Talk:California/Archive 1

message: will it be okay if I add the www.stateof-california.com to the external links?
I have some adsense to it but if that's a problem I will be more than happy to delete.
(lol - $2.00 a week is hardly an income anyway)
let me know..thanks John
:Your link has already been removed several times as link spam; I think the general feeling is that it provides a lot of information that is already freely available on sites like the official state site that are already linked on the page.  Aranhamo 22:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: Because there are elcology, geography, history, government and education articles, I created an Economy of California article.
It would be great is someone could expand the housing bubble section.
--Rachel 18:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: My $.02: The current section on the state ecomony seems to be a political editorial, as well as being a tad incorrect. Perhaps we should stick to the facts.
Also, the inclusion of a state ranking done by the "Small Business Survival Committee", a political lobby group, is a bit biased.  --echidna
:I quite agree. The section on economy is POV and cites no sources. This article would be a lot stronger if the "facts" in it were backed up by citations. Fred 00:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: political editorial

message: The Economy section includes the following sentence: "the non-agricultural central counties have some of the highest poverty rates in the U.S.". Does anyone know which counties this refers to? Tom Radulovich 23:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "non-agricultural central counties"

message: San Diego has a little over 1 million people, San Diego County has 2.8 million.  Neither are even close to 10 million residents, so I moved it back. Gentgeen 07:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a matter of someone using the wrong symbol, as the LA urban area has 12-17 million residents, so it's not smaller than 10,000,000.  I'll go fix this. Gentgeen 21:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: San Diego

message: Here is the greatest argument for the origination of the name "California" being from the Spanish word cali (hot) and the Spanish word fornia (oven), Cali and Fornia are in the name of California (cali-fornia).
Constantly people look for “documented” proof for the origination of the California name and assume that California got its name from an the educated Spanish government or military officials, or that the name comes from a writer of novels and or poetry, while ignoring that fact that the majority of the California explorers, and I am talking of the average men who made up the expeditions, where not educated and had no more knowledge of these novels than the average modern California does today. It is the "common man/woman” who created and then popularized the names of many places we know today and who shapes the languages we all speak today, not novelist and not linguistic experts.
If you look at many of the place names in the Mother Load region you’ll see that the names originated in a very organic fashion by the common man and then become the official name simply through common usage.
William C. Trader Jr. 26 April 2006 
:That's a very cute argument from ignorance. (clap-clap-clap) Also, the correct spelling is Mother Lode.  --Coolcaesar 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Cali-Fornia''' 

message: The LA Times reported today, 3 May 2005, that California's population is now 36.8 million.  I tried updating the information in this article, but couldn't figure out how to make the figure appear correctly in the table.  Feel free to update if you know how.  Thanks.
* The precise estimate is 36,810,358 (State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2005, with 2000 DRU Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2005). I don't know how to update it either, though.
I'd suggest just entering it under the Population section; the table is generated from the  template, and modifying that template would affect all the state articles. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's population was updated and glad we handle the issue, before the state's population would increase again by 600,000 this year. The state has a large net migration rate out of state - above 300,000 per year since 1990 and during the decade over 3 million Californians moved out of state. Many former Californians moved to nearby Western states and other regions in the U.S. for a multiplicty of reasons: lower taxes, less crime rate, better public schools and more conservative environs. But the state still grows by 500,000 or more every year and Californians are worried on overpopulation in urban centers spreading faster into suburbs and rural areas. --Mike D 26 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: population update

message: It says in the article he sailed into San Francisco bay, but over at California Republic, it says he sailed into Monterey.  Which one is true? ----UsaSatsui 20:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John D. Sloat 

