the editors who work in each wikiproject are more familiar with that project and so I might get very different comments from the two projects.

Can anyone who knows both projects and especially both of the assessment systems comment on this? If it's a So. cal article should it only be in southern california, or is there any benefit to having a project remain in both. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   14:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We've recently had a large debate on this very issue (see above, starting here), the result being to keep the status quo, frustrations on both sides, and the loss of a long-time editor (and founder of both wikiprojects).
The current practice is for anything relating to California, to be tagged with WP:CAL. If it is also related to Southern California, it is also tagged with WP:SOCAL. It's redundant, and WP:CAL will never touch half of their 10,717 tagged articles, but they won't have it any other way. —Brien ClarkTalk 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose inefficiency is ok on Wikipedia. I mean, it's not like they're being paid or anything... I saw the discussion above--but, just from your own experience with the two projects--do you think that there are the kind of differences I'm talking about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miss Mondegreen (talkcontribs) 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
Absolutely. Riverside, California, an old, key city of the Inland Empire might warrant a high-importance rating from WP:SOCAL but only a mid-importance rating from WP:CAL. Because WP:CAL has a much larger scope, they invariably must downgrade the importance of some articles that the Southern California region would find very important. —Brien ClarkTalk 16:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unsigned? Unsigned! Drat! Anyway, the article in question University High School (Los Angeles, California) currently has a peer reivew open and I've requested comments from all of the many wikiprojects it belongs to and ratings from all of the wikiprojects it belongs to. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I just chnaged the wikiproject template for SoCal to list the articles under both WPs. --evrik (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So. Cal is bigger than many states, it has it own identity. Before the Civil War there were pans to divide the state because it was to big to be managed. My mental map of California has the following regions:

  • Southern California, my home
  • Central Coast
  • Central Valley
  • Sierra Nevada and East
  • SF Bay
  • Northern California

From a political and social view the large metropolitan areas have more in common with each other than the agricultural and mountain regions. Saltysailor (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Maps for LA neighborhoods

After years of requests, I have finally created some maps depicting the location of neighborhoods within Los Angeles. The map data comes from the U.S. Bureau of the Census American FactFinder: [1]. The files are interlaced PNG; I'm not sure I have the software to convert to SVG if that's deemed preferable. Interlaced seems to scale better than non-interlaced in this case. I edited them with the AppleWorks paint module, which is a Mac equivalent to Windows Paint. If this works out, I plan to create maps for every L.A. neighborhood.

Here are some examples I posted on Photobucket:

Any thoughts? szyslak 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the coordinates for the neighborhoods? As far as I know, there is no official definition for Los Angeles neighborhoods or their center-points. Mike Dillon 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There isn't, but if you enter, say, "Hollywood, CA" or "Chatsworth, CA" into Google or Yahoo Maps, they will return a result. For the prototypes here, I didn't use GIS or other mapping software. I just placed the red dot on the approximate location. For a map of this scale, finding the precise centerpoint wouldn't matter much. However, in the final maps I create if there aren't serious objections to including them in articles, I will use the centerpoints provided by Google Earth as a reference, as I did for the Hollywood map. szyslak 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think LA neighborhoods are defined somewhere. After all, they have to know where to put up the signs, right? I'm also thinking back to a few years ago when Van Nuys residents wanted to create a new area called Lake Balboa and I recall the LA Times article mentioning the street boundaries that the new area would encompass (which curiously does not actually include the lake). howcheng {chat} 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I know about the map at http://www.laalmanac.com/LA/lamap2.htm but as their disclaimer says, even they are not official. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This is true. On Talk:Los Angeles, California there's been discussion regarding some excellent maps made by Jorobeq. As well-made as those maps are, the neighborhood boundaries are based on those from the unfree LA Almanac. This raises copyright concerns as they'd surely fall under the definition of "derivative works". If we want to use maps that define boundaries between neighborhoods, we would have to either (a) infringe on the LA Almanac's copyright or (b) engage in original research. That's why I think the method displayed in my maps is preferable: a red dot shows more or less where the neighborhood is, with the freeway grid displayed for reference. szyslak 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This page is interesting: http://www.ci.la.ca.us/PLN/complan/cpbpage.htm. It lays out the "Community Plan Areas" in the city as of 2003. It doesn't exactly correspond to "neighborhoods", since some plan areas contain more than one neighborhood, but at least it's a source. Mike Dillon 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea: Let's use maps like the ones I made for orientation purposes. However, they would have boundaries for regions of the city instead of every individual "neighborhoods". By "regions" I mean "central", "west", "south", "east", "harbor" and "valley". In the valley, the planning commission areas in the map Mike Dillon linked to are divided between "north" and "south". I'm wondering whether our orientation maps should reflect that division, or just have one "valley" area. szyslak 07:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I'm in the process of creating SVG versions of the maps. They will still be based on the city boundaries from the American FactFinder map. szyslak 07:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

