From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured portalThe California Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.
Portal milestones
DateProcessResult
July 24, 2008 Featured portal candidatePromoted

FA nomination for California Gold Rush

The California Gold Rush article has been nominated for Featured article status. If you would like to comment on this nomination, please go here to leave your comment. To leave a comment on that page, click the [edit] link to the right of the title California Gold Rush. NorCalHistory 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I am delighted to report that the California Gold Rush article has been given Featured article status. Many thanks to all who contributed! NorCalHistory 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Portal:Mexico?

Why is Portal:Mexico listed as a related portal under California? That does make sense as it is neither above nor below this portal in the Geography hierarchy. (Also, since the Geography hierarchy places Portal:United States in an entirely separate region ( Category:Northern American portals), this seems even more out of place.) I don't see any other geographic portals (although I haven't looked extensively), particularly for regions within a country, that list portals for other countries as a related portal. I suggest removing this, and if nobody objects in a few days, I will. — Doug Bell  talk 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

California's history is very intimately tied to Mexico's, and there's also Baja California. I was not aware that there's a convention that related portals should only be those above and below in the hierarchy. If such a convention exists, or if a consensus establishes that convention, then Portal:Mexico should be removed, but otherwise, I think in the casual-use sense of the word 'related', Mexico is sufficiently related to be included here. eae 07:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I guess I just completely disagree with that rationale. By that reasoning, the Portal:United States should include Portal:England (and vice versa), and sheesh, any number of other separate geographic areas that have shared points in history. The convention is to include the portals for things contained by or directly containing the portal in question, not to include any other portal where there might be a some non-geographic connection. I think it should go. — Doug Bell  talk 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The section says "Related portals", not "Hierarchial portals". I say leave it in because website visitors who are interested in California, and especially Southern California, may also have an interest in Mexico. Blank Verse 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
For all other geographic portals, "Related portals" means thing in the area or things the area is in. Can you point to a counter example in another geographic portal? I haven't been able to find one. Also, the argument above doesn't support the notion of may also have an interest in Mexico. They may also have an interest in golfing or movies, but we don't include Portal:Golf or Portal:Film because the connection is a weaker association—these are not uniquely associated with California, and California is not uniquely associated with them. Mexico could just as easily be associated with Texas, yet it's not listed there and for the same good reasons I've laid out here. So far nobody has made any claim that supports this inclusion. It should go. — Doug Bell  talk 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Texas is a bad counterexample, for the simple reason that I think Portal:Mexico belongs on Portal:Texas, for the same reasons. The golf and film argument is weak because those things have nothing to do with California specifically, and vice versa. Mexico, however, has everything to do with California. If you insist on the hierarchy, consider that California was once part of Mexico. Today, Mexico is essential to California's culture, economy, and politics. When you think of California, if you know anything about California, you will think of Mexico very soon. There is no harm done by including Mexico as a related portal, and there is no benefit to excluding it, whereas including it does provide a potentially useful link for the reader. It's not that nobody's made claims to support this inclusion, it's that you haven't accepted any of the claims that have been made. eae 06:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
You still have not addressed my question, so I'll put this very simply. There are about 140 geography portals. Can you please show me an example of a geography portal where another geography portal is listed under "Related portals" that does not meet the is in or is contained within relationship criteria?
It is simply your POV that "Mexico, however, has everything to do with California" and that Portal:Mexico has some particular relevance to Portal:California that would make it the exception to the rest of all other geographic portals. Frankly, your comment above reveals much about why you are arguing for it's inclusion here as your statements above regarding the relevance of Mexico to California are extremely subjective. I can guarantee you that "if you know anything about California, you will think of Mexico very soon" is simply your opinion, not a statement of fact. We should be applying objective criteria here, not your subjective opinion. As to "there is no harm done by including Mexico", I disagree. I came to this talk page because I was confused by its inclusion here. Someone with less knowledge of California might reach an erroneous conclusion regarding the relationship between California and Mexico, or at the very least, be similarly confused. It should go. — Doug Bell  talk 07:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Most portals don't even have a related portals section, or have an empty one. Of the ones that do have content there, many explicitly call their other-portals section "subportals", and therefore are not relevant, because this related-portals section is called Related Portals. Whatever the inclusion of Portal:Mexico as a portal related to California might imply to the visitor who knows nothing of it, that inclusion is not a statement of any fact, all the facts are on the respective portals and in the respective articles.
But anyway, here are a few things to consider: Portal:Western Sahara references Portal:Politics and Portal:Berbers. Portal:Canada references Portal:Geography. Portal:United States references Portal:American football and Portal:Baseball. Portal:New York City includes Portal:Business and Economics. Portal:Panama, Portal:Peru, and Portal:Venezuela all include several other Latin American country portals. You can go through Asia and the rest yourself if you wish. Portal:Mexico should stay. eae 09:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
While the Latin American portals you reference are examples of prior precedence, this would argue to including Portal:Mexico in Portal:United States. I would be fine with including Portal:Mexico and Portal:Canada in Portal:United States, so I have moved Portal:Mexico there as it is clearly more appropriate. Including Mexico here with the state of California, combined with your statements above, strikes me as an attempt to push a POV. Including neighboring countries at the country level would avoid the POV issue, so this seems to me to be a good compromise. — Doug Bell  talk 11:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

