Jump to content

Talk:Santa Cruz County, California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Seaplant.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Moved material on Winemaking and corresponding source from Sonoma County, California page.

--Skinnerbird 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more complete list of endangered species in Santa Cruz County, for someone who has the time to incorporate it. (http://www.santacruzpl.org/ref/endang/endang.shtml) --Andy M. 06:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prop. 8 (gay marriage) by counties

[edit]

I would like to include data about votes on cultural issues, such as propositiion 8. This last Tuesday there was also a vote on parental consent by minors, and that might also be worth including.

It would take time to add data for all California counties. I started with 3 Silicon Valley counties because they caught my interest. Now I am awaiting discussion before proceeding further. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjacent Counties chart...

[edit]

I'm not a fan. I'd like to remove it. Discussion? —  X  S  G  03:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated in my reply to XSG, if we're going to remove it from THIS county article, then we remove it from ALL CA county articles. This family of articles needs to have some semblance of uniformity, it's an encyclopedia. I've already made my case for uniformity and its benefits in the afore-mentioned reply, those that are interested can access it there. Edit Centric (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another point that I would like to make here is the removal and / or exclusion of content based upon the I don't like it argument. Come on, now. Edit Centric (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it prudent at this point to cross-post my concerns regarding this topic here, so that no one has to go bouncing back and forth between here and XSG's talk page to get the jist of what I'm trying to say. - CROSSPOSTED - I am trying to push for article uniformity here, as right now there are way too many structural differences across this family of articles.
What does article uniformity accomplish? I will tell you. Article uniformity makes it far easier to recognise when someone logs in from an unregistered IP, and intentionally removes entire sections of an article, like what happened HERE and HERE. These instances of IP vandalism did not get caught until I did my review of ALL CA county articles a few days ago. In fact, the former instance was perpetrated back in 2007! Had these articles been identically structured and then policed on a regular basis, the IP vandalism would have been caught much sooner.
If we're going to exclude the geo compass from Santa Cruz County, then we should remove it from ALL CA county articles, simply for the sake of article uniformity.
What I'm not a big fan of is having BOTH the geo compass and the text list of adjacent counties. It seems redundant somehow. If we (the editors working on these articles) are actually going to DO something about this, I think we need to consider which format is;
  • more aesthetically pleasing
  • more accurate
  • serving the reader better
...and then go with that. (END OF CROSS-POST) Edit Centric (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the Geo compass to be less aesthetically pleasing and no more accurate than the text-based material to which it was redundant. If our interest is in serving the reader better (which it is), we should be implementing a map identifying the subject and its adjacent class of subjects instead of implementing a text-based and general table trying to demonstrate the same thing. The Geo compass is not an improvement over the previous material. I'd also like to add that the Geo compass isn't very friendly to mobile-based (i.e. very small) browsers.
Also, there was no discussion on my statement of dislike over the last month-and-a-half. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is for article deletion discussions, not discussions on the inclusion of material in an article, and is an example of where an argument isn't really an argument, making the editor's statement as merely a vote, which is useless in deletion discussions. I agree that "I don't like it" doesn't stand up to further argument, however it's a perfectly justifiable reason to begin a discussion about the removal of good-faith edits. —  X  S  G  18:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm presently working on creating a graphic for the aforementioned improvement. —  X  S  G  19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Now that we have the discussion started, I'd first like to apologise to XSG. I (like a fool!) didn't look and compare the date of my edit with the date of his "I'd like to remove" statement, and got a little miffed. For that, I again issue my mea culpa, honestly and whole-heartedly.
On the case of the geo compass XSG, your claim that it is not an improvement over the previous material is a subjective statement at best, and should be preceeded with "I feel" or "I opine", because that is exactly what the statement is, your personal opinion. I opine that the opposite is true; that due to the placement of directional arrows, the geo compass box serves to illustrate the direction that each county lies in to the reader. (Why do you think that every map ever created has a compass in the corner?) At any rate, these are both opinions. No one better or worse than the other.
I AM enthused about the graphic that you say you're creating though! May we see it? Edit Centric (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some other thoughts here, XSG. You say you have a graphical improvement for the adjacent counties. Is this solely for Santa Cruz County, or can this be done for all CA county articles? Either way, any map graphic should have a compass included to at least indicate north. In any case, it sounds like you're on to something...
In the meantime, what we need to figure out here is which interim solution is more appropriate, based upon consensus across the article family. We still haven't addressed the issue of cross-article uniformity, and I'd like your thoughts on that one. I know you're solely interested in the Santa Cruz area articles, possibly because you live in that area. XSG, there IS a "greater good" here that must be considered. This may be a chance for you to branch out.
I see that your expertise is in info and statistics. Mine is in geography, map reading and navigation, (I don't own a GPS, I'm just that good!) highways, grammatical corrections and proofreading. Between us, I'm sure that we can make some great contributions here! Edit Centric (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even a "greater good" is subjective, as there are varied and sometimes competing goals. I'm creating a section below to work on what I hope will become the general idea of a replacement for the Geo compass text area. Yes, it's repeatable. It'd take work, of course, but I think the work will result in a general improvement of the understanding of county adjacency. —  X  S  G  20:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical Compass Replacement

