Talk:West Coast of the United States

message: In practice, however, it is usually used to refer strictly to California.
:By whom? Would these people not consider Seattle to be on the West Coast? --Brion 06:13 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
::By Easterners who only recognize New York and Hollywood as parts of the United States.  -- Zoe
:::Can you give an example of usage? I'm honestly curious. Is this just "thinking mostly of California", as I might tend to think of Boston-New York-Philly-Washington as "the East Coast" and not tend to think so much of whatever cities they have in, say, Georgia? (Uhhh, Atlanta or something.) But if you asked me, I'd certainly consider Georgia to be in "the East Coast". --Brion 06:23 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
::::The first example that comes to mind is in the article itself, when it talks about "West Coast Rap".  That's the Los Angeles area only.  -- Zoe
::Well then, it seems the term is used to refer specifically to Los Angeles, not to California! ;)  Seriously, if the majority of the population and cultural capital of the West Coast is in California, why would it be surprising that things in California dominate the set of things described as being West Coast? --Brion
:::Um, I'm not saying it is surprising?  -- Zoe
::::Well, how about 'remarkable'? The current wording implies, to me, that the following dialogue sequence is possible, even likely:
:::::Bob: Well, I was visiting some relatives on the West Coast and...
:::::Tim: What? I thought you were visiting relatives in Seattle. Did you take a side trip to the West Coast too?
:::::Bob: Yes, Tim. I did. Seattle is nice, but on the West Coast they have even better things to see, like the Golden Gate Bridge. It was nice to get away to the West Coast after that dreary visit to Washington State.
::::which I doubt. If it's simply meant to note that many West Coast things are Californian, that seems a relatively unremarkable fact; if worthy of mention at all, it's certainly worded incorrectly. If something like the above is meant, then I'm darn curious who really talks like that. And if it's just New Yorkers, then we need some NPOV-ing. ;)  --Brion
LOL, Brion.  No, but they'll probably say "I flew out to the West Coast" (or, more likely, The Coast)", meaning California and probably more likely Southern California.  I don't see anything POV about it.  -- Zoe
:Again, I see this as unremarkable. If I tell you "I'm flying out to the East Coast", meaning the Northeast and probably more likely New York or Boston, are you going to write that "'East Coast' in practice, however, is usually used to refer strictly to New York and southern New England"? It's not a POV issue so much as one of accuracy. The 'usually' and particularly 'strictly' are very weighty and general pronouncements which make no allowance for the simple weights of probabilities of subject matter or variations in regional usage, and I question their accuracy. --Brion 07:00 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
:As a native Seattleite, I've always heard Washington and Oregon referred to as belonging to the West Coast--We even have West Coast Hotels here. Now, when someone says they went to the West Coast, they usually went to California, but that doesn't mean that West Coast usually applies only to California. Likewise, when someone says, "I went to France last summer," they usually went to Paris, but that doesn't mean that the Val de Loire isn't part of France. I'm going to remove the sentence, and if anyone objects, she can say something here. -- ShadowDragon 22:36, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: By whom?

message: I have made a proposal to change the colour of the map box, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. regions --Qirex 05:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours and appearance

message: It has also come to be called "The Coast", especially by New Yorkers...
Is there a source for this? I'm a New Yorker, and I don't recognize the usage. Omphaloscope » talk 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say that I've ever heard my New York friends use it this way.--Will.i.am 03:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...'The Coast', especially by New Yorkers..." 

