This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Inland Empire This page 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 This page is supported by Inland Empire task force.

Welcome to the WIkiproject Inland Empire talk Page! House1090 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This project might work better as a taskforce of Wikipedia:WikiProject California. A parameter can be added to Template:WikiProject California to mark articles within its scope. If you need help with this, please let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea. There aren't too many people steadily active in the IE namespaces. Joining up with WP Cal would provide this project with a larger sounding board and human resource pool. I'll leave the decision to House, though. Amerique^dialectics 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I defenetly want to be a part of WikiProject California but I think we (WP:WIE) should be more like Wikipedia:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area for a while to see how things work out. House1090 (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history pages for WP:SFBA and WT:SFBA you'll see that little has happened there recently. Most likely it will eventually be merged into WP:CAL as a task force. You could keep your project's pages as subpages of WP:CAL and have shortcuts and the like just the same. See WP:TASKFORCE for more info on why it is beneficial to have a task force over a WikiProject. It creates less structural work on the part of the people organizing the project. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What will change about the project? Will it still have ratings? House1090 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much would change to the project for a task force conversion. It would mean using {{WikiProject California}} with (|inland-empire = yes|inland-empire-importance = Mid) parameters, or something to that effect. The article rating, and most other categories would be the same as WP Cal, but would have it's own importance rating. See WP Med's task force conversion checklist.

But, I don't feel an Inland Empire task force is necessary at this time. Right now the Southern California task force is inactive, and WP:California isn't especially active either. Further subdividing the articles just causes more bureaucratic overhead (maintaining project pages, banners, etc.) among a small group of editors. I would suggest just try working with all of the existing Southern California task force structure and resources. You could take up the entire task force talk page with nothing but Inland Empire issues, and the only other discussions you would sharing space with are bot messages at this point. I'm not sure how much having separate Inland Empire importance assessments would affect what people write on, especially if it's between a Southern California importance and an Inland Empire importance. If you keep dividing these articles by topic you limit the number of people involved.