<dedent>
I think that the deciding point on this issue should be "What is best for the reader?". And, quite frankly, I don't understand what POV has to do with the opinion that Portal:Mexico should be listed as a related portal at Portal:California. Blank Verse 14:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Reading Eaefremov's response above (starting with "Texas...") it struck me this is a POV issue! which then made it easier to understand where Eaefremov is coming from. Several highly-subjective statements that he seemed to take as a common point of view led me to that conclusion as I explained in my reply. I think the compromise I suggested should both make the relevance of Mexico to the U.S. accessible to readers while also avoiding adopting any sort of POV by including it here. — Doug Bell  talk 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The Point of View being? Blank Verse 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Look, I don't want to overread Eaefremov's statements and put words in his/her mouth, but my concern here is that something along the lines of this may be involved here. I want to make it clear that I'm assuming good faith here and categorically not making an accusation that that is the POV, but I think it best to avoid any perception of a POV with the change that I made. — Doug Bell  talk 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't see how the position that Mexico is NOT a related portal to California is any less a POV than the position that Mexico IS a related portal to California, not to mention the fact that exclusionism is a POV as well. Furthermore, you are quoted as saying "I suggest removing this, and if nobody objects in a few days, I will." I have objected, as has BlankVerse. Please don't remove it. eae 19:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