San Diego Cities infobox dispute

Hi, User:Cooljuno411 and I have a disagreement on a little detail on San Diego Cities infoboxes, but I figured it'd be best to find a larger forum to get a consensus rather than getting to a full edit war or anything nasty. In sum: Does the population of a metropolitan area belong in all the infoboxes for every suburb and designated area in the metro area? My thought is, no, this information belongs in the article for the major city in the metro area and in the article for the metro area itself, but not in every small town in the metro area. All the other characteristics in the boxes (land area, population, mayor) refer to the suburb itself, except this newly added "metro-area population." If we were going to list information about the metro area in suburbs, why not also the state population, or the U.S.'s? A suburb is part of all these places as well. Our main dispute has been on the article Escondido, California, but most of the others in San Diego have also been changed in the last few days.

Cooljuno411 has suggested that I look at articles such as Chula Vista, California or Santee, California which have metro statistics -- but of course, they didn't until he added them the day before. He has also suggested that I look at San Francisco Bay Area and List of the largest metropolitan areas in the Americas as places where the populations of metro areas are listed--of course I agree that metro area statistics belong there! More comparable places seem to be Altadena,_California, which lists only population of that "Census-designated place," or, outside Southern California, Freemont,_CA or White_Plains,_NY, which don't list stats about the SF or NY metro areas. Obviously the SD-TJ metro area is important to Cooljuno (who has added aerial shots of it to the articles on Mexico, California, metropolis, border, et al.), but its stats don't seem to me to need to be on every San Diego related article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You probably should also leave a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities since they handle most of the guidelines for {{infobox city}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Myke Cuthbert and I think that Cooljuno411 is miss reading the meaning of "metro" and "urban" in the info box. I believe the terms refer to the make up of the city itself, where some cities would be 100% urban, others 100% metro and while others are a mix. The info box would provide for a more detailed break down of the city, rather than for providing information on the larger metro area that the city might belong to. The following is the fields to be filled out in the template which does not support the idea of refering to a greater metro area outside of the boundries of the city itself:

|area_magnitude =
|area_total =
|TotalArea_sq_mi =
|area_land =
|LandArea_sq_mi =
|area_water =
|WaterArea_sq_mi =
|area_water_percent =
|area_urban =
|UrbanArea_sq_mi =
|area_metro =
|MetroArea_sq_mi =
|population_as_of =
|population_note =
|population_footnotes =
|settlement_type =
|population_total =
|population_density =
|population_density_mi2 =
|population_metro =
|population_density_metro_km2 =
|population_density_metro_mi2 =
|population_urban =
|population_density_urban_km2 =
|population_density_urban_mi2 =

Dbiel (Talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a point to this wikiproject? Perhaps this should be a task force instead

When I asked a while ago about SoCal being a clear subset of Cal I got varied answers. One was that while it was a subset, it was good to have a page be a part of both projects--the article would get different types of advice from the projects and might get rated differently etc. But I was also told that this was created to help with the large amound of work WP:CAL faced.

