Talk:Dogtown, Marin County, California

nickname

there's no reason to disinclude the nickname "The Dogtown" from the nickname parameter from the infobox. I think this is just vindictiveness by IL2BA regarding the debate on the Oakland, California article.Cholga^talK! 23:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's this conclusion any reasonable person would come to, that a so-called nickname, "The Dogtown", for a place whose name is "Dogtown", isn't worth wasting even one byte over. Besides, it's historical and no longer in use. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no reason to keep any unused parameters. Chris! _{my talk} 23:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Come on! What is the likihood they will be filled in now? Besides that goes against precedant with every other article with unfilled parameters they don't bother anyone because they don't appear in the article and they do help since it makes it far easier and liklier someone will add them in as they come accross them, if they are not there people might not even know they can or may do so. I am putting them back, I feel you will find this arguement compellingCholga^talK! 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, only three of us are editing here right now. So the likelihood someone will add them is low. Chris! _{my talk} 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyways this was about the nickname "The Dogtown" not about the parameters. Could we each agree to ask 3 people to comment then, we would have 12 people (in thoery) maybe 3 or 4 will chime in?Cholga^talK! 01:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rift

Please stop replacing San Andreas Rift with San Andreas Fault. Your arguement that rift is a redlink is illogical, X creek could be a redlink that doesnt mean it should be changed to X gorge because that related feature indeed has an article. IL2BA statement's declaring that the USGS maps do not say rift are misinformed or an outright lie, they do, I insist you take a look again. Remove it and i will replace it, accuse me of 3RR violation i will report you for vandalism. Please do not disreagrd the facts. You recently stated I had an obsession with feces, I personally would rather have an obsession with feces than with "shit" since you seem to use that term and its derivatives very often when speaking of me. Please let's keep this about the article and not be ad hominem as you like to link to. Also I reinserted without the redlink, not that theres anything wrong with them, but i feel this may help to diffuse the situation for the time being.Cholga^talK! 23:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You show your ignorance once again. A "rift zone" is a place, such as a valley, that an earthquake fault runs throught. The fault is still called just that: a fault (e.g., the San Andreas fault). Not rift. That's just incorrect. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

At least I can prove my point, ignorant, nasty, and arrogant people like you seem to think it's okay to demean others. I challenge your statements. I challenge you to find a source that says a faultline and a valley are the same thing. Tomales Bay was created by the San Andreas Fault, that does not mean a bay and fault are the same thing, the Rift-Valley are the same situation. The town is in this rift valley, stop trying to claim otherwise. The fault runs through the center of that valley but i don't know if the fault also runs through the town. Valley's made by faults are sometimes narrow and sometimes wide. California's Central Valley was made by a fault, that does not make it synonomous with trhe fault. The map clearly says rift. If you want fault to be mentioned, also then find a source for it, but they are not the same thing and never will be; interrelated yes but without a source you are just attacking my edits because you don't like me. Believe it or not I don't not like you, you just trouble me sometimes, i would suggest you stop wasting your time and realise your mistake. Perhaps i should ask for the comments of others?Cholga^talK! 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Go put "define:rift zone" in Google, you will see some definitions about it. Chris! _{my talk} 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I did, thank you for you interest and suggestion i got this:

• long narrow fractures in the crust found along ocean floor or on land, from which lava flows out; often associated with spreading centers from which tectonic plates are diverging, such as the mid-Atlantic Ridge.

• A zone of volcanic features associated with underlying dikes. The location of the rift is marked by cracks, faults, and vents.

• Elongate zones on continents that are in the form of a trough bounded by normal faults; the site of crustal extension, similar to that which occurs at mid-oceanic ridges.

