Talk:Ventura County, California

message: The whole east-west section is problematic.
Because of this, its private low-key location, its country feel, and its close proximity to Los Angeles, the Conejo Valley area has become a very attractive place to live. [emphasis added]
If I Google the italicised bit in quotes will the Conejo Valley Association of Realtors (or some such) come up? Maybe someone just read too many of their brochures. 
In any case, if there is no justification within Wikipedia's three content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) for the unconventional geographic split, I will be deleting content that is merely duplicative of content in the Conejo Valley (and associated communities) articles or redundant in this article.
There should be a way to explain growth along the 101 and 118 corridor (probably the 126 by now), and efforts to control growth (whether through "master planned communities" or "smart growth") without raising this parochial issue.
Any volunteers?
.s
X ile 10:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: East-west section 

message: There is nothing in the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, California article that cannot be merged here. As noted at Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#July_2007, Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura is the only single-county Core Based Statistical Area in California that has its own article. — X ile 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed merge of Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura

message: Someone took considerable liberty in describing Ventura county's reputation (vis-a-vis safety and quality of life) within the State of California and completely fabricated the county's ranking by per capita personal income. If one were to check the most recent county level personal income data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (here: California Personal Income) one will see that Ventura County ranks 13th or lower by per capita income for at least the past three years.
The introductory section just makes this article sound like a fluff piece to California residents.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.187.2 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ventura County's status in California

message: Why is the first topic in entertainment about a guy getting his head chopped off by a helicopter?  Shouldn't we mention all the famous actors who have lived in Thousand Oaks over the years, or about Erin Brockovich (sp?) who is from Ventura County or something more significant than a random helicopter crash in the 80s? 76.173.186.149 (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Entertainment Section Seems Sketchy

message: Some of the East County / West County material in the "History - Modern period" section should probably be moved into the Geography section, where it is also referred to, albeit in rather different terms. Nurg (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: East County / West County

message: This is per Thomas Brothers maps of the era. Does anyone know when, how and why? It's an important change. The eastern boundary used to cross Topanga Canyon Blvd twice, and Calabasas used to be in Ventura County.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Williams (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)
;Interesting point, I don't know a source but this article about the formation of Orange County links to a map that shows the former boundary between Los Angeles and Ventura counties. How Orange County Seceded from Los Angeles  Fettlemap (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ventura County eastern boundary moves westward in late 1950s/early 1960s

message: Very odd. Added to my list. Tourism, real estate, retail, govt, oil ....
Specifically, I came her looking for info on the Ventura Basin oilfields. Here's a good, recent source:
http://www.thomasldavisgeologist.com/resources/Ventura-Basin-PS-AAPG-GdBk-May-2015.pdf
--Pete Tillman (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No economy section? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

message: I'm not sure why the 2040 General Plan keeps getting deleted off of here, and it's been marked "not notable"--this is a meaningful county governance document showing the plans an expectations local officials have for the county in the coming decades, and reveals quite a bit about local politics and demographics. @Magnolia677 has cited WP:Crystal as the reason, but per that policy "forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included"--the county's approved plan for the next decades is precisely this. Phrynefisher (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From that same policy: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Ventura County 2040 General Plan does not have a Wikipedia article; it is not notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The county's General Plan is  an existing comprehensive planning document which contains a notable set of facts about the county (exactly what a reader wants to see on a county's Wikipedia page!)--it's not merely speculation, but a policy document that tells people about the county's plans and expectations. I do agree that this general plan should not have its own page--it is clearly a sub-topic of information about the county more generally--but see no reason why this document shouldn't be included in Ventura County's page. I  understand if you'd like to delete the General Plan's conjecture about population growth, but the fact that the county has issued a General Plan for 2040 is not a matter of prognostication but a publicly available document containing relevant information on this topic. Phrynefisher (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that anything from the county's plan for 17 years in the future should be included in this article.  Perhaps other editors will join the discussion, or you could try dispute resolution. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there's a mistake here. The legislation is in effect right now, has been since 2020. It is the most important piece of legislation in terms of urban planning. This is not speculation or a future event, it simply alludes to a date in the future where it's expected to be into full effect and to be reviewed, which is very common in this type of legislation. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ventura County General Plan 

message: The pleasant valley school district gets linked to the wrong school district. It needs to be linked to the school district in Camarillo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasant_Valley_School_District_(California) StormRojas (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. StormRojas (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of education links.