But I really don't see the purpose of this project. I submitted an article for assessment in April to both WP:CAL and WP:SOCAL. The article got an assessment from WP:CAL the second week of May. The assessment department gets few requests--a couple a month and yet it's mid-June--I've been waiting almost two months. The project page is an unorganized mess and the talk page isn't very active for a wikiproject that covers this much.

Some sort of restructuring is clearly needed--either archiving this project and starting over, and creating this as a task force and using and contributing to WP:CAL's assessment department etc.

I also don't understand why there's been so much discussion about the tagging of talk pages--moving away from WP:CAL to WP:SOCAL. This project is in no way ready to handle all socal pages turning to it instead of WP:CAL, and taking steps in that direct is a bad idea. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:04, June 13 2007 (UTC)

This project was led by user:BlankVerse, who's become much less active. There are benefits to splitting up the handling of California-related topics. I'm not sure what a task force would do differently. What's needed is more effort on improving articles, not more arguing over turf battles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A task force uses a lot of the project's (in this case WP:CAL) stuff. Organizational systems, assessment program, etc. There's a lot less bureaucratic stuff that falls on the shoulders of the task force. They can be started with a lot less work and momentum and the upkeep is easier.
The reason I'm suggesting it is because this does not seem to be functioning at all. I'm not trying to turfwar--I'm suggesting that there aren't enough editors working here to maintain a wikiproject. By creating this wikiproject all sorts of decisions have to be made and things have to be done. Creating this wikiproject did create a dispute about what to do with WP:CAL and WP:SOCAL and assessing and tagging etc, and that takes up the time of the editors who do participate here, when their time is so desperately needed to do the basic things to keep this project alive. I don't think that this project can sustain that kind of discussion until it can sustain itself and I don't see that happening right now.
Sometimes projects need to archive and start over without all of the mess. Sometimes it's a good idea to start as a task force and slowly build up steam and members (get socal members involved in doing socal assessments) and take over socal things from the project one step at a time as the task force can handle more and more things that require upkeep. Maybe this needs to evolve into a wikiproject, I don't know. But I know that this system isn't working. At the current rate of assessment, not a dozen articles will get assessed each year. All sorts of things are mixed in with the articles that urgently need attention, and so articles that need help to pass their Afds, or really need expansion might be overlooked. The problem with this wikiproject is not so much that it's not really working, but is that it took a load of work and responsibility from another. Unless this can be reformed or reworked or recreated or something can happen to fix this, it might be better to move these articles back under WP:CAL, because while they're horribly overloaded, and I do think that a socal project is needed (and an la one, or a taskforce at least), this isn't working. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:33, June 14 2007 (UTC)

This project didn't take anything. It was started first. The whole point is pretty much moot anyways since neither WP:CAL or WP:SOCAL is "active" in my opinion relative to the number of articles in their scope. As has been discussed bitterly and at length, the articles you refer to are not actually assessed for the most part and the majority of the tagging was done by a bot that seems ill-advised in retrospect considering the division it has caused and the fact that the tagging hasn't led to the articles being improved on the whole. Mike Dillon 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This project pre-dates WP:CAL? Ahh. The impression I got from the above discussion was otherwise. At any rate, maybe it should give these pages to WP:CAL. Neither project is very active, but maybe some stuff should be transferred to WP:CAL, where there seems to be slightly more activity. Since the end of last year, WP:SOCAL has completed 3 assessments. WP:CAL has completed 8. There are 2 pending at SOCAL and 4 pending at CAL. Neither project even gets close to the number of requests that they should--probably because the assessment department is hidden and not very active. Also the banners default isn't unassessed, poking people to get assessed. But with the same format, WP:CAL got both more traffic to the assessment page for requests and for people completing the requests. 6 requests since December? Only 3 done? That's a problem. Miss Mondegreen talk  02:48, June 14 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of rolling up all the Cal WP's into one and then having task forces. --evrik (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Districts and neighborhoods in Template:Los Angeles

I am proposing a series of infoboxes for regions of Los Angeles; there's an example at User:Szyslak/Hollywood. There's an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Los Angeles. szyslak 02:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how do I join?

