Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California

Active discussions
WikiProject California (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

See also Discussion of the WikiProject California in Spanish.

Hi I just signed up and want to help but I need direction. Thank you. Ericmalibu 00:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Date shakeEdit

The date shake article is under consideration for a merge. There is plenty of great material about it to keep it up as a standalone article. It is a great piece of living California history. It would be a shame to see it disappear into the milkshake article. Please feel free to add to it as I may be busy for the foreseeable future. Best, Thriley (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Orange County Task ForceEdit

If anyone is interested in starting a specific task force for Orange County, let me know here. Count me as one who regularly contributes to Orange County based articles. Sewageboy (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Requests for MasterClass articleEdit

Hello! My name is Alyssa and I work for the San Francisco-based online streaming platform MasterClass. I've disclosed this on my profile and at Talk:MasterClass, where I've proposed some changes to make the article more accurate and up to date. More specifically, I've asked to correct language about the company's founding and remove a sentence which is not specifically confirmed by sourcing. Editor feedback has been limited, so I'm hoping some editors from WikiProject California can take a look and update the article for me. Thanks! MC Alyssa (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Article reassessment for Scovern Hot Springs, CaliforniaEdit

Requesting a reassessment of Scovern Hot Springs, California it would be appreciated. I improved it from a three sentence stub-class to a full article. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done someone assessed it as C-Class. Netherzone

FAR for PanavisionEdit

I have nominated Panavision for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Reduce rate of PRODs and AFDsEdit