There's no real rush to do any of this, so please take a look at the Southern California task force see if you would be ok working with that setup. I've been looking at possibly converting WP:SFBA to a task force since last August. I'll go start that discussion tonight. We'll see how that goes, and if we need to make banner conversions and bot runs for that we can do Inland Empire ones with the same bot request. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I dont want to join SoCal is because the IE needs individual help. The IE does not take alot of credit, its the 3rd largest metro in Cal. and 14th in the U.S. The IE is a very large region having the largest county in the nation (lower 48). So if we have people consentrating in the IE alone it would be better, just like WP Los Angeles. But I will give it some thought! House1090 (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the 1st and 2nd largest CA metro areas (SoCal and SFBA) are now both taskforces of California, and there are many articles there that also need help. IE needs to be a taskforce. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been almost a month now, and I've merged all the other California sub-project into task forces. Before I have a bot to replace the template usages would you consider either switching to a task force or working via the Southern California task force? -Optigan13 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and do it! Also, requesting your input here: San Bernardino Valley. Amerique^dialectics 21:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made this project because User:MissionInn.Jim and I would like to focous more on the Inland Empire. The articles have see alot of improvement during the last month or so, take a look at Riverside, California, San Bernardino Valley. So I would say NO. House1090 (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I go to understand the differences and/or relationship between how a task force works and how a project works? I don't think I understand the two types of groups to have an opinion at this time. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces which goes over Project vs task force in detail. Also take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#What is a WikiProject?. In terms of what project -> task force conversion means, take a look at the conversion checklist I linked to earlier. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What ever is best for the inland empire. This project is doing very well and there has been a lot of improvement. The Morongo Basin article looks may better as well as Riverside, California, the Inland Empire (California) article looks great, so does the San Bernardino Valley article. User:Amerique has done a great job in adding pictures to the articles, User:MissionInn.Jim created a great outline that we can all follow to help the articles. I have been mainly working on expanding stub articles for example Morongo Basin, San Bernardino Valley, and now the Victor Valley, California article which is now my main focus at this time. All I am saying is that the project is doing well, and I see no signs of it slowing down at least in the near future. I will still have to say no, but I am glad I started this project because a lot of article have done really well because of it. House1090 (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is for remaining a separate project that's fine, I have zero interest in trying to force this. {{WikiProject Inland Empire}} is currently transcluded on less than 50 pages, so replacing those could be accomplished manually without a full bot run. If people want to reconsider it, place a notice on WT:CAL. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:I am setting up task force Los Angeles to cover all of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Why not merge this with the Los Angeles task force and turn this into a new Los Angeles wikiproject? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) - NVM - This covers the counties adjacent to Orange and LA counties. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Camelbinky suggested that maybe this project could be consolidated with the Los Angeles task force so that the entire Los Angeles CSA is covered; that way one WikiProject has all of those counties. What do you think about that idea? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the whole purpose of this project, as the creater, I feel is so that the Inland Empire Articles get the nessasery attention needed to make them better articles, with more information, pictures ect. The project is doing well and we have made a lot of progress! Thank-You though, House1090 (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've waited too long. This needs to be merged with WP:CAL like everything else Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this project is a definite candidate to become a task force of WP:CAL. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time this weekend reviewing the Riverside, California page and many related articles. Regarding House's question about what it needs, my opinion is more than anything the information needs to be better organized. Second, it needs to show more focus on the things that Riverside is most noted for, and less focus on listing a lot of facts. I'm not sure where you draw the line between important information, and unimportant facts. I will try to put together a plan to get it more organized. I'll be using other cities, such as San Francisco, New York and LA as models. It might take me a while. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great I will add it to the main page, also SAn Bernardino needs alot of work I will do the same thing. House1090 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I created a proposed outline/table of contents for the Riverside page. It is based on an amalgamation of a number of other cities that I reviewed, plus some specific things about Riverside, and some other ideas I had. Let me know if you have any thoughts. You can view it at User:MissionInn.Jim/Sandbox1. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! Seems like a good outline, provided you have the sources to support the content. I can help you with formating citations if you need it. Amerique^dialectics 18:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have all the sources I need yet. I see this outline as long term goal. I will post a comment as such on the Riverside discussion page to see if anyone has any thoughts or concerns. I'll start with reorganizing existing information into this format. I expect the proposed format will change as we move along. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good I think that can work for a number of other cities great job, nice! House1090 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let me know if you have any suggestions. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reworded the opening of the Riverside disambiguation page, and placed Riverside, California at the top. I also placed an explanation on the discussion page. It will be interesting to see if anyone responds. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i can help with this whether it remains a wp or gets converted to a tf at some point. so far, i'm interested in the sbv article and getting it better organized, currently needs a definite reorganization and better structuring. also (and i guess this might be a better discussion for the sbv talk page, not here), what exactly are considered the bounds of the valley? that dictates quite a lot of what would be included and excluded from that article.Snoopyloopy (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the IE Family! We could use some more users here. Please make sure you sign your name in the list of participants at the bottom home page. House1090 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Snoop. I linked to some refs for boundaries on that article: [1] So far as the SBV was carved out by the Santa Ana River, boundaries extend to the Santa Ana Mountains up to where the Chino Valley meets the Pomona Valley. The particular landform that my esteemed colleague House1090 asserts is the entire valley is actually the surface of the San Bernardino Basin, as discussed in this reference here: Li & Danskin. Anyway, I have no real interest in engaging in debates over this or over what cities are in the valley or not, so whatever you guys want to agree on regarding the same is ok with me. Regards, Amerique^dialectics 05:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, well i guess we'll probably get quite a few opinions as the project continues along and more people join. so i guess i'll just add information assuming the