Talk:California megapolitan areas

message: See Wikipedia:No original research. --Coolcaesar 02:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this original research? 

message: Why would anyone consider this a true megacity... When there is a whole lot of nothing between the Northern and Southern halves? --Dave 06:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indeed 

message: I'm classifying this as a stub because, other than a long list of cities, it is a stub. —ScouterSig 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: "Megapolitan area" is also a recent coinage by a single two-author team, not a general term as "megalopolis" or "metropolis" are. --JWB (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "California as a megalopolis" is not assuming the truth of the idea that California is a single megalopolis, rather it is discussing the history of the idea. Having an article Flat earth theory is not an assertion that the earth is actually flat. --JWB (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what I am saying. By having the word "California" as the modified noun, the entire state is assumed. I told you this was going to be difficult. Sswonk (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is saying there is an idea of the entire state as a unit that is notable enough to discuss, both pro and con. It is not asserting the truth of that idea. --JWB (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Suggest "California megalopolis areas". You need to annotate this article with footnotes fairly quickly, i.e. tonight, or I will have no choice but to challenge it through WP:NORN. Sswonk (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will annotate it as I have time. The WP:NORN page is for questions about what constitutes OR or not - it is not "challenging pages." Consensus for disputed article changes is via discussion between editors on the corresponding talk page. --JWB (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page consists nearly entirely of challenges to this article as OR, save your opposition to its proper redirection from SanSan. There is no point to discussion when it is ignored. Sswonk (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megapolitan area 

message: I was asked by Sswonk to comment.  I consider the present article there  acceptable, as is the present title. I do not consider the present article OR. 
But SanSan is a particular postulated region, and not the same region as BosWash.  
Therefore I do not think the redirect to BosWash makes sense, and I have redirected it to the present article, California megapolitan areas. There needs to be some cleanup of disam hat notes & double redirects.  Which of the two alternative forms the present page should have as the title is in my opinion a relatively trivial question, and I suggest leaving it alone. It would be better to work on adding references and improving this and related articles.  Nobody has to follow my advice, of course.  I'm not going to argue the matter--this isn't my primary interest.    DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside comment

message: An IP user feels gives off the feeling this article refers to strictly combined statistical areas? However the title is clearly megapolitan areas, and the Southern California megaregion is made up of parts of California and Baja California as defined by multiple sources, due to the extension of the urban area as well as economic regions, though the Baja part is very small in comparison to the rest of the region, with only two million inhabitants. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megaregion or CSA? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on California megapolitan areas. 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/20110723181802/http://www.icfdn.org/publications/blurredborders/39sdtjataglance.htm to http://www.icfdn.org/publications/blurredborders/39sdtjataglance.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on California megapolitan areas. 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/20081219193825/http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/2006_North_American_Container_Traffic.pdf to http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/2006_North_American_Container_Traffic.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512151725/http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0107/GMPreport.pdf to http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0107/GMPreport.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) 08:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Megapolitan area" isn't a standard term, and has no clear meaning. The article seems to not be able to make up its mind about whether there are two megapolitan areas or one. If there's just one, then the plural "megapolitan areas" in the title isn't appropriate. Articles on the Northern California Megaregion and Southern California already exist, and insofar as these are the two megapolitan areas, it's not clear why we also need an article for both of them at once. The case for there being one California megapolitan area seems weaker, but insofar as we need to have an article discussing this case, it should probably have its own article, instead of being included ambiguously in an article that's largely about Northern California and Southern California as separate areas. The "Area composition" section is not divided into regions larger than a CSA, which makes it appear to be taking the stance that there is one megapolitan area, despite not saying this explicitly, and despite the article previously pointing out that the case for two is stronger than the case for one. There seems to be no clear criteria for inclusion of the counties in the list (also, why does it include Redding?), despite giving the appearance of objectivity. It also doesn't explain what "area of influence" is supposed to mean. 2605:E000:1314:8F3C:41CD:B1C1:805D:3799 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point of this article? 

message: Large portions of this article (specifically, the "Population" and "Area composition" sections, portions of the "Region" section, the title of the "notable conceptions of California as a megalopolis" section, and the infobox and navbox) focus on the notion of a single megalopolis covering all the major urban areas of California. But there is no such megalopolis stretching throughout California, there are no cited sources saying that there is (the article cites the book "The Year 2000", mentioning Sansan, but that book only predicted that such a megalopolis would arise in the future, rather than saying it actually exits), and other parts of the article acknowledge this fact. Furthermore, the lists of counties and of urban agglomerations in the supposed California megalopolis are not sourced, and appear to be made up by wikipedia editors. These portions of the article should be removed or rewritten. I attempted to remove them, but my edits were reverted. 24.7.24.119 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the problem was just that not all of my edits came with an edit summary, rather than with the content, so I'm doing it again. 24.7.24.119 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edits