From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

combining towns

since voters have voted for cityhood, i think that they should be merged since all these pages have very little information 75.24.247.231 ( talk) 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Has the new town actually been incorporated? Is the new town a separate Census designated area? (If so, what does the 2010 data show?) I would support merger, but the article for the new town needs both a skeleton and some meat. -- S. Rich ( talk) 03:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)06:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply
yes and no. it is separate because each of these areas(mira loma, Rubidoux,Sunnyslope, Pedley, glen avon) has its own census designated area. the 2010 data for cities and CDP's has not come out yet(will soon though). the only data that has come out of the US census is national, state and county data. i'm wondering if they are going to recalculate it since these areas were done separately. im assuming that all they are going to do is add all these areas together since each of the CDP's merged together to form a city. 75.24.247.231 ( talk) 06:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply
well there is a jurupa census county division. oh yes they are apart for each of these areas. but calculating each of these areas together puts the population closer to 92,000 75.24.247.231 ( talk) 07:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I'd also agree with the combining. Census data will probably remain separated, simply because the area was still separate unincorporated CDP's at the time of the 2010 census. Information on this page, yes, would require some manipulation to include all included 2010 CDP counts. I did update a map to represent the incorporated boundaries. CraziFuzzy ( talk) 13:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

  • I'm not sure where the 88,000 population number came from, but looking at previous censuses and estimates it seems reasonable. I've found the following:
Year Mira Loma CDP Rubidoux CDP Pedley CDP Sunnyslope CDP Glen Avon CDP Jurupa Valley Total
2010 21,930 34,280 12,672 5,153 20,199 94,235
2009(est) 18,299 33,476 11,465 4,274 17,167 84,681
2000 17,617 29,180 11,207 4,437 14,853 77,294
1990 15,786 24,367 8,869 3,766 12,663 65,451

CraziFuzzy ( talk) 16:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Do not merge: Each community has a unique history (such as Rubidoux) and can be suitable neighborhood articles (e.g. Carol City, Florida and Norland, Florida, which incorporated into Miami Gardens in 2003). -- Moreau36-- Discuss 15:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Do not merge: I agree each has a separate history, and the new city name is not well known yet. If at some time in the future the history of the separate areas becomes blurred, as the new city becomes more estalished, then merging could be considered then. If it is decided that the articles should be merged, the new article should keep a separate section for each area. MissionInn.Jim ( talk) 16:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, the city of San Bernardino has separate articles for each of it's neighborhoods. (See Category:Neighborhoods in San Bernardino, California.) MissionInn.Jim ( talk) 17:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I updates the above table with finalized 2010 census data for the associated CDP's. This new number (94,235) should be considered a valid population figure for Jurupa Valley. CraziFuzzy ( talk) 05:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It looks like there is no consensus to merge. If there are no objections, I would like to remove the Merge templates. Bte99 ( talk) 15:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I concur. Pages for CDPs and neighborhoods within incorporated boundaries still exist and are well-established in WP. Yet I would also suggest that some of the significant figures and entries from the associated pages be copied into the JuVal entry in order to flesh it out some. OffColfax ( talk) 02:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Yes, do not merge. There are a lot of articles on former CDPs (see Category:Former census-designated places in California). Zzyzx11 ( talk) 19:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Coordinates

Given the history of the new city, there isn't a natural geographic center to use for the coordinates. The town hall is in Pedley, near the southern edge of the new city, so that didn't really make sense. In the end I chose the intersection of Mission Blvd and Valley Way. While this isn't the geographic center, it works somewhat as a compromise between the geographic center and the weighted center of population, and also a part of town that's heavily traveled. Feel free to change it if you believe there's a better location. G Sisson ( talk) 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I have changed the coordinates to what is officially listed for Jurupa Valley on the United States Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System Zzyzx11 ( talk) 06:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Looks good. G Sisson ( talk) 00:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply

CA state route 81

it is a undefined route that goes from south east riverside to devore for a length of 31 miles some info about state route 81 . The state Legislators recognize that the route goes through sierra ave California Legislative Analyst's Office. so that means that a large chunk goes through jurupa valley. The only route that seems to fit this description is Van Buren Blvd. does anyone else think so? state route info 142.136.72.238 ( talk) 22:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

As a freeway they'd build around, and not through Van Buren route, especially on the east/north side of the Santa Ana River. Too disruptive to do so. In any case it looks like they are going to drop the idea: [1] -- S. Rich ( talk) 23:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
oh i thought that the route/expressway that the state was referring back in 1959 followed sierra ave to valley way to Jurupa road then to Van Buren Boulevard because this is the only way i was able to get 31 miles. Either way I hope that Jurupa Valley takes advantage of this unconstructed route just like Fontana did. Fontana used it to rebuild the Sierra/I-10 overpass bridge and I hope Jurupa Valley does something similar too. Javiern ( talk) 05:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Jurupa Valley: The location given by the coordinates in the article is in the ocean, not in Riverside County.

— Jim ( talk) 04:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

 Done. Someone appears to have mistyped a latitude of 33 (when it should be 34). Deor ( talk) 13:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jurupa Valley, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Jurupa_Valley,_California&oldid=1201091038"