No where does it say that a rift and fault are the same thing, it seems that they just surround faults, but this mostly deals with underwater features. Again we need a source to say that the San Andreas Fault runs thought this town, all we have is one that says The San Andreas Rift does. For example the Great African Rift Valley is a series of vallyies along the eastern edge of the African continant one valley formed by many faults. Rift Valley and Fault are not the same. The map says that the town lies inside the San Andreas Rift Valley, it doesnt say anything about the fault, which may or may not run through the town, sure it is the cause of the rift but it is not the rift itself.Cholga^talK! 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Try googling define:rift valley, see hereCholga^talK! 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't look at the first link. Go look at it first. Chris! _{my talk} 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In a website of rift valley def, it said "rift valley: a huge, trough-shaped valley created by faulting." A valley created by faulting, in this case the San Andreas Fault. Chris! _{my talk} 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This one says "Rift Zone" is an "elongate zone on continents that are in the form of a trough bounded by normal faults". Chris! _{my talk} 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And there is an article in wikipedia named Rift. It says "a rift is a place where the Earth's crust and lithosphere are being pulled apart. Typical features are a central linear downdropped fault segment". Again typical rift features a central fault segment. Chris! _{my talk} 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah so what's your point? You own sentance says a fault is "typically" a feature of a rift. Your comment does not say a rift is a fault. It says a rift typically has a fault running through its center. The town is not located in the center of the fault, assuming that this is indeed a typical fault. You need a source that says this is a typical rift and that the town is in the center of the rift to verifiably make the statement that the town is on the San Andreas Fault. Also if the town is on the fault, which i don't think it is, that does not mean it is not also in the rift valley, there is no reason to remove that statement. The statement about the rift is the only statement which is currently sourced. Find a source or stop inserting your opinions or observational original research.Cholga^talK! 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So they are similar but different. As compromise you can write a sentence that talks about the rift valley is created by San Andreas Fault. Chris! _{my talk} 00:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No read it again. A rift valley is created by faulting. So the San Andreas Rift Zone is created by the San Andreas Fault. No OR is involved. Chris! _{my talk} 00:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But there's no reason to mention the "rift zone". It adds no information. It raises issues that then need explanation. Just referring to the San Andreas fault is simpler, is totally accurate, and avoids discussions like these. Mentioning the rift zone only needlessly complicates things. The article says "... in a valley created by the San Andreas fault". The rift zone is the valley, basically; the fault runs through it. See how this works? So the simple, accurate thing is to just ... leave it the way it is now. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is located in the San Andreas Rift Valley, that is the reason to put it into a geographical perspective.Cholga^talK! 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I just find a good source here that verify the San Andreas Fault is on the Point Reyes National Seashore. Chris! _{my talk} 00:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good; now if I can just take a look at that site, I'll be happy. It won't load for me. Did you have problems getting it to load? +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It won't load for me either. But you say it verifies the San Andreas Fault is on the Point Reyes National Seashore, what does that even mean? Besides it doesn't matter if it is "on" (i'm assuming this means runs through?) the nat'l seashore it needs to show its relationship to dogtown, this article is called "DOGTOWN, CALIFORNIA" not Point Reyes National Seashore.Cholga^talK! 01:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I don't know. It loaded perfectly when I read it. I try to refresh it and now I can't see it, too. So now I guess we wait. And Cholga, you get what I mean. Chris! _{my talk} 01:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey don't bite =) i was trying to make sure, I was a little confused; hope you didn't take it the right way. I would like to point out the point of the sentance is to state Dogtown is located in X Valley, so people can grasp its location better, that is all. I guess it's okay to mention where the valley came from, but it doesn't really matter to me, i think its more appropriate to mention that in some other article on the fault or rift or marin county.Cholga^talK! 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I still can't see it. I guess the website has some problems. And Dogtown is in the rift valley, so if San Andreas Fault runs through the rift zone, then the fault runs through the town as well. Chris! _{my talk} 01:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No it does not, a rift is a lot wider than a fault, which typically run through the center of a rift, the town is not at the center of this rift, its to the east, therefore i find it unlikely the fault runs through the town, the valley and fault are not the same thing, so everything in the valley is in the rift but only some things near the center have the fault running through them.Cholga^talK! 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's incorrect. Remember, the article says, and I quote, "the town is located beside the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore in a valley created by the San Andreas Fault." Read that again: in a valley created by the San Andreas Fault. Doesn't say the fault runs through the town (or doesn't); the only relevant fact here is that the valley was created by the fault. You won't argue with that, will you?

