Jump to content

Talk:Baja California

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


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mpmarsh2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UnderstandMexico

[edit]

I am adding a link to the Baja California Regional Investment Guide of UnderstandMexico. It is still a work in progress but has significantly more investment information about Baja California than any other place on the Internet, including listings of Shelter Companies, the baja investment promotion agencies, most of the Baja Real Estate developers and the beginnings of a listing of the available real estate, lawyers, auditing firms, etc. If anybody finds this controversial feel free to contact me. Aburda (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It continues to be a conflict of interest for you to add links to your own site. You need to stop. There are still links to your site in fourteen other articles. They should all come out. You have chosen to ignore my suggestion to build articles; instead you appear only to be interested in promoting your own site. ✤ JonHarder talk 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not chosen to ignore your suggestion, most of the useful technical information in the maquiladora article was written by me. Investors often end up reading wikipedia to get general information about locations to invest. An external link from the Baja California article to a free non-profit guide with all of the necessary information for investing in Baja California is very much needed in external links for each of the states and cities. I challenge you to find a better candidate than this for Baja California. If you can I will stop posting it to Baja. If you can't then you should add the link yourself. If you are concerned about my conflict of interest as a result of this being my master's thesis, I will have someone from the Mexican government's economic development commission add the links. Aburda (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

According to the state constitution, chapter 3, article 6, Baja California has an official coat of arms but no official flag. The FOTW web site states that the coat of arms on a white background is used as an unofficial flag. As this flag is unofficial and its display in addition to the coat of arms visually adds little to the infobox, I am not sure that it's beneficial to place it in the infobox. Spacepotato (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inhabitants of Baja California are called "bajacalifornianos" not "cachanillas"

[edit]

I'm a "bajacalifoniano", and I'm a "cachanilla" too but this is only because I was born in Mexicali. The inhabitans of Mexicali are called "Cachanillas" because the history of this place. The cachanilla plant don't grow in western coast of Baja California and its inhabitants didn't make their first houses or huts with this plant.

Well, I'm from Mexicali as well, in Spanish a person from Mexicali is Mexicalense, dunno the translation of such demonym. JC 10:00 31 09 2008 (PST)

And... yes, "mexicalense" is the oficial term to refer to the inhabitans of Mexicali, but "cachanillas" also refer to us. Mexicalense and cachanilla are correct denominations for people that was born in Mexicali.

History

[edit]

In the History section it should say Spanish instead of Europeans. i.e. "At the time of European contact ..." and "Europeans reached the present state of Baja California in 1539". Spain is an European country, but the discoveries of the Americas and Spanish Empire should be propperly regarded. I'll change it myself unless arguments can be brought up here. -->))))º>(talk) 01:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "European" indicates that it's the first contact with Europeans of any sort, be they Spanish, Portuguese, British, etc. Spacepotato (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I understand the meaning of the word, what I don't find accurate is to use Europeans instead of Spanish, or British, Portuguese, etc. Europe did not have a common dimension until quite recent. An Spaniard of that age would have never used European, nor their conquers were for the greatness of Europe. I'd really like to find out why should European be preferably used instead of whatever proper nationality. -->))))º>(talk) 21:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

[edit]

There are no citations for the figures provided in the demographics section. I think this section should be removed until reliable sources can be provided. Namenderkrieg (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the grammar and punctuation in the demographics section are abysmal. They were written either in haste or with very little regard to proper structure and presentation. I volunteer to fix them, if this whole section is not eventually removed due to the lack of citations. Namenderkrieg (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move back to "Baja California"

[edit]

The states name is Baja California, and the peninsula has its own title to clear up confusion. It is unnecessary to have the state at the end. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the massive wrong links show e.g.:

So, I oppose moving back. Eldizzino (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that changing the name of the article doesn't address the concern you have since Baja California would still link here?JOJ Hutton 18:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since that is not true, I don't "realize" this. Stop patronizing. Eldizzino (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the unilateral move by "08OceanBeach SD". That used caused a lot of trouble, see Talk:Municipalities of Baja California#Page moves by gone user. Eldizzino (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your page move should go through the RM process. I'm done discussing here until you move the article back and open an move request. If that does not happen, an ANI discussion will be opened. Its clear that you may not be aware of how the editing process works. Only move articles if the page move is uncontroversial. Your page move is controversial, as are many of your other ones. You need to now open an RM.--JOJ Hutton 18:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a violation of WP:BRD. Eldizzino (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How so? You made a bold change, Your change was reverted, and instead of discussing, per BRD, you made the change again. How am I violating BRD?--JOJ Hutton 19:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. According to BRD you should give a reason. Your first reason was misinformed, and I clarified the situation. Your second reason is content-wise empty, it states only that RM should be used if there is opposition, but the "R" part in BRD is not respected, since it requires being specific about the revert. So, for the 2nd revert no content-specific reason has been given - BRD violated.
  2. One could also argue that I made the "R" part, see above the proposed moved by a user. It was me that reverted that unilateral move. OK, I was not specific myself when moving the first time, but now my reason to revert the move towards the plain name is public. You restored the plain name.
  3. Instead of "D"=discussing you did choose "T"=threat. You explicitly said you will not discuss: "I'm done discussing here until you move the article back and open an move request."
I now restored the name that your threat demanded. Eldizzino (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threat on my talk page

[edit]

I received the following threat on my talk page:

You may not be aware of how the process works. You made a controversial edit, it was reverted. You do NOT continue to move the articles name. If you wish to have the article moved, you should use the WP:RM process. I advise you to move the article back immediately, before I file an edit warring report.--JOJ Hutton 18:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I boldly reverted the unilateral moves performed by a now gone users related to Baja California, see : Talk:Municipalities of Baja California#Page moves by gone user, among these reversions was Baja California -> Baja California (state). Reasons for that latter move, have been documented at the talk page.
  2. Jojhutton reverted: 16:48, 10 July 2015‎ Jojhutton (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (46,402 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Jojhutton moved page Baja California (state) to Baja California over redirect: Do not agree with previous undiscussed move. There is no evidence of confusion.)
  3. I reverted, addressing the misinformed "There is no evidence of confusion". My edit summary "Evidence is at the talk page, please don't disrupt the clean up process"
  4. Jojhutton reverted again: Use the RM process. Articles should only be moved without discussion if there is no opposition.
  5. I reverted again, addressing the fact, that the only known opposition was misinformed: over redirect: no opposition, beside a misinformed (user received clarification), known

Then the above threat. Now, I think that Jojhutton ignores Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which states, that one should be explicit about the reasons for a revert. Jojhutton didn't gave a valid reason, there was a misinformed one that was addressed and there was a procedural one that does not apply, since "Articles should only be moved without discussion if there is no opposition." I agree with the latter, but reason-based opposition (When reverting, be specific about your reasons) is not known to me. Eldizzino (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History section and Baja California Sur

[edit]

Why does the History section contain so much history of the southern part of the peninsula? The history of the whole peninsula can go under Baja California peninsula#History, this history section should focus on the northern part of the peninsula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for the coordinates of the Mexican state of Baja California. It should be more than 30 degrees north, since the southern limit is 28o and the northern limit is 32.5o.


—189.149.112.108 (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Luis Martin Gutierrez[reply]

Too much precision in giving the coordinates of a rather extensive region is undesirable and should be avoided. That said, I've tweaked the corrdinates in the article so that they're expressed to the nearest ten minutes of latitude and longitude, which is quite precise enough. Deor (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racial/ethnic composition

[edit]

Baja California may be half European or "white" and 45% mestizo or mixed-race (European/American Indian), but the Mexican government and census never counted people by race since the 1920s. Large percentage of American Indians or indigenous Mexicans in Baja Cal. came from the southern Mexican states of Chiapas and Oaxaca, while there are some Apache and small remnants of Californian Indians along the US-Mexican border. The Cherokee descent population originated in the (eastern and central) US, which are a sizable component of the American Indian or indigenous Mexican population. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Baja 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, 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) 09:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baja 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, 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) 17:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Baja 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) 22:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox flag RFC

[edit]

Should this article have a flag inside the infobox? There is a discussion about it at WikiProject Mexico, where you can join and discuss it. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding parenthetical to article title

[edit]

I think we should follow the example of Georgia (U.S. state) and Washington (state). Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those examples have that in order to distinguish them from Georgia the country and Washington the city. There is no such reason for Baja California distinguish itself from. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t Baja California (the peninsula) famous like Georgia the country and Washington the city? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would need a WP:RM to consider moving this as suggested and Baja California (disambiguation) to here. Additionally, Baja California peninsula could be moved to Baja California (peninsula) if that were to be considered. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I thought it might be useful to discuss it here first a little bit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Pageviews were proposed as a reason to keep the status quo; while arguments were proffered to claim that the peninsula is called "Baja California" (a point which received no rebuttal), there were no compelling reasons provided to overturn the predominance of page views. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– This proposed arrangement is fairly standard. I suppose the main objection will be creating “Baja California (state)”, but this is a common move when other things have the same name and are just as common. See, for example:

  • Support the first proposal ("Baja California" to "Baja California (state)"), Neutral on the other two. I would suspect for most English-speaking readers the peninsula, rather than the state, is the primary topic - the current proposal assumes that there isn't a clear primary topic. Some evidence one way or the other would be useful. Tevildo (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. The state gets far more pageviews than all other uses. There's no benefit to sending a majority of readers to a dab page instead of the article they want. The hatnote takes care of the minority. Station1 (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The term “Baja California” is currently getting the most use and the most searches because it is the simplest and most well-known term, not because people are looking for info about the state instead of the peninsula. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a hatnote to both the peninsula and to the dab page on the article. Assuming every reader of those two pages gets to them by first landing on Baja California by mistake (unlikely), that would still be well over 80% of readers wanting this article. Station1 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article about the peninsula’s northern state includes at least half the info that a tourist wants, so if I were a tourist planning a trip to the peninsula, and I got steered by Wikipedia to the article about the northern state, I would start reading it instead of going somewhere else that might or might not have desired information. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are 5304 direct incoming links to Baja California. Those that I've loked at are all for the state. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The term “Baja California” is currently getting the most use and the most searches because it is the simplest and most well-known term, not because people are looking for info about the state instead of the peninsula. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this will require a more detailed analysis. Not many of the incoming links are about the state qua state - most are about the general area of Mexico (that is, both Baja Califoria proper and Baja California Sur), or because Tijuana is located in the state, so the majority of articles which reference Tijuana also reference the state. However, if the dab page route is followed, the peninsula is not always an obvious target for articles in the first category. Tevildo (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposer. This state is often informally referred to as Baja California Norte (literally "Lower California North" in English) or Baja Norte, to distinguish it from both the peninsula of which it forms the northern half, and from Baja California Sur which is the adjacent state to the south. While the names Baja Norte and Baja California Norte are well-established terms for this state and for the northern half of the peninsula called Baja California, they do not officially exist as political designations for any state or region. The latter name (Baja California Norte) was officially adopted from 1974 to 1979,[1] and endured unofficially thereafter.[2] In other words, "The northern state is officially known as Baja California, but since that name is easily confused with the name for the entire peninsula, it is commonly referred to by visitors and locals alike as Baja Norte.”[3] I am not aware of any reliable sources saying that situation has changed, despite a rebranding effort launched by this state's tourism office in 2021,[2] and therefore this article about the state is not the primary usage of "Baja California". This is all covered in the note at the bottom of this article archived here. If anything is the primary usage of "Baja California", it's the peninsula, but more likely there simply is no primary usage. Of course, "Baja California" is a short and well-known term so it gets the most Wikipedia hits and links, but that is merely because it is short and well-known, or merely because it’s an official rather than common name in which a city or town is located. The policy WP:Article titles says “In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be.” That policy also says we should pay most attention to reliable sources (“Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources…”), and not pay most attention to Wikipedia hits and links, so I have cited three reliable sources in this comment already. And now I'll cite some more: I searched Google Books using the search term “called Baja California” and the first four hits were evenly divided between the state and the peninsula, which confirms that neither is primary.[4][5][6][7] Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is no primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ Lands and Peoples: North America (Volume 5 of Lands and Peoples, Grolier, 2005), p. 390.
  2. ^ a b "Baja California Embraces New Branding to Boost Tourism During Pandemic Recovery", Times of San Diego (23 Apr 2021).
  3. ^ Jones, Fred and Jones, Gloria. Baja Camping: The Complete Guide, p. 6 (Avalon Travel Publishing, 1994).
  4. ^ Berger, Bruce. Almost an Island: Travels in Baja California (1998). “What compels me is the landmass of Baja California.”
  5. ^ Standish, Peter. The States of Mexico: A Reference Guide to History and Culture (2009). “Baja California (that is, the state comprising the northern half of the peninsula, and for that reason sometimes called Baja California Norte) is much more heavily populated, has a more diverse and vibrant economy….”
  6. ^ Stacy, Lee. Mexico and the United States (2002). “Commonly, but mistakenly, called Baja California Norte, Baja California occupies the northern half of the peninsula of the same name in northwestern Mexico.”
  7. ^ Beebe, Rose. Junípero Serra: California, Indians, and the Transformation of a Missionary (2015). “peninsula that is now called Baja California….”
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baja_California&oldid=1250303788"