[edit]

This is an attempt to use Wikipedia's features in order to overlay linked text atop an SVG. Unless noted below, it is a work in progress and may contain errors. Please feel free to provide constructive editing. —  X  S  G  20:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A style note. The article's subject appears as a blue link above, however when placed in the article it will appear black and bold. This is related to how Wikipedia renders links to an article from that same article.


Hey, that's not half bad at all! Could stand a little clean-up maybe, but definitely goes toward what we're aiming for. How does it do in contrast to the geo compass when displayed on mobile? Edit Centric (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just added it to the main article so I could review using my G1. It's really sharp. I've removed it from the article, once again, for the sake of discussion. Knowing what I do now about creating this content, I'd say that it'd take about fifteen minutes per county to create. I'm happy to document the process as well, of course.—  X  S  G  20:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a winner! The issues that I can already see with it, although none are insurmountable, are as follows;
  • Images will need to be created and uploaded for each county. There are a lot!
  • Each image needs it's associated copyright info attached, or else you end up with what you got on your talk page.
  • The borders need to be smoothed some, but look good overall.
If you want to create these for each CA county, all the better! It's been quite some time since I worked with XY coordinate stuff, the last time was on the Apple IIe, I think the program was called Logo (or something to that effect!) Edit Centric (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Santa Cruz County, California. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Santa Cruz County, California. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

census charts

[edit]

Is it just my computer's display (chromebook browser) or are the "places by population and race" and "places by population and income" tables missing column labels? Lucy Kemnitzer (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Lucy Kemnitzer[reply]

You are correct. Those table templates have provision for column headings, but they are not present in these two tables. In the "View history" tab, you can find which editor added those tables, and send them a polite note. WCCasey (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent error in Politics section (wrong Congressional representatives and districts)

[edit]

I have lived and voted in Santa Cruz County since the mid-70s, and my representative is neither Zoe Lofgren nor Kevin McCarthy; it's Jimmy Panetta. This goes all the way back to his father, Leon Panetta, with no changes to the district that I'm aware of. The article (as of 1/10/23) states: "Santa Cruz County is split between California's 18th and 20th congressional districts, represented by Zoe Lofgren (D–San Jose) and Kevin McCarthy (R–Bakersfield), respectively." Santa Cruz County is adjacent to San Jose, but hundreds of miles from Bakersfield. Not sure how this error got into Wikipedia. The only citations for the inaccurate statement simply link to the articles on Lofgren and McCarthy. Kevintimba (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed. WCCasey (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Santa_Cruz_County,_California&oldid=1199376431"