By the way, I found the right page for a reference ("Faults") and put it in. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That source, a map, does not show any cities or towns, including dogtown, its far too zoomed out to see if the fault runs through the town. Faults are very narrow, one runs through Memorial Stadium in Berkeley, but it doesnt run through every part of Berkeley, the neighborhood of Southside or the Campus, not even the lacross field accross the street or the building next door, so theres no way to tell from that map that the fault even runs through the town, which is very small.Cholga^talK! 02:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not following this; it doesn't matter if it runs through the town or not, because the article only says (correctly) that it's in a valley which the fault runs through. Very simple, and completely accurate.

By the way, off the subject, but as good a place to mention it as any: since you seem to be in charge of the infobox, could you fix one small thing? It says that the "city" population is 25, but since this isn't a city, it shouldn't say that ("city"). Could you fix that? I don't know how those things work. Thanks. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

N.B.: You may need to use a different infobox, since this one might be for a city, which this place isn't; you may need to find an infobox for that kind of unincorporated place. But like I say, I don't know about those things. I leave it to you. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your tone, keep it up! =) It doesn't matter that the fault runs through the valley, the point of the sentance is that the town is in a valley and to say which valley that is so people can put its location into perspective, the valley is the point, and which valley, the subsequent information about the valley being caused by the fault is really unnesscessary, but if you really want it mentioned i don't think it detracts. Having said that just mentioning the fault does not help the reader understand what valley the town is in. I would really like to know if the fault runs through the town itself, i think if we can find that out for sure we could work it into the article and also mention the damage from the 1906 earthquake and the damage it brought to the whole area including pt. reyes, bolinas, etc. As for the infobox, don't worry about it doesnt really matter if it is a city or not, those kinds of details are not meant to say Dogtown or any other unincorporated area is a city, but to make the templates as simple as possible, i will try and see if there is an Unincorporated area template and if so maybe ill put it in, but i dont think its that important. I'll check and let you know thought, how about that? I'm off to dinner now, my honey made lamb =)Cholga^talK! 02:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that that is just idiotic: You haven't said what valley the town is in. I mean the specific valley, by name. Do you even know the name? (I don't.) If you can find the exact name of that valley, fine. For now, we know that it's in a valley, and that that valley was formed by the S.A.F. Right? Can we agree on that? +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Last time I check, there is no infobox template for unincorporated area. For example Argentine, Michigan is an unincorporated area and still use a city infobox template. Chris! _{my talk} 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, its called Olema Valley whoo! and I pipelinked SARZ to SAF, since the fault is the most relevant article that exists relating to the rift, but the town might not be on the fault but it definatly is on the fault's rift. agreed?Cholga^talK! 04:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The town may or may not be on the fault; that matters not. What matters, and what can be verified, is that it IS in a VALLEY that the fault runs through. (And now we know the name of that valley). Why are you all hot and bothered over the "rift"? Just because it's on that map? So what? The only relevant facts are the valley (which we now know the name of) and the fact that the FAULT runs through it. Forget about the rift. Find something else to obsess over. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, obsess over, why is it you showed up right after i wrote this article, mind if i ask why the interest? Yes its in Olema Valley, and the San Andreas runs through and formed it. The map calls says the San Andreas Rift Zone passes through the town, not the fault which typically would be at the rift zone's center, and also the valley's center, but the town is not in the valley center so the fault typically wont be running through it, it still might ya never know, but we can't make things up. Olema Valley was created by the San Andreas Fault and is located in the San Andreas Rift Zone, the larger more visable gorge in the continant created by that fault. But such details are inconsequential in an article about a town in a rift valley in a rift zone both created by a fault, especially in a sentance in the opening bit about that town whose purpose is to put the town's local location into perspective for the casual reader. Hmmm maybe when you called me idiotic it made me a bit spiteful and made me not want to let you get your way, it doesn't help that your wrong and also agressive and use too many ad hominem attacks on me tsk tsk Anony watch your mouth and focus on the content (+deaf ears anyone?+) So yeah go obsess about somthing else anonyCholga^talK! 05:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way i checked it out and Castro Valley, California for example uses the citybox, it may be called citybox, but that doesn't mean it follows the American definition of a city, it basically just means a settled place in this sense/use, also+thank you for telling me i am obsessed with feces yet again and for calling me idiotic, i really do sincerely appreciate it!+.

