Template talk:San Bernardino County, California

message: Greetings.  I have stumbled across the San Bernardino County template many times over the years and have always wondered about the "Unincorporated communities" section.  Over the past years, this section has expanded to include former communities that are currently uninhabited and now only exist in name.  As a researcher of historic San Bernardino County desert communities, I am very familiar with the history of many of these settlements and can confirm that a good number of the locations listed in this section are completely abandoned.  Here are some examples:
*Bagdad : A former mining community that existed into the 1950's, all that remains here as of 2009 is a cemetery.
*Cadiz : A former railroad water stop, all that remains here as of 2009 are building foundations.
*Siberia : A former railroad water stop, all that remains here as of 2009 are building ruins of a former service station.
The question may come down to what qualifies a location as "unincorporated" -- from my understanding, it signifies that there is in fact, residents present at the location although their form of local government lacks formal incorporated or census-designated place (CDP) status.  I encourage contributors to view County templates of other municipalities to see what the rule of thumb is for including uninhabited settlements/ghost towns in the "Unincorporated communities" section.  My initial recommendation would be to remove abandoned locations and place them in a separate list someplace else.  Please share your views and comments on here.  Thanks! --Djrun (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternate option: many templates have a "Ghost towns" line.  See  for a random example.  Why don't you move these to such a place?  Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "Ghost towns" sections are also on , , , , , , , and . I can't remember off hand what other California county template other than the San Bernardino one needs to be changed too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is a major disagreement, I'll plan to create a "Ghost town" section in the San Bernardino template (and eventually the  template as well) in about two weeks.  Please share any follow-up comments or alternative solutions in the mean time. Thanks!--Djrun (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of uninhabited sites under "Unincorporated communities" section

message: why is this even an unincorporated community? this town became part of fontana california. it should not even have its own article. this was the name for southern fontana prior to fontana's incorporation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.250.160 (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declezville, California 

message: Should there be a section for military communities such as Fort Irwin Military Reservation? Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fort Collins and some of the other military communities are already listed under "Unincorporated communities" on this and the other county templates. My concern is that there are some military bases like Edwards Air Force Base and March Joint Air Reserve Base that are also officially Census-designated places and are listed on their respective county template as such. So if you have another "military communities" section, those would essentially be listed twice on the templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, I see your point. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military communities 

message: some of these unincorporated communities have a community service district, should it be apart from the unicorporated communities. they are not in direct control by the county and offer some services themselves. the ones off the top of my head that i can remember are newberry, baker, dagget and yermo. these have partial control. they should have their own section in this template.Javiern (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With the "Municipalities and communities of" header, IIRC, these templates are designed for municipalities, communities and other settlements, not special-purpose districts like the ones I believe you have in mind. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, under California Code, sections 61000-61009, a community service district is in fact a special-purpose district, not a type of settlement, because they, among other reasons, can also span multiple cities and/or counties. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  unincorporated with CSD's