message: This article was clearly not written by anyone familiar with the term West Coast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamrock (talk • contribs) 
:Do you have any specific comments or criticisms that can be useful in improving the article? BlankVerse 12:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: I have removed the following text from the article:
:For certain purposes, all the cities stretching from Vancouver, Canada to Tijuana, Mexico are sometimes included.
Unless "certain purposes" are made clear, including cities outside the U.S. in an article about the U.S. doesn't seem to make sense. —Brien ClarkTalk 05:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm from Vancouver and also understand Tijuana (there's old parallels for obvious reasons, despite the different cultures); the reason is that it's the I-5 corridor and we're at either end of it and ther's a common culture and mutual identity with West Coast (at least insofar as Vancouver/Victoria etc goes, if not maybe tijuana), and part of its "metropole" or axis; we're both "on the border" and isolated from the rest of our country (although in tijuana's case there's a few other large cities isolated with it), even from our state/geograhic area (though it's not a 24hour drive even to Calgary from here as it is from Cabo to La Paz...); as border cities we're part of the US cities'/corridor's economic organism in a big way and our economies are closely tied into it, Vancouver's as much as Tijuana's; by this I mean above-board economies as well as dark-market smuggling and worse of all kinds; this goes back to the booze running of the '30s - Vancouver and Tijuana had major trade/shipping between their latitudes, guess why (other boats would bring it in through the fogbanks...) and it goes back even before that; Vancouver and Seattle have always been rivals as well as partner in all kinds of ways, and are more like each other than they are like anywhere else, with the exception of smaller cities adjacent to them.  I don't know how to summarize or allude to it; in practical terms it's really Whistler and Enseneda, which are where the effects of the corridor run out (Whistler is as much a Seattle suburb as a Vancouver one; and Ensenada's as tied in by an extension of I-5, effectively, down to it; it's the twin city thing too, Vancouver, though really paired with Bellingham/Whatcom County, is a sister/twin to Seattle and somewhat to Portland, although Portland strikes me more in the role of Victoria, regionally-speaking within each country, rather than by state/province; Ensenada/Tijuana is of course complementary to Greater San Diego, which as part of southern California is, whether SD likes to admit to it or not, an extension of the Los Angeles/SoCal megalopolis; and so by default is Tijuana, with Ensenada in an outlier area where the good pavement runs out (whistler's not quite all four-laned yet, but by the Olympics it's all three-laned at least, which is all the tough geography can allow).  Again, I don't know how to summarize these relationships; for those of us from here "West Coast" is a term we don't confine to Canada, although people from Toronto will tend to mean us when they say it; we've also used it to include "all of us", all the West Coast from San Diego/Tijuana up, as a necessary organism; we shared a history and the freeway and its predecessor tied us together closely; BC has more in common with California/WA/OR in many ways than it does with anything east of the rockies; likewise tijuana is not at all like the rest of Mexico; anyway, that's why whoever said that said that; obviously I'm not the man to come up with a quick summary of it, so there you go ;-).  g'nite.Skookum1 06:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO btw there should be someway of indicating on the dab page that, within the mutual West Coasts of Canada and the United States, users of the term mean historically/traditionally mean both places at once, although that's WAY more true of Canadians than Americans, partly because we're so much more necessarily aware of the US; not just the ties; metro Vancouver hugs the border, is integrated with it, and confined to it by geography and historically by shared isolation and mutual dependence; but most americans generally don't think about canada at all, no offense, relative to Canadians I mean, so whether or not Vancouver/Whistler is a part of it; but of course if you stopped and asked them they'd say yes.  Point is that the West Coast of Australia is only one place; the "West Coast" in our case or rather from within the regional perspective, is the West Coast of North America, not particularly of either country; as a cultural economic sphere yes, its poles are Tijuana and VAncouver (and their outliers) as they wouldn't, in either case, have existed without the border, and the presence of the American cities in between; it's an organism.  In pure geographic terms the article History of the west coast of North America or History of the West Coast of North America, however the capitalization is run on the target there, uses an Alaska to Panama definition; or perhaps only to Isthmus of Tehuantepec which is the boundary between North and Central America, if Central America is "defined off", I can't remember just now but it doesn't stop at Vancouver, or Tijuana.Skookum1 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure Tijuana and Vancouver are integrally tied to the United States, both being close to the U.S. geographically. However, it seems that in an article titled "West Coast of the United States," they should be mentioned only briefly that they impact the West Coast of the U.S., or not mentioned at all—for the simple reason that they are not part of the United States. Now an article titled "West Coast of North America," or "West Coast of the Americas" would probably warrant much more attention to Vancouver and Tijuana. —Brien ClarkTalk 22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it's OK or should be in the article so long as it's a cultural-economic entity that's being talked about, i.e. the "West Coast" as a single organism (which it is, irresepective of the border and national definitions/titles of articles).  I just now made a reference on the West Coast page at the Canada section explaining the BC context/usage, which "identifies with" LA-SF-Seattle, and re the general outside-BC Canadian meaning as meaning only BC; there happens to be a British Columbia Coast article, which Canucko purists might insist on renaming; it exists partly because "the Coast" is one of our three or four main subregions (the others being the Island(s), the Lower Mainland - both really part of the Coast, hence the "three or four" - and the Interior (which also includes but isn't usually used to refer to much of the North, meaning "the Far North" closer to the Yukon and behind the Alaska Panhandle).  The "problem" is the Wiki parameters on defining things by national categories; like other things cut in half by the border - like the native nations - the national parameters make things a bit difficult when it's non-national terminology that it conflicts with; the same as happened on Talk:Pacific Northwest in varying ways about what is and isn't the Pacific Northwest; in the US in general it tends to only mean the PacNW states, sometimes not including Alaska; but from within the region it's a given that BC, at least its Coast, is part of the Pacific Northwest, as is the Alaska at least as far as Glacier Bay/Lynn Canal.  Maybe a statement like "the US West Coast is interrupted for x00 miles by the Coast of British Columbia.  Residents of that coastline, particularly those in the urban areas of the Lower Mainland/Greater Vancouver and Vancouver Island/Greater Victoria, which adjoin the border, generally identify themselves as "West Coast" as being the same context that includes Seattle and Los Angeles", i.e. not as the West Coast of Canada as such, but of the continent, and of the particular urban/cultural milieu that is the I-5 corridor.  We're not just a big blank spot on the map; in strict terms "West Coast of the United States" is the title of this article, but it should define the standalone term "West Coast", which occurs through it repeatedly, as generally including Vancouver and Victoria and, from what I gather, so is Tijuana on the other end; I don't think a Seattleite or Portlandite would correct me on this.  Somebody from Toronto might object though ;-0Skookum1 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm from Seattle and I do agree. Even though this page is called "West Coast of the United States", which taken literally would be a region ending abruptly at the international boundaries, in terms of culture, economics, history, and so on, the west coast of the United States is closely related to cross-border regions. From my perspective, the BC coast is especially related. For one, it is in between the 48 contiguous states and Alaska. For two, ..and this is just personal thoughts now.. there seems to be a shared sense of regional identity between American and Canada Pacific Northwesterners. In general it is far easier to find common ground and shared experience between a Seattlite and a Vancouverite than between, say, a Seattlite and a Kentuckyian. Pfly 09:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this, I just made an edit] to West Coast, note the edit comment especially; there are two meanings in Canada, the in-BC context is much the same as the American usage and is more or less a reference to the I-5 corridor from San Diego to Vancouver and inclusive of the culture/mentality and shared history/identity of the region; in other parts of Canada it's a generalization for BC, and tends to exclude the American component, unlike the BC usage....Skookum1 (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-U.S. Cities

