Jump to content

Talk:Walnut Creek, California

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

Home Values

[edit]

Why are home sales listed next to neighborhoods. I know its a common thing to discuss in the Bay Area but seems kind of odd to include for a wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boucher4 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misc Comment

[edit]

Sources for Cass McCombs and Markie Post being born in Walnut Creek? Their wikipedia pages say differently, and that is embarrasing. _________________________________________________________


I don't see why there is a paragraph about pipeline expansion on the "Local Folklore" section. This isn't really connected to the undergrounding of the creek. Also, IIRC, the current project is a water main that is running towards San Ramon. They hit a Kinder Morgan petrolium pipeline near a location where the petrol pipeline jogged towards the path of the new pipeline.

How about we remove the whole section on "secrets." I must have missed what the gang has to do with the fact that there is a secret lake. _________________________________________________________

The credibility of Wikipedia is severely damage by this poor description of Walnut Creek signed WikiToo


[edit]

There is a broken link to Lindsay Wildlife Museum on the page, but there is an article for LWM... Russia Moore 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So be bold and fix it, eh? Anyway, done. This article does need some work. Luna Santin 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initial assessment

[edit]

Assigned a B class since overall it is a usable article: NPOV: satisfactory images: good writing: satisfactory breadth: decent, but could use more on ecology, geology and infrastructure sources: lacking Anlace 23:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Spam at Famous Citizens

[edit]

I removed what seem to be vanity spam for skateboarders and hi-tech personalities etc. --Kevin Murray 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to clean up this list because it's overly large, but as a general rule, noteables should have extensive press and media coverage or have a significant place in historical context before placing themselves or their band in this oft-bloated list (see note below). --Utilizer (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is wrong. Absolutely all that is required to be in the notable persons list here or at any settlement article is a Wikipedia bio or enough references to show that the person would qualify and a reliable reference either in this list or in the bio showing a connection (either birth or residence for a significant time) to the community. If the list is too long (generally 30-35 names), then perhaps a List of people from Walnut Creek article should be spun off. Under no circumstances should an editor impose his own judgement on who should and shouldn't be on the list as is bring attempted here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Miwok in Walnut Creek

[edit]

Our history section appears to contradict the Bay Miwok article which says:

There are five authenticated tribes or bands with villages of the same name:[4] [5]

At present-day City of Lafayette and/or Walnut Creek: Saclan. Saclan territory extended through the hills east of present day City of Oakland, Rossmoor, Lafayette, Moraga, and Walnut Creek. At Present-day City of Concord: Chupcan. At Mt. Diablo and along Marsh Creek: Volvon (also spelled Wolwon, Zuicun). At San Joaquin River (east of Antioch): Julpon. At Present-day City of Danville or Walnut Creek, on San Ramon Creek: Tatcan.

And there is no mention of the Bolbon Indians, although there is mention of the Volvon Indians, which may be variant spellings of the same word. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further research indicates that the Bolbon and Volvon are one in the same. I rewrote the paragraph to reflect the information at the Bay Miwok page. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Employers

[edit]

should add some of the largest/notable employers ...Kaiser,Longs,Joint Genome Institute, Safeway etc...will draft if time permits--Billymac00 (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I placed a wikipedia-link in this article where the word "Sacramento" appears. Another editor, who appears to be stalking me and is reverting everything that I do, claims that I am "overlinking" by doing this. I have read the policy, and think I understand it, and I disagree with him. The word "Sacramento" was not linked anywhere else in this article before I made the link, and I think that my link provided good context for a reader who did not know Walnut Creek but thought that maybe they knew Sacramento. Was there anything wrong with my link? I would like someone objective to give their opinions. 74.234.45.208 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess this edit proves that this editor realizes that he has been caught harassing and/or falsely accusing me of violating wikipedia procedures. I won't hold my breathe waiting for an apology, but at least now the truth is out there for everyone to see. 74.234.45.208 (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

With a city article, the images should provide a clear image of whatever section they're illustrating. There were two black and white photos of downtown and I removed one, since it was focused on cars parked along the street, which could be anywhere, not necessarily Walnut Creek. I left in the one that shows more of what is clearly Walnut Creek. I also removed a Canal Trail photo from "open Space" since, although the caption stated it was "near an open space," was not a photo of an actual open space.