message: I still think that some work needs to be done on Cities section. For example, some of the smaller metropolitan areas were removed, yet the "List of important suburbs" remains. Now, the heading of the section is "Important cities and towns". What makes some of those suburbs more "important" than some of the smaller metropolitan areas that existed in previous revisions? It seems strange that places like Lincoln and Walnut Creek are mentioned on the main page, but Redding and Santa Barbara are not.
I think the California page should either just list the major urban centers, or everything (important suburbs as well as the smaller metropolitan areas). 
The important suburbs are already mentioned in List of Urbanized Areas subpage, so maybe we should cut off the "Important Suburbs" section on the main California page and just list the main urban areas. Either that, or put back the list that existed before CoolCeaser's edit on July 7th. --Rc251 09:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested restructuring: Add a section on "Regions of California". Change the "Important cities..." section into "Metropolitan areas of California". Then move the "Important suburbs" and "25 wealthiest places in California" sections to separate articles. BlankVerse ∅ 04:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  California is among the most urbanized states, about 85% of the state's population lies in metropolitan areas. The Los Angeles and San Francisco areas spreadout in a range of 50-80 miles in radius. It seems most of the state is now a megapolis, like it became one large urban amalgation. Northern Cal. starts in Chico or Cloverdale, with Sacramento and San Jose with more people than San Francisco or Oakland, and ends in Salinas or Auburn or Turlock. Southern Cal. is from Santa Maria to San Diego, Mojave to Indio, and might include Bakersfield and Barstow. The short span of suburban sprawl in Cal. is one of the most troubling issues here, due to automobile commutes and housing prices has made house construction rates to increase since the late 1980's. Rapid growing areas are becoming more crowded, urban blight entered the townspeople's lives and lack of jobs/recreation is a typical problem in most of suburban Cal. I know this happens everywhere in America, but Cal. is an example of how humongous the issue on suburban sprawl has been. --Mike D 26 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population of cities... 

message: I think the use of the word "probably" in the opening paragraph is not encyclopedia-worthy.  It either is or is not the most demographically diverse state in the country - that can be checked.  And physically?  I understand the point about its physical diversity, but so are Alaska, Texas, etc.  Can someone work on this?  Bruxism 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I took a first crack at fixing this.  With Mt. Whitney and Death Valley right next to each other there's a basis for saying the state has the greatest physical diversity in the country and I put that in the first paragraph.  As for "demographic diversity," I have no idea how one would define that rigorously enough to rank one state against another, so I changed "probably" to "one of the most" and moved it down. -EDM 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Probably?" 

message: It doesn't make sense to include a metro area in the table of metro areas by population unless they stand alone.  Double-counting Orange county as a metro area that is usually included in the already-counted Los Angeles metro area is wrong, and should be avoided.  Other opinions?--GraemeMcRaetalk 20:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interested in the problem of people who feel disenfranchised because the place they call home is included in a metro area far from their home.  My interest is in accuracy.  My interest is in not double-counting people who live in places like Orange County.  The problem is that if the LA metro area includes all of LA and Orange counties, for example, and its population is listed as x, and Orange county is also listed with a population of y, then the total of x and y exceeds the total population of these two metro areas, because some people have been counted twice.—GraemeMcRaetalk 03:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur.  There are logical reasons for adding those metro areas together into Los Angeles.  The reason is that a metropolitan area is generally considered to be an area which is contiguous and within which people generally commute, shop, go to school, and do all the things which people do in cities.  It is common for people in Orange County, the Inland Empire, Ventura County, and Los Angeles to commute, shop, attend school, etc. in each other's areas on a daily basis.  Therefore, they operate as a single metro area.  In contrast, San Francisco and Los Angeles do not --- only a ridiculously small number of celebrities, executives, lawyers and politicians can afford to live in one and commute to the other every day.  --Coolcaesar 03:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are so interested in accuracy, then you can check out the United Nation's list of the world's largest metro areas (the same list used right here on Wikipedia), and you will find that Ventura County, The Inland Empire (San Bernardino & Riverside Counties), and most of Orange County are NOT included into the L.A. Metro.  The U.N. lists the "L.A. Metro" as Los Angeles County (11 million) and the area in and around the city limits of Santa Ana (roughly another million).  If the aforementioned areas were included in the L.A. Metro, it would have a population of nearly 20 million people.  Don't make the common mistake of confusing the "So-Cal Metro" with the "L.A. Metro".  Accurately, they are two different things. (69.239.37.95 18:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you have misunderstood me, 69.239.37.95.  I don't object to including any independent metro areas—i.e. those that aren't already included in other metro areas.  Go ahead and make the edits necessary to include all the independent metro areas.—GraemeMcRaetalk 06:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The merits of adding metro areas that are usually included in other metro areas 

message: *Special:Whatlinkshere/List_of_Protestantism_by_US_State
It is POV to selectively list Protestantism and not also link, for example List of Catholicism by US State or List of Buddhism by US State.  brenneman(t)(c) 10:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Religion historically has always been a controversial subject.  Therefore, any treatment of it on Wikipedia needs to be properly balanced.  --Coolcaesar 05:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Protestantism by US State]]