message: Is there any reference to support the claim that Arizona is sometimes called West Coast? Living in California, I am quite suprised to see Arizona -the quintessential landlocked southerwestern state- as a west coast state. Signaturebrendel 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with many others here that Arizona and Nevada are not West Coast states by anyone's definition. I have flagged the claim that they are, with "citation needed". If a valid source for this claim is not provided in a reasonable time, I will delete the references to Arizona and Nevada. I don't know what to do about the map, though!  --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I notice that the wikipedia article "East Coast of the United States" includes only states that actually have a coast on the Atlantic Ocean. I think the same rationale should be applied here. 
PROPOSAL: I propose that references to Arizona and Nevada should be deleted from this article. Any objections? Arguments? --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I've updated the map to remove AZ and NV and to mark AK and HI separately. —Mrwojo (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image including Arizona? 

message: The East Coast page has a history section, I think the west coast should have one too, taking some of the history from
YOU ARE ALL C MUSCLES  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.247.68 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section? 

message: I propose, not that West Coast be merged into Pacific States, but that Pacific States be merged into West Coast, as West Coast seems far more common a term. That is, unless Wikipedia is standardizing certain state-regions, in which case they should remain separate, as one is a state-oriented designation and the other is simply regional. Aepoutre 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposing merge means supporting continuation of separate articles, supporting merge means getting rid of separate articles and replacing some with redirects to remaining ones. --JWB 19:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose: Do not merge article, pacific refers to states just bordering the Pacific ocean, not Nevada, and AZ.  Dwilso 05:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: How is "Left Coast" insulting? The term is used by people across the political spectrum. No doubt it is viewed negatively by those on the political right, but it is certainly viewed positively by those on the political left. - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This brings up again the idea that "West Coast" is not limited by the border of the United States; "the Left Coast" is an old usage in Canada also, in both positive nad negative usages, and a well-known literary/political periodical, the Left Coast Review, has been around since the 1960s.  IMO the title of this article should be West Coast of North America.  Doesn't it seem odd to have an article about the West Coast with Alaska and Washington both in it, but not what's in between??  But which has a map showing Arizona and Nevada, which aren't West Coast at all?Skookum1 (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although West Coast of North America is a bit of a problem, too, because Mexico is also in North America, and its West Coast is far less culturally connected to the U.S. & Canadian coasts than they are to each other. Anyway, I think we should kill the remark about the term being an insult. - Jmabel | Talk 01:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There has been an attempt in recent years make the word "liberal" into an insult but it is not. The term "left coast" is commonly used as a mild joke, invoking the dual meaning of left-on-the-map and leftish in politics, but that does not make it an insult. See Left Coast. A Google search for the term reveals many businesses called "left coast this" and "left coast that", which would not be expected if the expression was an insult to the region. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is "Left Coast" insulting? 

message: Alaska and Hawai'i are not part of the West Coast. 128.211.198.168 (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They do seem to fall under the Pacific Coast name, however. Possibly. We need more sources. —Mrwojo (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. 

message: I'd like to see some documentation that Arizona is considered West Coast.
Everything in Arizona hates California (totes jelly). People in AZ fled California. Politics are completely different.
Arizona is not West Coast, hell no.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.196.183 (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see some documentation that everything in AZ carries (or "totes") jelly.  I've never seen anyone in Arizona carry jelly, it's too hot there!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.136.229 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arizona is not West Coast. 

message: Is the total area measure of the West Coast of the United States just contiguous? Because it has a smaller area than Alaska as a whole. --The Unknown Editor... (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it? The area in the infobox is 1.009msqmi, and the area of Alaska is 663ksqmi. Are you seeing a different number in the article? --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total area 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Division 9. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 23#Division 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Division 9" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]