boundaries that are there now.Snoopyloopy (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i figure we can use this area to discuss any items in the "image requests" section and also inform each other when one is done. like the one for kont terminal. i see one in the infobox, so do we want another pic of the terminal that's more head-on or what?Snoopyloopy (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, House1090 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask for an image of the Golden Era Productions place, but I found that there already is an image of that place. I'll keep the image request page in mind, though... WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three months. The project is a little too small to be its own project, and it only has four members. Larger California-related projects have already been merged. I suggested a merge here and also on the big Cali. Needs to be done Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The project may be small but we have accomplished a lot, the project is strong. Look at Morongo Basin, San Bernardino Valley, Riverside, California, San Bernardino, California, ect. All of the improvements are major, and its all thanks to WikiProject IE and its members. As a young user you can't tell us what to do, and what is best for the Inland Empire articles. House1090 (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where to begin with this? For starters, I am not a "young user", I am 20 years old and over one year and 1,000 edits on this Wikipedia, with a sizeable proportion of these California. For seconds, the other revelant regional projects have all been merged, projects that were longer established and had more members, more articles, and a broader scope. The continuation of this violates precedent. In addition fear that you have somewhat taken undue ownership of this project Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not taken ownership of this article, every ACTIVE user adds what they feel is right to the project, like proposals to expand articles, or the IE picture of the week for example. House1090 (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear how User:MissionInn.Jim feels about this, especially how he and you(House1090) think things would be different as a task force versus a project, and any questions you two have about the matter. The main intent of a task force (vs. a project) is to shift some of the bureaucratic overhead to the parent project, and avoid duplicating efforts, such as recruiting new members (ex), assessing articles for quality, and other functions. The time you save from spending on the bureaucracy should free up more time to improving articles. At this point I've done the project to task force conversion for four other projects, (WP:SFBA, WP:SOCAL, WP:WLA, and WP:WPSBC), so the process should be relatively painless, and if it causes a negative effect on the quality of Inland Empire articles it would be relatively simple to split back out on its own. I'm saying this because the merger proposal will probably continue to come up, and the conversion to and from would be increasingly difficult as more time is invested in whichever direction (project vs task force). -Optigan13 (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd concur with taskforce status for this project. Further, I'd extoll everyone concerned with the quality of WP articles to keep a watchful eye on the House1090 account's activities here. He seems to have copied this project from the old Los Angeles WikiProject in order to lend his factual errors and other mistaken opinions some appearance of authority. Amerique^dialectics 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guys make me seem like the bad guy! I am trying to improve the IE realted articles, look Morongo Basin, San Bernardino Valley, ect. I have made those articles longer with information, and they look good. MissionInn.Jim has worked hard on the Riverside article and even made an outline for other cities to help the articles be more organize. WP IE is active, why do me what to merge this, because there is alittle bit of users? Big accomplishments start of small. I have tried hard, and I just end up getting pushed down and you guys are leaving me with a bad record. Also if you dont contribute and are not aware of the project, you should not have a say in the projects future, the only other User who can deside is MissionInn.Jim, he is a top contributer, who I respect greatly. Furthure more, I took WP LA's template and used it here, its obvious, I am not taking credit for this, never had. The Inland Empire articles are really ignored and they are short with no information. Thats why I created this project, to help and promote the 14th largest metropolitan areain the US. Its a positive project with a bright future a head, but you guys dont give it the chance. Wikipedia Projects should let the project members deside and come to a conclusion, not have other strangers get rid of our project, its unacceptable and truelly sad. House1090 (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the two larger metro areas in California are both taskforces of California. You shouldn't take the merge proposal as a personal affront, but, on the other hand, you shouldn't treat IE like your personal fiefdom Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that?, because I am working hard with other users to expand Californias 3 largest metro, and get the articles better organized? House1090 (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I echo some of Amerique's concerns, just not to the degree he has expressed them. Again, a merger proposal is not an affront. Rebadging this as a taskforce does not imply that your efforts are meaningless. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to work with the IE group regardless of whether it is a separate project, or a task force. I don't see where it would make a big difference to what I want to contribute. If it was totally my discretion, I would be inclined to make it a task force, simply because that seems to be more consistent with how other similar projects are set up. I understand, and in some ways admire, House1090's passion for wanting to promote the IE, but one of Wikipedia's primary rules is to ensure we keep a neutral point of view. It does not appear insisting that this remain a separate project is keeping a neutral point of view, given that other larger metros are task forces of the California project. I would like to hear from House1090 what he believes is gained by keeping this a separate project, because I don't see where it makes a difference either way. How does keeping this a separate project enhance our ability to work together and improve the Inland Empire and related articles? MissionInn.Jim (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, you are too kind. Personally, I would not want to hear more from House1090, because he does not know how to argue. I actually left the IE articles for awhile entirely to avoid dealing with him. In my view, the only hope for proper and accurate representation of the IE in WP is if WP:CAL steps in and rigorously monitors these articles to counteract House1090's misguided "improvements" in particular. The "benefits" of allowing House to edit the encyclopedia at all will also have to be addressed at some time in an appropriate forum. Amerique^dialectics 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amerique, you sink to my "level" by reverting and edit warring with me. There has been no arguements over the IE articles and what not while you were gone. Now I am not owning this project, I am just say what I feel and thats it, our project was fine and running smoothly until this. Now why dont you go and adress me to that "appropriate form" right now? If you are tired of me go tell them, because I am also tired of you too and I was really happy not to see you around the IE articles. And also Jim is kind why do you what to make all rude and mean like you, I have never insulted or been mean to you for any matter, you always just come and attack me, and well I dont have to put up with that either. House1090 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<<<a comment from the WT:CAL>>> As an afterthought, because the Inland Empire is not as major of a region as the other parts of California, I feel that it makes sense to make the Inland Empire project a task force of WP California. If regions of California were to have their own projects, it would first be Los Angeles, and then SFBA. To raise awareness of the latter I am posting the San Francisco portal (which indirectly leads to the task force) in several prominent articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC) <<<end comment>>>[reply]

