Talk:List of municipalities in California

message: Like Oakland? it jumps from N to P  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.155.200 (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "O" section was deleted by vandals.  I restored it on Feb 11th.  Stepheng3 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the the "O" cities? 

message: Hey, where are the "H" cities? There are several cities with H in California, like Hayward, Hawthorne, Huntington Beach and the like  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.131.105 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An IP user deleted the H section back in December.  I have reverted the change. Stepheng3 (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the "H" cities? 

message: Why is Studio City listed? It's not an incorporated city, but a district of the City of Los Angeles. 99.129.49.150 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Studio City and other San Fernando Valley districts voted for secession in July 2006, but wasn't enough to get approved by the city of Los Angeles nor the Los Angeles County board of supervisors. In my Thomas Bros. California road atlas, I get Tujunga with a dark circle to indicate it's an incorporated city (but small letters, while cities have big lettering) except its' still a district of the city of Los Angeles. They attempt to seceded from the city of L.A. in the early 1990's, probably the mapmakers thought Tujunga had already did (wrong.). + 71.102.10.169 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio City 

message: As someone who's been tending this list for over a year, I'd love to see it featured, and I hope other editors are as excited about this as I am.  One thing I know it needs is to be made sortable, and I think I can do that easily, if there's no objection.  Personally, I'd like to see additional information for each municipality, such as the county it's in, its coordinates, and other rarely-changing information of that sort.  Population figures might be worth adding; I'm not sure.  Opinions? --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Coordinates and population would be good. One of the problems with sorting is the sheer volume of cities Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and made it a sortable table.  If this causes problems, feel free to revert. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured list candidacy 

message: I found this page on my travels around California related articles on Wikipedia. I would suggest making the incorporation dates as year-month-day, so that when you want to sort by the incorporation date, it doesn't just alphabetize the list, but it will show it in chronological order. Just a suggestion. Killiondude (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gradually adding  templates to the dates, which will have the desired effect while retaining easy readability.  I'd welcome your help. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All done.  The dates should sort correctly now.  Of course, if I'd known about  before I started, I would've used it instead of .  But I don't think it's worth switching at this point. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I added a  tag to this article earlier. My main concern had been that the population column appeared to be completely unreferenced, but on re-reviewing the article I see that there is a reference for the population but in a different location than I expected. I.e. the citation for the incorporation dates is located in the column header, but the citation for the population is located in the text above the table and not in the column header. That inconsistency confused me when I read too quickly, but was easily correctible (which I have now done). In addition however, the first two paragraphs of the lead include numerous specific facts that need citation, so I feel the  should remain for the time being. Examples of facts needing citation include the obsolescence of "township", the equivalence of "city" and "town", the history of Willow Glen and Alviso and Cabazon. — Ipoellet (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference improvements 

message: I'm working on one on my userpage, if anyone thinks it shouldn't be done, say so or take it down when I finish.
Samhuddy (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea.  I look forward to seeing the list. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Sam.  Please provide your sources so the data can be verified by others. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Former Municipality Table

message: I have suggested on Talk:List of cities in California (by population) merging/redirecting that article into this one, since this one seems better, does everything that List of cities in California (by population) does, and has more content and is better organized. Darkest tree (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. top 100 is arbitrary. my only concern is that this article get better population estimates, as the 2010 census numbers may be out, and this has estimates from 2008. (other article is no better i believe)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

text: A year has gone by and no objections. Adding merge tags to the articles. Darkest tree (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/redirect [[List of cities in California (by population)]] into this page? [[Talk:List of cities in California (by population)|Discuss]] 

message: The article states that there are 482 municipalities, but the list contains 481. Is there one missing? Mattximus (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The list was missing San Mateo, which has now been added. Thanks for catching that. --Kurykh (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing City

message: Some people think of the difference between cities and towns like this: incorporated = cities and unincorporated = towns. Maybe this is technically wrong or we have no "common sense" (as earlier stated on this page), but nevertheless I don't think I'm alone in this. As Quincy has been deemed unqualified for the list merely for being unincorporated, that obviously is the salient factor, so why not say so? Just change the name to List of incorporated cities and towns in California. Or, alternatively, List of cities and towns in California (Incorporated). If you state the plan right at the git go, people will know what they are looking at and won't try to stuff the Quincys of the world in the list (which proves the point).  CampKohler (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just say it: Incorporated 

message: Reference 5 (currently) points to code sections. Since most codes are online, shouldn't the references be links to the pertinent law? Is there a reason not to do that? What's best practice? CampKohler (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to law vs. links. 