I noticed there are way too many proposed deletions recently. There might not be enough time to evaluate all of time. Unfortunately this means quite a lot of useful information might be deleted. In some cases, rather than deletion, alternatives such as a merge or redirect or collection into a list article could be considered. It would be helpful if we reduce the rate of PRODs or AFDs.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging User:Mangoe, User:Reywas92, User:Hog Farm, User:FOARP as well User:Netherzone. Instead of PRODing/AFDing them individually, I wondering if we could compile these into a list, maybe by county. Then check if we can find any alternatives to deletion.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, DreamLinker, and the good suggestions - merge, redirect, or compile list articles of the lesser known places. The ones that I am concerned about are those places that are no longer "settlements" but in the past were used by Native Americans (some of which were actual villages), or those that historically were settlements but entirely burned down (such as Scovern Hot Springs, California.) Some are notable as former mining camps, stagecoach stops, historical water sources, etc. Perhaps the weeding-out process could be conducted differently. I feel quite strongly that lesser known places associated with indigenous peoples' history belong in this encyclopedia. I realize that would slow down the process of stub clean up, but I think its better in the long run. Netherzone (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Very happy to discuss ways of dealing with this issue. However, we should get it straight first that I (and I believe the other people working on this issue) are not simply deleting articles willy-nilly without first checking that they cannot be saved. What we are struggling with is the sheer scale of the problem created by massive-scale negligent article-creation. It is not that the person who created the majority of these articles was purposefully vandalizing the encyclopedia, it is simply that, despite being an admin at the time, they did not care about any of the rules in place even at the time they were doing it (2009) regarding notability.
These deletions are necessary work as probably 90% or more of the articles created by the creator during their campaign of mass-article creation do not meet WP:GEOLAND. As they are present on Wiki they inevitably find their way into other collections of data, and thus take on a life of their own outside Wiki.
I hope the others will not object if I say that we are very alive to the problem of these PRODs/AFDs clogging up the various forums that have to deal with them and creating unnecessary work for admins. Indeed I and others have pointed out that this is the effect of these deletions having to be done one-by-one. It should be noted, though, that in every instance where we have tried to deal with these issues in bulk, formal reasons have been found not to do it (see e.g., here, where a clear consensus to delete all was not acted on). No-one will bother doing all the work of preparing a bulk deletion if in every occasion it turns out to be pointless. Instead they will use forums where at least deletion can occur (e.g., PRODs/AFDs).
A very obvious way to avoid having to go through these one-by-one would be for the creator of the vast majority of the problematic articles numbering in the thousands, Carlossuarez46, to speedy-delete the ones that have not been substantially edited since they created them in 2009. However, they have been unwilling to do this and have engaged only very minimally with the process of clearing up these articles (see their talk page here and here). FOARP (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
To second FOARP, we've been going through these looking at the merits of each individually, as far as I'm aware of. I personally have a four or five-part test to go through the California ones that I apply to them. I'm unaware of a single one that I've checked against my test and failed every single point that have not been deleted. Also to keep in mind that we have discovered that the source Durham is either misinterpreted or fabricated in most of its usages. Additionally, some redirections/mergers are going on, but aren't as visible. Such as when I determined through research that the stub at Union Shed, California was actually an early name for the site of Sheridan, California, so I added an explanation to the Sheridan page and redirected. From what I've seen (unless I missed something), this cleanup has been conducted in a reasonable and not overboard manner. The fact that over a thousand of these has been deleted over the course of several months is because almost 2,000 of these were mass-created with no real regard for accuracy or how the source actually describes these places. Hog Farm Talk 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thirding FOARP. I would love to just redirect these to pages like List of places in California, as was agreed upon at User_talk:Reywas92#Mass_deletions, but User:Tavix reverted my first batch of redirects and prodded them instead. I have now gone though every single "former settlement" cited only to Durham's California Geographic Named – most of which are misrepresentations, as Durham mentions "a place" on a map or a post office rather than a settlement of any notability – and prodded every one; the ones from yesterday are the final batch of those, but there are still many supposed "unincorporated communities" and non-obvious former ones still to go (not to mention other states). The main places list previously included the full list before being split by letter so I think if the redirects were to the subpages like List of places in California (A) that include the names that would be more satisfactory to Tavix than to the main page. Reywas92Talk 20:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the non-verifiable ones should be deleted rather than redirected, anyway. The thing deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Log, Kentucky should probably not have a redirect to a hypothetical List of places in Kentucky because Ash Log as a toponym is barely even verifiable, much less notable. Redirection would work fine for a lot of these place stubs, but a few just need deleted as there's nothing useful about peddling GNIS errors when there was never anything at the site at all. Hog Farm Talk 20:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I favour redirection only because it can be done in bulk and results in less harmful articles. Ultimately a non-notable place just shouldn't have an article on here, though, and made-up "ghost towns" and "unincorporated communities" should be nuked with extreme prejudice. Carlos's negligent article-creation led to the situation where until this clean-up project started there were counties in California with more than twice as many "ghost towns" listed than there were presently inhabited communities - a plainly ridiculous situation. The overwhelming majority of these "Ghost towns" turn out to be, on closer inspection, railway sidings, road/rail junctions, farms, factories, warehouses, wharves, camps, mines, individual buildings etc. Of the remainder many are actually just different names for presently-existing communities.
Please note that I am far from a deletionist, my record at AFD was (rarely for people who do a lot of work there) more keep !votes than delete !votes until I started working on this clean-up project. My initial response was "Surely GNIS and Durham are reliable sources? Why are people deleting these articles?" until I saw the scale of what Carlos had done, and how very little time had been spent in the creation of each article (maybe ~1-2 minutes for each at most?). Even for PRODs we are probably spending 2-3 times longer simply PRODing the article than Carlos did creating them!
My personal view is that Carlo's behaviour reverses the presumption that we should assume they were acting in good faith when they created these articles: they plainly weren't. I don't like engaging in mind-reading but, forced to guess, I think it was their ranking on this list that was uppermost in their minds when they created these articles. Doing a WP:TNT on the entire corpus of WP:V/WP:GEOLAND-failing stubs they created is justifiable in that circumstance. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your responses. I understand that non verifiable information should not be part of Wikipedia and the cleanup is actually a good step to take. My concern is just to reduce the speed a bit. Like maybe, do it county by county. It would be helpful if, let's say a list of all non-verifiable places in that county could be compiled (maybe in a subpage of this project?). Then we could go over that list, find sources if required. Do a local consensus to redirect. For those that contain some information to be salvaged, we could merge/redirect it. If done in a systematic manner, it also allows someone to check later and recover an article (in case it is deleted/redirected incorrectly)--DreamLinker (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing the history behind the stub article creations FOARP; it’s good to have a deeper understanding of the vastness of this clean up effort. I’m wondering if Hog Farm would be willing to share their five-part test. That could be a useful tool moving forward. The ones that are errors, non-verifiable or non-notable should be deleted. I like Reywas92’s suggestion to redirect some of them to List of places in California (A). I will continue to keep an eye out for stubs that are either associated with historical indigenous settlements or with water sources (like hot springs :-) ), and will improve them if I can find reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Netherzone - My five part test utilizes the resources I have available. The first step is to look on GNIS for the location. If the location existed after 1910 and isn't in GNIS, there's a good chance it's not notable. Then, using the coordinates I pulled from GNIS, I search the coordinates in the USGS topographic maps database. The maps and GNIS aren't enough to show a place as notable, but they can identify a lot of the non-community features. I've been able to diagnose stubs as non-community features such as railroad sidings, individual ranches, and in a couple cases natural features such as ponds or canals misentered into GNIS as communities. I have access to through WP:LIBRARY, so I use that as the third step. In places where there are old newspapers on the site (some going back into the 1800s), you can generally figure out what something is. Step four is checking the google books preview of Gudde's California Place Names, which generally only lists significant features. Gudde also has a book about gold camps, which is useful to check for supposed mining features. The last step is to run a standard WP:BEFORE, with Google books generally being a better bet than Google search, as Google search is almost hopelessly polluted with clickbait and mirrors of both GNIS and Wikipedia. That's my process. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm, this is really helpful, thank you for posting your process. I will save it to my tool kit. Netherzone (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Geology of the Death Valley areaEdit

I have nominated Geology of the Death Valley area for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Article reassessment for Lucchesi ParkEdit

It's got some very um, shall we say, "quirky" and non-park-related opinions sprinkled throughout the few sentences, but I'm not comfortable enough as a town resident of a little over a year to edit it myself with additional information. TheSweet (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed and assessed as stub — hike395 (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject California".