I live in Sierra Madre, California, and I have some interest in joining this project for that reason. The problem is that I don't completely understand the directions on the project main page how to join. There is a userbox, but also a list of users. What should I do?
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 05:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC), I would prefer a response on my talk page, if possible.

Shortcut

I noticed you guys are using WP:SOCAL and WP:WPSC. Would you guys mind giving shortcut WP:WPSC to WikiProject South Carolina? I'm trying to get it off the ground. Best, MoodyGroove 13:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Great resource for CC historical images of LA/So. Cal

[2] Well worth randomly checking out. Ameriquedialectics 05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename request for West Coast air raid

I'm trying to get West Coast air raid renamed to Battle of Los Angeles; as nutty as the proposed new title sounds, it's what the media and historians prefer calling it. "West Coast air raid" seems to be an invention of Wikipedians. Whether you agree with my position or not, feel free to contribute to the discussion here: Talk:West Coast air raid. Ichormosquito 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support that request. If these claims are true then the case is good, but it's a surprising title to me. Often such renames are reversed a short time later, so I think some wider discussion would be good value. Andrewa 10:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Downtown Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, and San Bernardino

I noticed an article titled Downtown Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, and San Bernardino, which basically lists the lead sections of Downtown Los Angeles, Downtown San Diego, etc. I think it is rather a long title and should either be renamed, split, merged or deleted. What should be done? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems pointless. Nominated for deletion. -- Hawaiian717 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious edits to Orange County community articles

Can someone help me verify whether or not these edits made by Ajaxspray (talk · contribs) are legitimate or vandalism:

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about Ladera Ranch, see [5]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The other thing to consider is that Las Flores might be split between a neighborhood within the city limits in Rancho Santa Margarita, and the area that the U.S. Census Bureau defines as a CDP. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a banner or other means of notification that goes on the article page to show that an article is part of the WikiProject, or they only allowed on the talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidPickett (talkcontribs) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • No such banners are allowed for talk pages, but you can always add the portal link to the See also section. --evrik (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program 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.

WikiProject Los Angeles

Did this project know about WikiProject Los Angeles being started? I only bring this up as it appears one person took it upon themselves to start this child project. If it has your blessing, I apologize. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

City limits

Does anyone have a good source for city limits of California cities, in particular Paramount, with good enough precision to tell whether they are on the sides or centerlines of streets? Thank you. --NE2 13:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New photo request categories

Please see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles County, California and the ones for the remaining Southern California counties. GregManninLB (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Main page nomination for Manzanar

With the 39th Annual Manzanar Pilgrimage coming up on April 26, I have nominated Manzanar to be on Wikipedia's main page on that date. Please add your support for that at Today's featured article requests. Thank you! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image requests for Westside Los Angeles area

Here are some image requests that you may wish to fulfill:

Libraries:

  • Palisades Library
  • Brentwood Library
  • Westwood Library

High schools

Middle schools

Elementary schools

  • Palisades Charter ES
  • Roscomare Road ES
  • Marquez ES
  • Warner ES
  • Westwood ES
  • Brockton Avenue ES
  • Kenter Canyon ES
  • Community Magnet
  • Brentwood Science Magnet

Murals:

  • Pico-Union mural along Venice street immediately east of Union Street (See [6]) - If it still exists

{{County of Los Angeles‎}}

I have been currently involved in a heated debate regarding the name and the header of {{County of Los Angeles‎}}. Because the creator wants the scope of the template to just list the county's departments, board of supervisors, and other government-run offices, I have been arguing for a more specific title than just "County of Los Angeles". It has become so heated that I have accused him of WP:OWN. Therefore, I would appreciate if others could post their opinions on the matter at Template talk:County of Los Angeles‎#Might need to be renamed to help settle this dispute. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1509 articles are assigned to this project, of which 464, or 30.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Southern California

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)