Talk:Frazier Park, California

Water area

"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

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)

External link(s)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/699nOulzi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120115818/http://www.el-tejon.org/ to http://www.el-tejon.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517070503/http://www.valleyoakscharterschool.org/mission_statement to http://www.valleyoakscharterschool.org/mission_statement
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130115073718/http://www.clubrunner.ca/CPrg/Home/homeS.asp?cid=2881 to http://www.clubrunner.ca/CPrg/Home/homeS.asp?cid=2881

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811074115/http://bancroft.library.ca.gov/diglib/image.cfm?id=1216&start=1 to http://bancroft.library.ca.gov/diglib/image.cfm?id=1216&start=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228153654/http://mountainenterprise.com/atf.php?sid=4199&current_edition=2009-01-09 to http://mountainenterprise.com/atf.php?sid=4199&current_edition=2009-01-09

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Government

At this edit I removed text from this article with the edit summary "Remove unencyclopedic detail". This was reverted here by 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)

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)

(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)

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)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what 3O means. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Re. it's a Wikipedia:Third opinion

Template:Re thank you for your time, and specific and general advice. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

I've used Third Opinion a couple of times. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Template:Re 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)