Contents

Template talk:Orange County, California

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orange County, California template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
California This template is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles

Because Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes says that navigation templates should not list articles in alphabetical order because categories and lists can do the job, I am re-sorting them on this template. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if the Anaheim Hills article can remain featured on this list. You may or may not know that Anaheim Hills was part of a heated debate over the past few months about what Anaheim Hills really is or is not. It deserves a spot on this page because it is larger than 15 other incorporated Orange County Cities, and is well edited and enhanced. --Ericsaindon2 06:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question posted at Talk:Anaheim Hills, California#Demographics. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it is listed under "Other neighborhoods and communities". It is not a city, a census-designated place, or a community located in UNincorporated territory. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren't for the links on this template, there would be almost no links to the Anaheim Hills article in the main namespace. That seems to be an argument against including it on this template. Of course, since that's also the case for the rest of the places on the template that aren't recognized by the U.S. Census, I'd probably go further and remove them all (leaving only cities and legitimate CDP's). Mike Dillon 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, but it doesnt matter what a place is whether it is a community or not, it still deserves just as much publicity as a city if the page is well edited and provides good information. I dont know what you seem to have against communities, but whatever it is they still deserve a spot in the Wikipedia. Thats the great thing about America is that ALL things, whether big or small deserve the same accreditation. You seem to know the rules of Wikipeida, but dont have the ethics Americans in the US live under, and the values that keep our nation strong. --Ericsaindon2 05:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the "U.S.", this is a global encylopedia. We order and rank things. Nations are treated differently from townships. Universities are handled differently from elementary schools. We have nothing against the city of Anaheim, and our article on it is quite detailed. Components of Anaheim deserve less attention. This template does not separate out neighborhoods for special listing because they are already included under their respective cities. It's a logical plan. -Will Beback 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best, and less "cluttering" if we removed the population categories; that is what the articles are for. An alphabetical streamlined list is the most appropriate listing of the cities. --Ericsaindon2 10:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Or, I could format it to use a Dynamic navigation box withthe show/hide button – which more Wikipedians are using now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you are wondering, the population categories are on all of the urban California county templates, not just this one. There has to be some consistency... unless you want this template to look like Template:Kern County, California and the other rural county templates which list no population stats. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am mistaken. Template:Alameda County, California and Template:Sacramento County, California do not have the population stats on there either. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I like the show/hide thing. I never noticed that before. I dont know, but it probably looks better to not include the population categories, but if you like them, then we can include them. They just tend to make the infobox longer than it has to be. --Mr.Executive 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert the template back to include the communities. If you have opposition, please state it here, or I will revert it. There was no consensus to revert the Neighborhood and Communities section, therefore, it should not be done. --Mr.Executive 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the neighborhoods should be removed. It's a partial list now, and a complete list would be too long. -Will Beback 04:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Will Beback. Remove the Neighborhood and Communities section. ^BlankVerse 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree-I think that since there are only a handful of communities that are currently not stubs-those should be the included ones because they obviously have enough information to earn a spot on this list. --69.227.173.154 11:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I am looking at the communities in OC list right now, and all of the communities (that are not census designated places, dont currently have articles, or in unincorporated teritory) are currently listed on the template, so I dont know where the number reference comes from. Since this is the extent of all the other neighborhoods, I think they are fine, because there arent anymore to add in which to create this large list you are afraid of creating (which I would not like a long list either, but feel that the current length with the communities is ok if it has the hide feature) --69.227.173.154 11:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my edits, the "other neighborhoods and communities" are already represented by a city on the template. A template or list at city articles can direct readers to the various neighborhoods in each city. The logical inclusion of all Orange County "neighborhoods and communities" would be problematic (some neighborhoods/communities are the size of a block, others several square miles; some lie completely within still other neighborhoods; some are given some sort of official status, while others are only loosely and popularly defined) - and, as already stated, would make the template much too large. Anaheimat 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some cities are a few blocks while some are several square miles as large as well. Some have more significance in the government than others. Your point is as equally rebutted by comparison to cities. All the communities of significance are already listed so it cannot get any larger. Leave it alone. --69.227.173.154 08:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not really care on way or the other... Obviously there is some sort of edit war here and thus I have protected it until there is some consensus. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I do not think it should be unprotected until after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2 is closed since it appears that the warring parties are sockpuppets of those involved in that case. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use this infobox to express places in Orange County. It is much more organizaed, looks better, and can hold a lot more communities without it being overly long. I have gone through the List of neighborhoods and unincorporated communities in Orange County page, and all the communities that were not redirects or in red (indicating that there is no such article) have been put on this list.OC31113 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want the Orange County template radically different from the other California county navigational templates? I would rather have some sort of consistency myself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add more information to the template (such as north county, south county, etc.) I will not object. What I do not agree with is that this proposed version currently excludes something that indicates which are CDP's. This is something I started adding to the template back in May [1] and I would rather not have it removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Zzyzx11. ^BlankVerse 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, what should the other places be labeled? It does not stop a user from adding onto the template which places are "Other unincorporated communities". And it further does not stop another from indicating which places are "Other neighborhoods and communities" — which is the core of the current edit war (see #Other Neightborhoods and Communities Section above). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== firme de deratizare bucuresti

==

You produced some very good points there. I did a search on the subject and located most people will agree with your blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.191.94 (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]