Compromise

All right how about this. "is located in the San Andreas Rift, a valley created by the San Andreas Fault"Cholga^talK! 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

HWY1

• (1)HWY 1 vs. CA SR 1, I think it should be pipelinked and appear as Highway 1 in the article because no one calls it California State Route 1 and may be confusing.Cholga^talK! 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• (2)where it leads, I also think its important to state where the highway leads to, how it connects dogtown to the rest of the area, just like an article on a rail station would mention the next and previous stattions, the sentance about the highway which is the only road leading out of town should codify where it goes in relation to the area. Maybe it could be written better, or state it differantly, maybe saying that Highway 1 leads to Saualito in one direction towards urbanity through Stinson Beach and goes northwards to Point Reyes and links to Sir Francis Drake to San Rafael (the county seat) in the other direction. Maybe say how its the only road in and out of town? what do you guys think?Cholga^talK! 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are pretty well-established standards here (Wikipedia) for road nomenclature, and California State Route 1 is in line with them (even though it's true, as you point out, that nobody really uses that term In Real Life), so I guess we'd better use that standard. Otherwise, the big bad road-heads will come on over here and change it. (Believe me, there are full-on raging battles here over that sort of thing.) Regarding your second point, it's probably beyond the scope of this article to point out where the highway goes, although it might be OK to mention the next largest cities in either direction on Highway 1. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you happen to know where that standard is located at? CA SR 1's article mentions Highway 1, I think those standardization purists wouldn't mind in this case, the road signs even say Highway 1 only the small shield looking signs on poles use the eloganted official name and in small writting. Its confusing to use long out of use terms, and i feel the pipelink solves the issue, maybe we could just wait and see if someone really cares that much to remove it then and argue with them about it at that point in time. You asked about the infobox saying city, i didn't realise at the time that it said city in the actual box, i thought it was just in the code for the box, i have noticed there is in fact a CDP box which is closer but, I have not run accross a box for not CDP unicorporated areas, but i'll look for one. I don't think its a big deal to leave it the way it is for now, as the article makes it very clear in the opening sentace what the place is and its a well sourced article. Maybe we could put the CDP box in the interim sinces its less incorrect. As for the next major community in either direction, okay that sounds good enough to me.Cholga^talK! 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways). It says clearly that "when linking to a state highway article, be sure to use the official name." Chris! _{my talk} 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

big foot

he's in dogtown, everyone there says so! all 3 stores sell tons og big foot merchandise!

politics

i think that the user who added the politics section was right, who represents the town, and what legislative and congressional districts it lies in is commonly included in articles in addition to being useful date. i support it remains.Boomgaylove (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• what do you think about the compromise?Boomgaylove (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This section doesn't belong in the article at all. Regarding your comment that these sections are now in lots of city articles, that is because one determined editor basically spam-inserted them in a ton of articles. (I removed lots of them.) This information rightly belongs in parent articles, that is, articles on the region containing the city or town. They're redundant in city articles and, in the case of little bitty places like Dogtown, out of proportion. If you want to provide this information, look on the county (Marin County in this case) or regional level. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Counties often belong in multiple districts for state senate, legislature, and congress. the only thing mentioned now is the districts. a small place like dogotown isnt easy to figure out based on marin districts in general which are many.Boomgaylove (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dogtown, Marin County, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106064817/http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/lb/main/crm/oralhistories/h&kwilkinsft.html to http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/lb/main/crm/oralhistories/h&kwilkinsft.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011001309/http://www.marinschools.org/BoundaryBook/pdfs/maps/bolinas-stinson_a.pdf to http://www.marinschools.org/BoundaryBook/pdfs/maps/bolinas-stinson_a.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.marintransit.org/pdf/Stageschedule_deviation.pdf

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) 17:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)