Talk:San Luis Obispo, California/Archive 1

message: —Bubblegum Alley?  I thought it was called Chewing Gum Alley. Harvestdancer 22:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bubble Gum Alley 

message: The "Local Government" section contains many clichés and generally sloppy sentences, but my personal favorite is the last sentence in the "Education" section: "It is certainly a good education for our youth." This is really bad. I'll do some reworking if I have time later. Bvanderveen 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate Tone

message: Speaking of tone, can we excise SLO from the article? I've always felt it was very informal, verging on slang, and certainly not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. If anything, I think the short form name of the town should be simply San Luis, which most people from the area understand. --Anþony 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my whole point: it belongs on a bumper sticker, not in an encyclopedia. Surely, it deserves mention but it shouldn't be used in the body of the article. I did a little bit of research and it would appear that the Tribune agrees with me: check out this article, which uses SLO only to save space in the subheading and once in a quotation. Every other reference to the city in the paper's voice is San Luis Obispo. I propose we adopt the Tribune's standard and stick to San Luis Obispo. If spelling out the name becomes repetitive or tedious, use "the city" or something similar. -Anþony 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SLO abbreviation

message: This article is terrible. Who wrote this crap? Its horribly slanted with major violations of NPOV. If I really cared, I would work on it. But I don't. OH WELL. 71.9.58.46 23:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major work needed

message: I've never been to SLO. But last night I dreamt I had to go there on the subway from Los Angeles. When I woke up I remembered that LA's subway system doesn't actually go anywhere, and it occurred to me that I didn't even have a very good idea of where SLO is. So I came here to the Wikipedia article to see where it is, and lo and behold there was no location map. So I made one and added it. So now the next time someone who's never been there dreams of it, they can look at this article and found out where the place is. —Angr 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dream 

message: I know that San Luis Obispo has an airport, however I do not know anything about it.  However, I would like to know.  It would be nice if someone qualified added this information to the article, as well as other information about the city's transportation system
Thought I'd step in and add a bit. Thanks for pointing out this spot where I could contribute. :)
JABPP 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation 

message: thumb|right|250px|A possible replacement for the main picture.
It's a nice photo of rain, but it's sunny 95% of the time in SLO. Cerro San Luis, the most recognizable bit of the landscape, is also omitted (would be just to the right in that image).
66.215.119.189 00:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this picture, taken Saturday last week?—Leif Arne Storset 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo at top of page isn't what one would call "iconic" 

message: People: a photo showing half of a nice sculpture next to a tangle of rusted steel is not a pleasant photo.
66.215.119.189 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of the Jennifer St. bridge also poor 

message: Actually, it's not a dentist's office.  It's a doctor's office.
-Walterjid
Agreed. I know it's a doctor's office, pretty sure it's a cardiologist. I'll change it to doctor until the next time I drive by, and then add more specific information.
-Rico 06:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Lloyd Wright 

message: I'm not sure that the article really needs 10 paragraphs on the fire department. Is the city's fire department somehow unusual or different from any other similarly sized city? If not, I don't think it needs mentioned at all; and if so, it needs to be explained - with references - why it's unusual. Either way, I don't think we need this amount of information on the various bits of equipment used - and it's all unsourced, too. Unless a compelling reason can be found, I'm planning to just remove the entire section. Wibbble 00:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced entries like this are often unsourced because the information isn't notable. I suggest it be substantially reduced.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 00:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is reasonable to have an entry of one or two sentences on the fire department for a given city or more if it is for some reason notable. I haven't read the entry, but if there is a useful token of information in there about the general size or history of the department, I think that could be salvaged. Obviously it is wrong the way it is now. Basar 04:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's detailed information on various station houses, but nothing to suggest that it's out of the ordinary, and nothing on any history. It just seems like a lot of cruft on a non-notable part of the city, to be honest. Wibbble 09:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, I think it is reasonably to have an entry on the fire department. However, I did notice that there were not any sources cited. If someone could find sources and show substantial reason why there should be a section on the fire department then I see no reason why it can't be trimmed down a bit instead of being removed.  Mattl2001 04:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's reasonable only if the fire department is somehow notable - that is, there's something unique or unusual about it. What's there at the moment doesn't suggest that there's anything special about the SLO fire department that merits inclusion. Wibbble 09:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I deleted the section and replaced it with one, sourced sentence. Is this a reasonable solution? Basar 17:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with it. Wibbble 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Department