While it is admirable that there are people who are wishing to focus on improvement of articles in the "Inland Empire", the project falls within the scope of a much larger project, and other projects similar to this one have been made task forces, and subordinate to the larger task force. That doesn't mean that members of this project cannot continue to work on their area of interest within this project as a task force. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I did't see a response to my question about how a separate project enhances our ability to work together to improve Inland Empire articles, I am OK with moving this to a California Task Force. That seems more consistent with the way other similar projects are set up. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could move it to a task force as long as it doesn't mess up our goal, which is to improve IE articles...will we be able to keep our user box? House1090 (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun the merge. House1090 in response to your question about Userboxes, yes the userbox is being kept, but I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Userbox/Inland Empire, and I've modified the boxes wording and category. Also take a look at the sandboxed project template at the top of this page and make sure it is ok. Once implemented the calls will be {{WikiProject California|class=foo|importance=blah|inland-empire=yes|inland-empire-importance=High}}. If that's ok I'll have the template updated and we can proceed with the replacements. I'll post more information as I go through with other parts of the conversion. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks great. House1090 (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More updates

• Correction about the userbox, I've now moved the userbox to Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Userbox/ie keep it shorter.
• I've also changed the layout on the project page. If you want to change the color scheme just pick something off-white from Web colors#X11 color names or a hexadecimal value to change to. Off-white is largely for legibility of the black text.
• I only linked to the todo page from the project page and didn't transclude it because they aren't currently used on the project/task force pages. Personally I don't find them useful as they just become one more thing to maintain and keep track of as opposed to doing the actual work you plan to do. If you want it transcluded somewhere, it can go up top under the project banner, or on the task force page around the article alerts and article's needing attention.
• I replaced the image requests that were on the project page with {{Image requested}} notices on the article talk pages of the articles specified. I didn't add ones for Victor Valley, California or Morongo Basin since they didn't specify what the images requested were of.
• I'm going to request the template be updated which should allow the replacement of the WikiProject Inland Empire banners with the WikiProject California/Inland Empire banner.
• I've used this opportunity to lay out all the steps I use for project to task force conversion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces#Converting existing projects to task forces if there are any other questions about what I've done so far.

There's some template tweaks I plan to do, but otherwise the only major task left should be banner replacement at this point. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more or less done at this point. All of the talk page banners and assessments have been updated. The 1.0 bot should be along in the next few days to create the statistics table, which will show up in the right panel. Once that's done I'll have the moved categories deleted, which is the last of the cleanup. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add the San Jacinto Valley to the template, I know it is a small valley but is still part of the ie. Let me know. I hope I can be of use to this project! Jstroudr 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've added the project template including the task force tags. A couple issues after a quick look. The citations aren't formatted yet, I would recommend you take a look at the Wikipedia:Citation templates page for the various applicable templates and update the citations, I've done the first three for examples. You might also want to take a look at tools:~magnus/makeref.php which helps automate the process for you. Also you're using wikipedia as a reference for its own article, which shouldn't be done, see WP:CIRCULAR. Also, most of the city and county articles take the form of Cityname, California, so when you wikilink them you should do piped ones like [[Hemet, California|Hemet]] becomes Hemet, see Help:Link. That's all for now, sorry it took so long to take a look. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I add the WikiProject California template, should I add both the SoCal and IE task forces or just the IE one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torritorri (talk • contribs) 03:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say both, but would be fine too. House1090 (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force members: Please review the discussion here and add your thoughts on the following two questions. Even if you don't want to read the whole discussion, your response to the following questions would be helpful.