My comment about waiting a few days was never intended to imply that that was the only circumstance under which it should be removed, but merely to state that if nobody bothered to respond then I was going to go ahead. It would perhaps be more useful if you address the merits of my compromise and why you think it is acceptable or unacceptable to you. It is an attempt to avoid the entire issue of a POV—either mine or yours. — Doug Bell  talk 19:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I've made the case that Mexico is more closely related to California than most distinct geographic areas/states are to each other, and thus it has a stronger case for being included. I've also refuted your argument that there is a generally accepted convention on what constitutes a related portal. Since it was included to begin with, the exclusion is what needs to be justified. The compromise you suggested simply makes the US portal more correct, it doesn't help this portal, and it only eliminates my POV, not yours. The fact that California is a state and Mexico is a nation and so they're not on the same hierarchical level is irrelevant, because before California was a state, it was a territory that belonged to Mexico. Consider the fact that all important Cali cities (and many less important ones) have Spanish names. Consider the fact that close to half the population is Hispanic. That Mexico is related to California is not POV, it is a fact. One can argue about how related they really are, and that's fine, but they're sufficiently related for this one inclusion. Portal:Quebec should include Portal:France and Portal:Canada. Portal:Kurile Islands should include both Portal:Japan and Portal:Russia. Portal:Macau should include both Portal:Portugal and Portal:China. I'd be more likely to accept the compromise to remove the related portals section altogether than to remove one of them. eae 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I may respond more substantively later to the rest of your points, but I do want to dispell one myth here.
Since it was included to begin with, the exclusion is what needs to be justified.
Since you added it, it was clearly not included to begin with. That I differ with it and delete it is as valid as you adding it in the first place. Neither of us has some inherently greater hurdle to overcome in this discussion and I think you know that. — Doug Bell  talk 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, here's my response to your other points:
  • The fact that California is a state and Mexico is a nation and so they're not on the same hierarchical level is irrelevant, because before California was a state, it was a territory that belonged to Mexico.
    This one is a stretch. If there is any lingering historical significance to this as it relates to a portal about a state of the United States then that would be of interest from people viewing Portal:Mexico having a link to Portal:California, not the other way around as the current link would imply. Note that I don't think this reverse link is appropriate either, but it is the only connection supported by your argument. Putting the link to Mexico on the California portal based on this rationale is pushing a point of view that there is some sort of contemporary claim that Mexico has on California. If there is any larger issue of historical signicance between Mexico and the US on this issue, then that is addressed by my compromise. Note that the historical significance neither applied to what is now the entire state of California, nor exclusively to California as it included portions of several other states. So this is an argument in favor of including cross-portal references between the United States and Mexico, not between California and Mexico. As a basis for any reason to include any cross-portal links it is weak.
  • Consider the fact that all important Cali cities (and many less important ones) have Spanish names.
    Really too weak to even respond to. So what? This has as much relevance as my straw men about golf and film portals.
  • Consider the fact that close to half the population is Hispanic.
    So? Close to half the population can be traced to Europe. Should we include a cross-portal link to Portal:Europe also? I don't think so.
  • That Mexico is related to California is not POV, it is a fact.
    By this logic any link is appropriate here. I refer back to the golf and film arguments.
Your other suggested portal cross links are interesting and I think more of an argument against starting down this road than for anything else. Historically there are relationships between many geographic locations and I don't see where it is useful to readers to start polluting the related links sections with these as we would end up with cross-portal links from every place to every other place. Your parade of strawmen above actually strengthens my case that if there is to be cross-linking it should be at the US and Mexico level, not here. The link should go. — Doug Bell  talk 00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Update: Based on the discussion above, and the POV concerns I have with the above stated rationale to include the link, I have removed the cross-portal link to Portal:Mexico. Please do not replace this link until consensus to do so is established here. — Doug Bell  talk 11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I was hoping the fact that you were outvoted 2-1 would prevent you from doing that again, but I guess I was wrong.
This is not a POV issue, because your insistence on removing this link is your own POV, exclusionism, as evidenced by your user box on that subject. So in the best case, even if you could make a legitimate case that I have a POV here, it would be a tie, so it would be an issue to be decided on other merits. The fact is, however, I do not have a POV. I am not making a statement of any kind by including Mexico on this portal. I am simply providing the reader a related portal, in the standard, broad sense of the word related. The only implicit statement one can deduce from the inclusion of that link here, "California is related to Mexico", does not contain a point of view, it contains a statement of fact, and no, this is not just, like, my opinion, man.
Finally, this discussion is not conclusive of anything. Three votes were cast, three claims were made, nobody changed their mind, not only that but you were outvoted, and yet you're making this change for the second time. I'm not going to revert it yet, but the only (temporary!) compromise that is truly POV-free is the removal of the related portals section altogether, which I have done. If an actual discussion (more than two people) ensues, here or elsewhere, and a decision is made using actual democracy, with one side taking a statistically significant advantage over the other, then that decision can be implemented. If not, then let's say on the first of the new year I'm going to bring the section back, complete with Mexico.
eae 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Response and suggestion:
  • I was hoping the fact that you were outvoted 2-1
    First, it's not a vote. Second, I noticed as soon as I answered the question about what POV I was concerned about, BlankVerse stopped commenting. Not to read too much into that, but perhaps he's had a change of heart.
  • removing this link is your own POV, exclusionism
    Uh, that's not a POV, perhaps a style, but a POV in terms of content, no, it has nothing to do with not being a neutral point of view. Exclusionism isn't a POV, and I can honestly say, I've never seen anyone refer to it as one before.
One way to resolve this would be to have a straw poll. Another way would be to have mediation. Either is fine with me. — Doug Bell  talk 05:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
to resolve this...straw poll...mediation - We had a straw poll, it was 2-1 in favor. I don't know how to induce a larger poll or a mediation process, so if you know, go ahead and induce it.
Exclusionism isn't a POV - it's a bias towards looking for things to exclude, rather than generally constructive (meaning, useful to the reader) changes to make.
The thing is, as BlankVerse pointed out, the deciding point should be "what's best for the reader". You still haven't demonstrated any actual harm caused by the inclusion, or any potential benefit to exclusion, you just suggested excluding it because you were "confused", and switched the justification from "not hierarchical" to "POV" when the "not hierarchical" argument was negated. The "POV" claim was based on something you thought you read between the lines on this talk page, not in the link itself. I think you have an anti- this bias, and you thought you saw that POV here, whereas in actuality all you saw was a potentially useful link to someone interested in learning in-depth about California.
eae 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The best way to get more 'eyeballs' on this issue would be to post notices at WikiProject California and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico. Blank Verse 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not including any related portals is fine, although an uplink to Portal:United States somewhere would be useful.
Not that I see a lot of point to it, but I'll respond to a couple things Eaefremov said—not for the purpose of continuing the argument, but simply to respond.
  • switched the justification from "not hierarchical" to "POV" when the "not hierarchical" argument was negated
    Actually, "POV" was always a concern, I just didn't see a point in opening that argument at first. The POV issue was suggested to me by the unhierarchical inclusion of Mexico, especially since I hadn't seen any similar link on a geography portal. I figured it was a better assumption of good faith to only bring the hierarchical issue up. I didn't switch, I just tried to avoid getting into discussing motives when it appeared that discussing form would do.
  • I think you have an anti- this bias
    I happen to be only peripherally aware of that issue. In fact, I was somewhat surprised not to find an article on it on Wikipedia to link to and had to find the above link searching on Google. I don't agree with those fringe views, but neither do I have a dog in that fight.
  • potentially useful link to someone interested in learning in-depth about California
    I'll say again that it is an arbitrary potentially useful link. As I've argued more than once above, there are a large number of potentially useful links that someone reading the California portal might be interested in. So choosing Mexico from the myriad list of things that someone visiting the portal might be interested in is subjective, and to me, suggestive of a POV.
— Doug Bell  talk 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Straw Poll

