Jump to content

Talk:Downtown San Bernardino

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

Not Caltrans building but Rosa Parks building

[edit]

That is not CalTrans building it is called Rosa Parks building. CalTrans building is alot shorter, youguys should reserch it up. Salcan (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additions about cinemas, new urban center, revitalization

[edit]

I deleted some recent changes for a number of reasons. The biggest one is that I feel they contain too much breathless reporting of future possibilities that may never happen.

My smallest concern was this sentence "Now Maya Cinemas still has plans for a downtown S.B. theater, but does not expect to open until the late 2009" which was placed right in front of a reference that had been supplied back in October to support an earlier estimate. This old reference needs to be deleted if it's wrong, and a new one needs to be brought in to support the "late 2009" estimate. That, or the whole estimate needs to go away, and the article can just wait until it's open, and report that.

The paragraph on "Downtown Revitalization" has these problems:

  • Needs a lower-case 'r' in the heading
  • Needs fewer lines between the heading and the paragraphs above and below. One line is enough.
  • 'visable' should be spelled 'visible'
  • 'interstate' should be capitalized or replaced with 'I-10' and 'I-215'
  • 'all ready' should be spelled 'already'
  • 'hotal' should be spelled 'hotel'
  • 'Carousal' should be spelled 'Carousel'
  • 'in the current sight' probably should be 'on the current site'
  • The two sentences "Plans all ready underway for a new San Bernardino County building, a new city hall, and a new hotal. This is expected to be constructed in the current sight of the Carousal Mall." should be combined so that the first one has a verb.
  • The paragraph needs to cite a source.

The paragraph under the subheading "New Entertainment Subdistrict" has these problems:

  • Heading should be trimmed down to Entertainment district plans or such. The word 'new' in a heading will get old and have to be changed eventually.
  • 'an new' should be 'a new'
  • 'fourth street' should be capitalized both times, not just once
  • 'to make... as an area for entertainment' should probably be 'to make... into entertainment', or the sentence should be rewritten completely with 'to designate' or 'to zone' used as the first verb
  • 'late Summer of 2009' didn't appear in the reference. It said "by the end of the year"
  • The sbsun reference for this paragraph should be formatted into a named reference so that it can be used for the previous paragraph.

These two paragraphs are full of conjecture, they are too optimistic about stated proposals by a couple of city officials. I think they are jumping the gun. Announcements that contracts have been signed—that's worth reporting. Binksternet (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well that all can be fixed, and dont worry I'm staying ontop of all that if those plans get scratched it will be deleted off of wikipedia. Im am working in on all the SB articles, and getting the latest info. I would also like to say that the SB County Sun is not the oly newpaper reporting this, the Press Enterprise did also. House1090 (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences in introduction

[edit]

User:House1090 has re-added these two sentences to the lead: "It is located at the population center of the metropolitan area. The sprawling, multi-centered city is such that its downtown core is often considered a separate district." S/he alleges that the fact that the Inland Empire is called the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA by the US Census Bureau makes the claim that Downtown SB is at the center of the Inland Empire self-evident, while refusing to acknowledge the second sentence, which is also unsourced. These are clear violations of WP:PROVEIT and WP:V, in my opinion. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown SB and Riv. are the center of the SB-Riv., since they are the larger cities and county seats. Also, when the out-of-state media refer to the metro they refer to it as SB-Riv. House1090 (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you refuse to acknowledge the second sentence ("The sprawling, multi-centered city is such that its downtown core is often considered a separate district."). Also, WP:PROVEIT. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 21:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Downtown San Bernardino and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The two sentences at issue are unsourced and subject to being removed. It is the obligation of the editor introducing them into the article to provide reliable sources for them. Best practices and assume good faith suggest, however, that since they are not unambiguous vandalism, unsourced contentious BLP information, or a copyright violation that they be tagged with {{fact}}, not just deleted from the article, and the posting editor be given a chance to provide sources for them. If that's not done after a reasonable period of time, then they can be deleted. As for the first sentence, I'd note that this information cannot be drawn from a map or maps unless it is specifically shown as such on the map. As for the second sentence, I'd note that the term "often considered" is probably going to be hard to source unless a reliable source can be found that says just that; if none can be found, then WP:WEASEL probably applies to it. A warning to both editors: What's going on here is an edit war and I must warn you both that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues. The three revert rule says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Decide it by discussion, do a RFC, take it to MedCab, or flip a coin, but stop reverting. Now.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fresh viewpoint and apologise for the editwarring. Unfortunately, what TransporterMan is suggesting would imply that editors should write first and find sources later, and that seems to be completely antithetical to WP:V. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 22:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downtown San Bernardino. 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) 12:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Downtown San Bernardino. 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) 16:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_San_Bernardino&oldid=1198063029"