Jump to content

Talk:Frazier Park, California

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

Water area

[edit]

"ALL of it is covered by water"? Hmm. I think the US Census Bureau is wrong... I just drove through there last week and it looked pretty high and dry to me. ;) Perhaps we should modify this, despite what the Census Bureau website says? RockBandit 20:52, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Generic Frazier Park

[edit]

Regarding Cuddy Valley, Lake of the Woods, et al: Do you mean that the Census Bureau considers these all part of Frazier Park for census purposes? US Geological Survey sees these as separate. Talk:David Jordan

No, though it might. People of those communities say they live in Frazier Park. Wikibout-Talk to me! 04:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External link(s)

[edit]

Kindly refer to Wikipedia:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest before adding an external link. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frazier Park, 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) 03:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Frazier Park, 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) 11:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Frazier Park, 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) 23:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government

[edit]

At this edit I removed text from this article with the edit summary "Remove unencyclopedic detail". This was reverted here by BeenAroundAWhile (talk · contribs) with edit summary "Restoring. It's important to the story." I maintain that the inclusion in the article of a list of names and mini-biographies of otherwise non-notable people (with the greatest respect to the individuals concerned) in article about a small community is much more detail than is required in an encyclopedia. I'd be grateful for the opinion of others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there. Often WP is the only source for information about small towns. Why omit information which is of value to a community, no matter its size? WP is not limited as to size. I did not see any reasons here to remove so much info, or any info, from this article. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(3O) - Agreed it's too much detail. WP shouldn't be the only source for anything at all, as a tertiary source. It's not a substitute for an official local website (nor an extension thereof). As per fundamental content policies, aspects of a subject we cover should be roughly proportional to coverage of those aspects in the body of literature about a subject, without going into too much detail. Biographical statements about non-notable local officials isn't something we would typically include, except when those people are an important part of the town's history (and covered by reliable sources as such). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW it's usually better to have a bit more discussion before going to 3O rather than just one message apiece. :/ — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't know what 3O means. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BeenAroundAWhile:. it's a Wikipedia:Third opinion
@Rhododendrites: thank you for your time, and specific and general advice. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, BeenAroundAWhile, there's a special template I should've used which would've linked to 3O. It's typically an early (and pretty informal) step in dispute resolution. The idea is that, for arguments that two people can't resolve, a third opinion is often useful (granted, it's not usually used after just one message by each party :/ ). It's not binding, however, and you can choose to use one of the other DR processes if you like (like an WP:RFC), but I would be very surprised if it went a different way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Third Opinion a couple of times. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the helpful request at the top of the page to update this section. In the meantime, the accepted version should remain because of WP:Bold, revert, discuss. There was a (1) Bold move to delete most of the section, then a (2) Reversion, which was followed by a (3) Discussion on this WP:Talk page. While it's being discussed, the original wording should be retained. The retention will help any interested editor to update the section. A discussion has begun, but it hasn't continued long enough for a decision to delete anything. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I suggest solving this problem by deleting the text of the "Government" section and referring the reader to Mountain_Communities_of_the_Tejon_Pass#Government, which has the same information, but updated. What do you say? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: I think you're subverting process. I opened a discussion. After a week there was a response from only you. I then asked for a 3rd opinion which agreed that there's too much detail. I therefore deleted the material again. After a further week you have restored the detail. How much more discussion do you want? The section you link to has precisely the same problem: too much unencyclopaedic detail. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frazier_Park,_California&oldid=1202134620"