Jump to content

Talk:Ranchos of California

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

References section needed

[edit]

A References section needs to be added, so that the reader may identify brief references in the Notes. --Wetman 16:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that; I plan to do other updates. - PKM 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brief references, yes. This is a summary table; I don't think we should clutter it up with too much detail. Can we save the detail for the individual Rancho pages that the table points to. Emargie (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho La Ballona . . .

[edit]

When you click on Rancho La Ballona in the table, it goes right back to Ranchos of California, and there doesn't seem to be anyway to fix it (that is, to turn the link into a red one. In puzzlement and frustration, sincerely yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the entries in this table point to pages (that have no content and) that point right back to this table. To fix this, we need to edit those pages (not this table) - and that means providing content for those pages. Hopefully we can all work on doing this - one table entry at a time. Emargie (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They should be red links, then, not blue links that go nowhere. Do you agree? GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think all those circular links are now fixed.Emargie (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this table organized?

[edit]

How is this table organized? Alphabetically, chronologically, or geographically. I don't discern any pattern? In puzzlement (again), your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's be the date of granting - the second column.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GeorgeLouis. I was still working on it (small edits) when you commented. Hope it looks better now. Emargie (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that ordering by granting date (date of the original grant) would give a historical perspective. If the table grows something else may be better. Emargie (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having discovered the size of this undertaking, I am now thinking this table needs to be separated out. Moving all the OC to Ranchos of Orange County and move all the LA to a new Ranchos of Los Angeles County. Emargie (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Refugio then listed out of order, or is the date wrong? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Apparently it has been fixed. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Castilla

[edit]

Can somebody explain how Rosa Castilla could have received its grant in 1850, when the Americans were in charge? This contradicts the top part of the article. Questioningly, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs looking into - but does seem to exist [1], [2]Emargie (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Lists to their own page

[edit]

Following the example of National Register of Historic Places, I think moving the lists to their own page improves the readability of the article. Ranchos of California is a sub article of History of California to 1899 - and is about the the rancho era in California. The lists are useful but obscure the article. Eventually there will be 800 entries in the list.Emargie (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article is too long. If you have two additional pages with the lists on them, then the reader will have to jump from Ranchos, to the List page, to the individual article to read about the rancho in which he or she is interested. I might suggest though, that the word List be changed to Portal, to make it clear exactly what it is. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is not too long. However, I also think it would benefit from having the lists moved to a separate page. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to see the lists on their own page, and this article expanded. It would be easier to read the text without the lists breaking it up. - PKM (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this topic is great, in fact hugely important and insightful about how California locales have developed, and the coverage here is already very interesting. Perhaps the main development should be in mixed passages and short tables, optimizing for readability, and perhaps later it will be helpful to create a separate, stripped down list-table of all 800 ranchos, to include less info but to serve a lookup/index function. Perhaps using sortable tables, like the NRHP ones, would be helpful. You can have some columns sortable and others not sortable, as in, for example, List of RHPs in Los Angeles. Also, I am not sure if every rancho needs a separate article. For some there may be little more info available than can be mentioned in a table entry for it. But, of the ones I've browse, i thot they were all great! Keep up the good work.... doncram (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have thoughts on a single 800 rancho list (summary table) for california vs 60 or so lists (summary tables) by county as here National Register of Historic Places listings in California? Emargie (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single list is more useful, provided it's sortable by county. --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you make it sortable? GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see List of Mexican Era Ranchos of California. Not that these are the final headings.Emargie (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to the List of Ranchos of California, and suggest that the "Partial list of Mexican era ranchos" be deleted from this page.Emargie (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go along with whatever the consensus is. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mexican Era table on this page is now out dated and contains several errors. My reading is that the consensus is in favor of the list on a separate page, and I plan to remove the Mexican Era table from this page. All of the information is on the List of California Ranchos page.-Emargie (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the discussion, but I removed the list in the body of this article and linked to the more comprehensive list List of ranchos of California. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 22:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the term "rancho" always apply?

[edit]

I don't believe the term "rancho" generically applies to all of the pre-US land grants. I would like to see some authoritative source on this question cited. I am particularly concerned with Las Mariposas, which I know was never called "Rancho Las Mariposas" in the contemporaneous literature, or in any subsequent authoritative literature (such as state mining bulletins) -- it was always called just "Las Mariposas". There was some minor pastoral usage, of course, but the principle value of the grant was its mineral resources and grafting the term "rancho" onto the grant name is misleading. In my opinion, this entire article should be renamed "California land grants". Yes many of these grants were called "Rancho such and such" and no I don't want to lose sight of the importance of this fact, but I think it is more than just a quibble to get clarity on this. As such I am adding a "citation needed" tag to the article. An alternative to the "citation needed" would be rewording such as "often but not always called ranchos" and then each particular article, such as Las Mariposas, should have the title of the grant, and not be called "rancho" if it never was. In other words the Las Mariposas article, and probably others, should be moved to a more accurate title. LaurentianShield (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a valid question, and I too would be interested in reading about how the land grants came to be known as ranchos. One exception does not, however, invalidate the term. If research showed many other examples like Las Mariposas, then there would be a stronger case for changing the article title. Better to just note the exception. WCCasey (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ranchos of 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) 00:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ranchos_of_California&oldid=1209595644"