Should a link to Portal:Mexico be included in the Related Portals section of Portal:California?

Update

Since there haven't been any new votes in a few months, I am calling this vote over. The final score was 5-2 counting all votes, or 3-2 counting votes from editors with more than 2 edits. Portal:Mexico has been included back. I trust this is okay with everyone; if not, please drum up more support before removing the link. Nobody seems to care much, but those that do are leaning towards inclusion. eae 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Cathy Williams

Hi, can i get some help on Cathy Williams. The article says she was full Secretary of State, between Shelley and McPherson, but I don't think that is true. Dagomar 17:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Wrong article go to Bruce McPherson and follow the link. Dagomar 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Tagging articles

We should use this text to tag articles. {{portal|California|WPCF.svg}} -- evrik ( talk) 10:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Editing this page

How do I get into this page to edit it? All I see is a bunch of code. In frustration, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 15:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Each section of the portal is transcluded from another page. The transcluded pages are all subpages of the portal (signified by the "/" followed by the name). This link shows all the subpages of this portal. But if might be easier to just load all the transcluded pages to actually find what part you'd like to edit. Hope that makes sense. Killiondude ( talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

No, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The line I want to edit is the eighth line from the top, beginning "Inhabited by indigenous people." How would I do that? Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello? Anybody out there to answer this question? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 20:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

George, I just found the page that has the section you wanted to work on. Sorry it took so long, I couldn't find it before. Killiondude ( talk) 07:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Portal link images

California portal
California portal
California portal
California portal
California portal
Golden State portal

Several different images are currently being used on links to the California portal. What is your preference? Is there a consensus favorite?

Links to the other state portals are displayed at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. -- Buaidh ( talk) 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Selected picture versus previous picture of the month

While doing some commons moves and other WikiProject California cleanup I've noticed that this Portal has some historical by month bio/article/picture selection on top of its current articles in rotation. {{ WikiProject California}} will be updated soon. I also plan to redirect the old pages Portal:California/Selected picture/Archive -> the current Portal:California/Selected picture/Archives, etc. I'm listing the previous items for historical reference, and if anyone feels they should be included on the current setup. - Optigan13 ( talk) 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Past selected pictures
Past selected biographies
Past selected articles
I'll use a strikethrough on images or articles that I didn't carry over into the current relevant pages or categories. Not done yet. -02:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The San Diego image ( File:Moon Monster2.jpg) would probably work but I'm back and forth on Panorama vs picture for that one. I've replaced Tupac Shakur with Dr. Dre becuse there is no free image of Shakur, and Dre is a Good article and a close enough subject in the music field. - Optigan13 ( talk) 04:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Apparently File:Mossbrae falls.jpg was a selected picture in the past, but I missed it because it didn't have the related template usage.I've also removed it. - Optigan13 ( talk) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Old candidate pages

