Talk:Deserts of California

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Deserts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Deserts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DesertsWikipedia:WikiProject DesertsTemplate:WikiProject DesertsDeserts articles

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is redundant?

I'm concerned that this article may be an unnecessary redundancy, per WP:REDUNDANT, what with all of the deserts of California receiving better and deeper coverage in their respective articles, such as Mojave Desert and Sonoran Desert, as well as the features within and issues surrounding these deserts, like national and state parks, attractions, museums, wildlife, and environmental issues. Wikipedia has plenty, and I mean plenty, of articles covering these deserts and everything in them, and they are mostly cross-linked well. This one, on the other hand, has few cross-links other than the ones I added today. This article reminds me of the article on Eastern California--its subject is not well-recognized or defined. It seems to be an article in search of a subject (like a solution in search of a problem).

I'm stopping short of nominating it for deletion, but it may come to that. Darkest tree (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the relevant guideline is WP:DETAIL --- this artcle can serve as an overview article for all of the topics that you mentioned. Is this a good overview article as it stands? No. But, is it redundant with any one of those articles and should be deleted? I think not. It deserves to remain and be improved. Curious what other editors think. —hike395 (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmmm, well, I can see what you're saying and I like your idea that the article serve as an overview of all these subjects. Since there are multiple deserts in California and commensurately more details, features, and issues in each one, I suppose an overview page could be needed. I certainly agree that this article isn't there yet, but that alone is not reason to delete it. I guess my concern is that we avoid Content forking or some other disorganization of California desert-related articles. I'm not sure if this would then set a precedent requiring (possibly unnecessary) "Deserts of Arizona" or "Deserts of Nevada" articles as well. Or, maybe those overview articles are necessary. The page Arizona desert is currently a redirect to Sonoran desert, but Arizona contains the Mojave desert also, as well as some other areas that may be considered a Cold desert climate. If you search "Oregon desert" you get a mess of pages that are all overlapping and content-forked on that subject. What to do? Darkest tree (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns

CK1K3RA has added a number of towns to the list in the article. We can easily make a complete list of towns in the California deserts larger than 20,000 or 25,000 inhabitants. However, I am concerned that the current list includes towns as small as 2,680 people. There could be 9x as many towns that are larger than 2,680 people than 25,000 people, which would make the current list quite incomplete. A complete list of town down to 2,680 would be too long for the article.

I edited the list down to towns with >25,000 inhabitants, to make the list complete and not violate the indiscriminant statistics policy. But CK1K3RA reverted my edit. I'd like to see what other editors think. — hike395 (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Object to rename

I object to the renaming of this article. This should be discussed via an WP:RM process. I will revert (if I can). — hike395 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title in infobox and lede

For the title in the infobox, per MOS:INFOBOXGEO: Infoboxes for geographical items (e.g. cities and countries) should generally be headed with the article title.

For the title in the first sentence, I got rid of the disputed "region" term, and have two boldfaced alternative terms(per MOS:LEADALT: The title can be followed in the first sentence by one or two alternative names in parentheses.). These two terms are supported by sources. I haven't seen any sources that support the plain "desert" term, which appears to be informal usage.

— hike395 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]