The Northgate Community photo--this is actually a neighborhood in the city. There are currently no neighborhoods listed on this article and since the photo is mainly of a street, it doesn't really represent the neighborhood very well--my opinion. This is a pretty good article on the city and I would like to see the photos reflect what's in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utilizer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points of interest vs. restaurants

[edit]

Please don't put restaurants under "Points of interest" unless the restaurant is in a notably historic building (with evidence of that), or is of some other historic value. If you want to create a "business" section and include some notable restaurants (restaurants that have long standing in the community, historic sites, and/or well documented critical reviews, etc.), that would make more sense.

The suggestion from 2008 is an even better one--a section for "Employers" (or "Economy") with the city's biggest employers. That would benefit the article. Since Walnut Creek has a lot of restaurants, an approximate count and estimate of employees, plus revenue restaurants generate for the area would ultimately be the most informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utilizer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Walnut Creek, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people guidelines

[edit]

This "notable people" section is ridiculously large, even after extensive editing. Here are some guidelines before placing anyone (or their band) on this list:

1. Subject should have a large amount of media coverage from reliable sources, such as NY Times, SF Chronicle, Slate, other major magazines and news sites, etc. By large amount, I would recommend 8-10 substantial articles or interviews. Media coverage from IMDB, bot-generated lists, or promotional pieces don't count. And/or

2. Subject should have had a well-documented, long and/or successful career in his or her field of expertise, be he/she pro athlete, bestselling author, actor (from long-running, critically acclaimed and/or award-winning TV or film roles), educator, activist, etc. And/or

3. Subject should be singularly notable as in one-of-a-kind local founders who formed the town, well-documented historic figures, Olympic medalists and well-established national competition winners, singular and well-known public leaders, etc.

Even with these guidelines, the list is rather extensive for such a small town. But I'm leaving it for now, due to the fact that Walnut Creek has produced and housed a lot of professional athletes over the years, and I think that's notable as long as those athletes reached some sort of pinnacle in their sport, or had a very active career at the pro level.

Feel free to add or edit these guidelines, but before placing another name on this list, please take them into account because it takes away from the article to have a large list of questionable content. --Utilizer (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Utilizer, but notable people sections in settlement articles already have a guideline. It is called NLIST. It has two requirements. Either a Wikipedia bio or enough referencing to show the person would qualify for one; and a reliable reference, either in their bio or attached to their entry in the list, showing a connection to the community either by birth or significant residence. Pretty much everything you've put here in the last few days is false. It substitutes your judgement for established guidelines which is a clear violation of policy (WP:OWN). Care to rethink your recent statements here? John from Idegon (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. I've been following notability guidelines since 2009 and my guidelines here qualify under Wikipedia's list. The problem arose from too many people putting their name on the Walnut Creek notability list without adequate reference backup. Anyone can put up a Wikipedia page, but general guidelines recommend at least 10 substantial media references (or a significant role in a historical context, and I admit I subjectively take into account the shrinking print-media of our times and how difficult it is to get that much press when starting out in a career) to establish notability for that article. Just because someone's Wiki page hasn't been challenged or marked for deletion doesn't mean it necessarily qualifies for notability, either on the site, or on this city page. Hence, I'm trying to get this list down to a manageable size. It's an ongoing issue on Wikipedia and in this article--I'm not saying anything new (or false). --Utilizer (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you have stated is unabashedly FALSE. GNG does not require 8-10 sources. An athlete is considered notable if they have had as little as one appearance in a big league game. For some sports they only have to have been drafted in the first couple rounds. An individual need have no connection with the town other than birth or residence. They do not have to have any significance to the community at all.
The good faith position here is you are ignorant of current guidelines. The other choice is you are trying to own this article. If you don't like the current guidelines and policies an editor with a much experience as you should know where to go to discuss that. This isn't it. Stop the owner behavior on this article. I am at a loss as to what else to call it. I have over 800 settlements on my watchlist and gave never seen an editor with the gall to think HE can set the rules for who can and can't be included on the notable list on any one of them. Settlement articles are one of the most common points of entry for new editors to Wikipedia. Having uniform policies is perhaps more important on settlements than any other area. John from Idegon (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following Wikipedia guidelines for notability. I took the time to research each person on this article's notability list and edited accordingly. Here are the notability guidelines for biographical articles from Wikipedia: Notability (people) — this is helpful for anyone who wants to create a biographical article. True, the settlement watch list states that anyone on a settlement notable-people list must have a Wikipedia biographical page, but that biography ideally, in a perfect world, should originate from and adhere to notability guidelines, which are excerpted here (these are not my words—they're directly from the Wikipedia Notability (people) article: --Utilizer (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any biography