message: I noticed (viewed using latest Chrome with a maximized window) that the photos of the cities, which used to be aligned vertically, taking a lot of space above the list, was recently showing grouped more compactly into a horizontal and vertical alignment. I thought this was a good change, because there was less scrolling required to get to the list and it looked more finished. Today I notice that it is back to the vertical. I haven't looked at recent edits or even know if this is some kind of browser artifact that might change from time to time. Is there some way to fix the photos (at least for a maximized window) in a horizontal and vertical grouping? CampKohler (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have the cities photos arrangement changed? 

message: This may not be the place for such a distinction, but there's an important difference between California cities that are governed by the provisions of the California Government Code and cities that have their own city charters.  Should there be another column for "code" and "charter"? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code vs. charter? 

message: Mattximus, you do realize that on mobile, this requires you to scroll through what amounts to two to three full screen's worth of images before you get to the list right? TimothyJosephWood 07:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is normal. Mobile screens are small and most wikipedia pages will require some scrolling to get through the infobox, table of contents, and images. It would be a disservice to wikipedia to go through various pages and delete all images (you deleted every single one) because you don't want to scroll a bit on your phone. Mattximus (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile 

message: From 1850 to 1940, the largest cities of California were 1. San Francisco, along with (not in rank of order) Los Angeles (became #2 in 1900 and surpassed SF in 1930), Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, Fresno (the largest in the Central third of the state) and competing were Bakersfield, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara and Stockton. In 1940, Long Beach entered the top 10. In 1960, Anaheim and in 1970, Santa Ana. In 1970, San Diego surpassed San Francisco as the #2 city, and in 1990, San Jose surpassed San Francisco to become the largest in the northern third of the state. Riverside is now larger than San Bernardino and Santa Barbara dropped from the list in 1960. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of state's largest cities 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of cities and towns in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721183215/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceID=130&resourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=130&ResourceType=Site
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221091414/http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc to http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124020222/http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010Census_Table3A_RedistrictingFile.xls to http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010Census_Table3A_RedistrictingFile.xls
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of cities and towns in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516111853/http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010_Census_Count_Corrections_List.pdf to http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010_Census_Count_Corrections_List.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514233630/http://www.rctlma.org/rcd/content/progress_reports/pr_2011/eastvale.pdf to http://www.rctlma.org/rcd/content/progress_reports/pr_2011/eastvale.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514222036/http://www.rctlma.org/rcd/content/progress_reports/pr_2011/jurupa_valley.pdf to http://www.rctlma.org/rcd/content/progress_reports/pr_2011/jurupa_valley.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 8 out of 10 largest cities are county seats, except Anaheim in Orange county and Long Beach in Los Angeles county; San Francisco itself is a city-county government; and in Riverside county, Indio is a "secondary" county seat being 70 miles away from the "primary" one Riverside. 2605:E000:100D:E482:E41A:DD9:EED0:F58 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central cities in CA (60 of them) 

message: Does anyone have an issue with adding a column in there for charter cities vs non-charter cities?Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: you got it. I'll write it in draft before posting. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Hi everyone, the new census results are coming in a few days, and I'm wondering if anyone else would support this format? Table needs work of course, but this is the idea. 15:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Pf1127 If we can add them to the template above that would be fantastic, but do we know when the official results are out? I think it's best to wait for the census results as they should be out soon if I am not mistaken. Mattximus (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

text: @Mattximus I've heard a number of things since the beginning of the year, so I'm actually not sure. You can find the release schedule here  but it's a little unclear as many of the release dates also refer to the July 1, 2020 data and estimates. It sounds like the April 2020 census data will be released at the end of this year or possibly at the beginning of next year when it accompanies the Vintage 2021 tables/estimates or the 2010 to 2020 Intercensal Estimates. Pf1127 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template for 2020 Census 

message: It looks like the new redistricting data from the 2020 census contains census counts for local municipalities, but I have been having difficulty finding them for municipalities under 5,000 people (US Census QuickFacts only provides them for municipalities with 5,000 people or greater). I did not have this problem when I helped other editors update List of largest cities in California by population, as even the top 100 cities in California had a population of 84,000 or greater. I see that there are about 50 small municipalities in this range missing new census counts right now, although there are two that seem to have them already. Where did these numbers come from? Were they published with the new redistricting data and are they just in a place that's hard to find? In the meantime, should we hold off on making further edits until we can locate and verify the data we need to complete the table? I would hate for all of our new edits to be rolled back and for all of our work to be lost. Pf1127 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I found all the missing items in a strange place:  I've cross referenced it and it is accurate. I can try to add some, the problem is it's very cumbersome... Mattximus (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities and towns under 5,000 people