As part of the cleanup I've also noticed several candidate subpages which have gone un-noticed. I'm going to list the entries below and redirect the pages to this talk page, since I doubt those subpages are on a lot of watchlists. -06:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Selected articles

Selected biographies

Selected pictures (just add a selected or not to the caption)

  • Not done, Not currently featured, and flickr image now private
    Not done, Not currently featured, and flickr image now private
  • Not done, not featured
    Not done, not featured
  • Not done, FP, good, but SFO is already a selected article, and this would be redundant
    Not done, FP, good, but SFO is already a selected article, and this would be redundant
  • Not done, Not FP
    Not done, Not FP
  • Not done, not FP
    Not done, not FP
  • Already selected
    Already selected
  • Not done, not FP
    Not done, not FP
  • Already selected
    Already selected
  • Was already selected, but I've swapped out in favor of File:Surfer in california 2.JPG
    Was already selected, but I've swapped out in favor of File:Surfer in california 2.JPG
  • Already selected
    Already selected
  • Done, added (would be better if the two skyline images were stacked)
    Done, added (would be better if the two skyline images were stacked)
  • Not done, redundant to the other skyline image, ideally the two would be stacked for comparison.
    Not done, redundant to the other skyline image, ideally the two would be stacked for comparison.
  • Not done, no longer FP
    Not done, no longer FP
  • Not done, no longer FP
    Not done, no longer FP
  • Not done, no longer FP
    Not done, no longer FP
  • Done
    Done
  • Not done, already used on Portal:San Francisco Bay Area
    Not done, already used on Portal:San Francisco Bay Area
  • Done, already selected
    Done, already selected
  • No longer FP
    No longer FP
  • Done, although this may be better if the caption was tweaked to link to List of California birds (an FL) instead of the specific species
    Done, although this may be better if the caption was tweaked to link to List of California birds (an FL) instead of the specific species
  • Not done, not sure if we want a decaptitated California Vole on the page.
    Not done, not sure if we want a decaptitated California Vole on the page.
  • Done, already selected panorama
    Done, already selected panorama
  • Not done,not FP
    Not done,not FP
  • Not done, The S for San Francisco mark isn't a clear California connection
    Not done, The S for San Francisco mark isn't a clear California connection
  • A Red-tailed Hawk eating in Mission Peak Regional Preserve, California

The Beverly Hills Courier

Minor publication. I reworked this article as it was written in a self-important sort of way with no references. There are still some references needed, but otherwise I think the article is in fair-to-decent shape. Any input would be treasured. SueDonem ( talk) 20:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Portal:California/Did you know/6

Third item, Julia Tuttle, has absolutely no California connection. i removed the info, and placed a placeholder there until a replacement is found. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Portal peer review

I have submitted Portal:San Francisco Bay Area to peer review. i would welcome any comments. i believe it is fully ready for featured portal status, but i have been just about the only editor there for a while. thanks to all of you here who worked on this portal, and thus gave me ideas on how to proceed. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 08:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Accreditation Update for University of St. Augustine

I'm the PR person for the University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, which has a campus in San Marcos, California. The Wikipedia page about the university ( /info/en/?search=University_of_St._Augustine_for_Health_Sciences)does not have its own Talk page, rather it is part of this California portal.

This summer, the university received institutional accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC). This page can be used as a citation: http://www.wascsenior.org/institutions/university-st-augustine-health-sciences.

USAHS-PR ( talk) 16:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Status report from the Portals WikiProject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018.

Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, and design the portals of the future.

As of April 29th, membership is at 56 editors, and growing.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for each component of portals.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject.    — The Transhumanist   03:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

In the germany Wikipedia we have Uploaded the OEHHA-Logo. That is for you Information. If you want also upload to the EN-Wiki or upload to the Commons if you know more about the US-Copyright... Unfortunately we are not verry sure if we can upload to the commons. -- Calle Cool ( talk) 12:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Calle Cool, thanks for the notification, but this is a portal talk page. Did you mean to notify the wikiproject (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California)? Or there's Talk:California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. DexDor (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

2022 portal updates

The following updates and upgrades have been performed on the portal in 2022. North America 1000 05:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Created a rotating Selected biographies section using articles transcluded from the list at Portal:California/Selected biography
  • Expanded DYK section to display 8 entries at a time.
  • More Selected article subpages added.
  • Added a new General images section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Portal_talk:California&oldid=1091961991"