  1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
  2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.(1.)

Academics
Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

Creative professionals
Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Entertainers
Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
    • See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

Politicians

  1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.(1.) This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
  2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.(2.)
  3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

Sports personalities
An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Reference notes:
1. Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
2. This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless.

Notability continued

[edit]

I don't consider myself some brutal editing overlord. I simply wanted to make sure Walnut Creek's notable people are notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. It's not the most pleasant task, but it makes for a more informative read and reflects the city and the difficulty it takes to be a notable person in your field. Also, the notable-people list was really bloated and some entries were blatantly self-promotional. One entry actually admitted to being in town to help a relative out--that was on the list. The sports people are a quandary because some people make it to the pros, which is nearly impossible, but their careers were cut very short and not distinguished. There could definitely be argument for leaving all those people on the list. Not all my edits could stand under that discussion. And I'm fine with that. That's what editors do--discuss and decide. But hostility doesn't warrant the best outcome in these cases. I'm a volunteer editor. It takes a long time to research all these biographies. I researched their secondary sources and references too--I didn't take this task lightly. I'd appreciate some civil discussion over the matter. --Utilizer (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bands of note

[edit]

Much like pro athletes, it's not always easy to make it as a notable musician/band. Extensive press helps the cause. I recommended 8-10 press references above, not because I'm the page's (or any page's) overlord, but because that's a good number of references to ensure your page won't be marked for deletion. I've fought that battle and it's no fun. You don't have to have 8-10 references, but it really helps. Six to seven is a good starting number and build from there. Again--I'm not making a rule. I'm trying to help you in your quest for notability. As painful as this process can be, I can understand why the guidelines are in place. Because without them, literally everyone in the world could claim a Wikipedia page. This little city page could have thousands of notable people on it. I've discovered this knowledge the hard way.

This surf band, La Luz, is a good sample of a relatively new band with lots of good press references. I believe their page was marked for deletion and someone did the research and referenced it up and it probably will stay on the site now. Do the same with your local band if at all possible. Good luck! I'm rooting for you. --Utilizer (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Harkins

[edit]

Brandon Harkins is from Walnut Creek, California. Here are multiple sources saying as such - [1], [2], and [3]. While I could add them myself to the actual article, the disregard of WP:GF is concerning so if someone else wants to then they are free to do so. RonSigPi (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Walnut Creek, 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) 03:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Walnut Creek, 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) 08:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Walnut Creek, 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) 11:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arts & culture section

[edit]

Please do not delete Arts & culture section. It needs references and I will add them. Walnut Creek is distinguished by its many city-owned and operated performing arts and arts education organizations. There is plenty of evidence to back this up, so I ask that editors leave in place for now. Thank you. --Utilizer (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Microclimate status

[edit]

In the first sentence of the page the word “microclimate” is used. Is this needed? Microclimate relative to what? San Francisco? Is the Walnut Creek microclimate substantially different than adjacent towns? Is this substantial that this needs to be placed in the first sentence? 2601:648:8300:CEC:D90D:3EA3:D38E:58AE (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an advertisement for the city

[edit]

This article is not in a neutral tone 108.208.121.142 (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walnut_Creek,_California&oldid=1210899790"