Talk:South Bay (San Diego County)

message: I reverted the name back to the comma as disambiguation, since South Bay is a region, not an actual body of water named "South Bay", and we usually use commas to disambiguate regions. (See South Bay, Los Angeles, for example.) Dohn joe (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert move 

message: Recently in a major edit the city of Coronado has been added, and then removed by another editor. Rather than getting into an editing war (that so far hasn't started yet (thankfully)), I would rather we discuss this and reach a consensus.
The San Diego Reader, Coronado as part of the South Bay (probably because the Silver Strand and the Coronado city limits reaches the north end of Imperial Beach. Furthermore the San Diego Union Tribune list Coronado in its South County section. I have no dog in this fight, however, it appears that two major regional papers see Coronado as part of the South Bay, therefore unless there are arguments supporting the exclusion of Coronado, I presently would have to support inclusion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even notice haha. But yes, that is why I included it in South Bay (county). While some maps or sources show it not being so, those two sources, and most I feel, do. I am for putting it back. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As a longtime resident of San Diego and former resident of Coronado, I am surprised that anyone would even think it is part of the South Bay. After all the main city of Coronado is directly across the Bay from downtown San Diego. But it is true that the city limits reach way south, and that the Coronado Cays area of the city is actually across the Bay from Chula Vista. So I guess it surprisingly DOES belong in the South Bay. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I agree. I never think of Coronado being part of the South Bay either, but I guess as it is on the bay, I can see where one might think that.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I myself thought it's inclusion in South Bay was odd at first, however a search on South Bay/County images on multiple search engines showed most maps with Coronado included. I would also be accepting of simply putting Coronado in its own region, as with San Diego since now that I think of it doesn't really fit into any one region with the exception of itself. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess this is one of those cases where reliable sources trump our own POV. Go figure.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. So we just leave it as is? 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd still switch it back - here's what my search of reliable sources turned up...A Google Books search for "south bay" "san diego" shows that most sources separate Coronado from the South Bay. Lots of times, when they're referenced together, it'll be as "Coronado and the South Bay". (San Diego Magazine, for instance.) Even the U-T generally views them separately. Here are articles listing fireworks displays, and  Christmas tree light displays. Coronado's displays are listed in "Central San Diego" or "San Diego", while "South Bay" has its own section. And here's a quote from another U-T story about San Diego County homes worth less than their mortgages: "All South Bay...communities saw a majority of home sales at a loss". But the next paragraph says that "The smallest percentages sold at a loss occurred in Coronado, 9.1 percent", which indicates that the U-T does not consider Coronado as part of the South Bay. Just because the U-T includes Coronado in its South County version, that doesn't mean it's part of the South Bay.Even the Reader can't really be taken as gospel. If you'll notice, their "Downtown" neighborhoods include places like Logan Heights and South Park, places that certainly aren't really in Downtown.Anyhow, that's my spiel. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm all for whatever consensus demands. It wouldn't be hard to remove Coronado from the article. I will take it upon myself if we need to remove the information. It sounds like most of us want it gone anyways. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably right. We should trust our own eyes.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dohn Joe, however, it lists Coronado stories in the South County section, which is about the scope of this article; presently it has three in this section 1 2 3. Therefore it doesn't appear that even within the SDUT, there is a consensus.  That being said I am OK with it being excluded at this point until reliable sources can be found that state otherwise. That being said, what region of San Diego County would it fall under, and do we have references supporting that inclusion in another region? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it falls under metro. Thats the edition of the Union Tribune that I think they deliver to Coronado.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole area is metro... When you think of Coronado, from a locals perspective (I'm actually from North County), when you think of Coronado, it's just Coronado. There is no region it fits into except for itself, if that makes sense. I believe if any region it would go into Central, however we have divided the central category on the template into San Diego and Coronado, as of now. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It works, I made a slight reword of the phrase if that's okay. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That works; perhaps we should add a See also template to this section regarding TV stations and Cable providers for the region if such an article already exist elsewhere. If it doesn't this would be useful information that can expand the section. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean create a new template based on an existing article? 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Also template already exist, however if there is already an article that list all the cable providers for the region which is the scope of the article, using said template it should have a link to that article. Furthermore, if there is already an article that list all the television stations that serve the region, it should be included in aforementioned template. If that information does not exist anywhere else in wikipedia, a new subsection with that information can be created under the Media parent section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Coronado, California]] 

message: The SDUT includes Coronado as part of South Bay, perhaps this should be reflected in the newly added content to the media section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It works, I made a slight reword of the phrase if that's okay. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That works; perhaps we should add a See also template to this section regarding TV stations and Cable providers for the region if such an article already exist elsewhere. If it doesn't this would be useful information that can expand the section. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean create a new template based on an existing article? 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Also template already exist, however if there is already an article that list all the cable providers for the region which is the scope of the article, using said template it should have a link to that article. Furthermore, if there is already an article that list all the television stations that serve the region, it should be included in aforementioned template. If that information does not exist anywhere else in wikipedia, a new subsection with that information can be created under the Media parent section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Media

message: There seems to be a little debate about whether the Tijuana River has a delta or not. My Google Books search gets a whopping 12 results for "Tijuana River delta" - several of which are duplicates, and several of which discuss the "ancestral" delta or "remnants" of a delta. In essence, there seem to be just 5 or 6 actual refs. The ref added by 08OceanBeach SD is from a hiking guide, which is not necessarily an expert in distinguishing a delta from an estuary. I'd like to remove the refs, but don't want an edit war. Anyone have any thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just one reference with information about the delta (estuary), it was supporting the fact that it was a delta. If you do other searches on different search engines you get different results, I performed a search on SurfCanyon.com because Google doesn't work for me right now, which is disappointing. Is there perhaps a county source that states it as estuary or delta? 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I refreshed my memory on the differences between and estuary and delta! You're right, my bad. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I appreciate that. Dohn joe (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  TJ delta