• 1) Should the Inland Empire Task Force be merged with the Southern California Task Force?
• 2) Are you interested in working collaboratively, or do you prefer to do your own thing?

Thank you. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested previously that if we are going to have an Inland Empire task force, that we work together to improve articles and pages related to the Inland Empire. I am proposing that the task force focus on the following during March and April of 2010. The main reason for doing this is to make sure we have a way of easily finding all IE related articles, and to ensure that all IE related articles are represented in at least one category related to the IE.

Proposal: Categorize all IE-related articles by city:

• 1) Create a category for each city (if not already created), e.g. Category:Riverside, California.
• 2) Place each City category in it's associated County category, e.g. Category:Cities in Riverside County, California.
• 3) Place all articles strongly associated with each city, within each city's category. This would require searching Wikipedia in various ways to find related articles.

Optionally, we could also:

• 4) Create subcategories within each city category, if a particular city category ends up with too many articles. See how Category:Riverside, California is sub-categorized for an example.

Taking them in order of how they are listed in the Municipalities and communities of Riverside County, California template, or the comparable San Bernardino County template, I plan to start with the following cities. If you would like to participate, please indicate which cities you would like to work on by adding them to the list below. If you finish the city or cities you are working on, then feel free to do the next on the list.

Riverside County

• Banning - MissionInn.Jim - Done
• Beaumont - MissionInn.Jim - Done
• Blythe - MissionInn.Jim - Done
• Calimesa - MissionInn.Jim - Done
• Canyon Lake - MissionInn.Jim - Done
• Cathedral City - MissionInn.Jim - Done
• Coachella - MissionInn.JIm - Done
• Corona - MissionInn.Jim - Done
• Desert Hot Springs - MissionInn.Jim - Done
• Hemet - MissionInn.Jim - In progress
• Indian Wells - MissionInn.Jim - In progress
• Riverside - MissionInn.Jim - Done

San Bernardino County

• Victorville - House1090
• Barstow- House1090
• Big Bear Lake - House1090
• Loma Linda - TorriTorri - Done

I am interested in your opinion regarding this proposal, but if you would like to discuss this proposal, please start a new section for that discussion. That will allow us to keep this section for the actual project coordination. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do you want us to name all the city categories we are working on here, as you have done above? House1090 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. List all the cities you are working on. That way we don't end up duplicating each others work. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should articles about cities be in both their city categories and the "cities in X county" categories? For example, San Bernardino, California is in both Category:San Bernardino, California and Category:Cities in San Bernardino County, California, even though the first category is a subcategory if the second. I looked for an applicable policy/guideline on this, but could not find one. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, according to WP:EPON, apparently city articles should be in both. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 20:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm ... I have been putting the city category in the Category:Cities in Riverside County, California category, and I have been leaving the city itself out of that category. I figure it gives the reader more information if they first go to the city category, rather than directly to the city article. It lets them know there is more information about the city then just in the article. I read WP:EPON to mean that the city article could go in both places, not that it necessarily has to go in both places. Let me think about it and see if I can find some reasoning to go one way or the other. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Torritorri's question: If we decide to include the city itself in the county category, should we also include it in the Category:Cities and towns in the Inland Empire (California), Category:Cities in Southern California, and Category:Cities in California categories? I'm thinking not, but some city articles appear at everyone of these levels. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I read WP:EPON as saying is that city articles should not be excluded from either category just because one category is a subcategory of the other. Following from that, I would think the best solution would be having city articles in both categories. Also, after diving into WP:CATEGORY, my understanding is that the three categories Jim listed are "diffusing subcategories", and therefore city articles should be in the most specific category. However, I am not exactly sure of the difference between diffusing and non-diffusing subcategories, and reading through the category guideline talk page, it appears that we've stumbled upon a source of some controversy. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time trying to determine if there is any consistency in the way categories have already been built in relation to eponymous categories, but I only got confused even more. The higher you go in the categories the more confusing it gets. At this point I'm OK with putting the city in its own category and its related county category. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metrolink (Southern California) is being reviewed for Good Article status and only requires a few tweaks to pass. Please check out the review here and improve the article if possible. Thanks! Butros (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed by chance that people are having fun with your Hesperia page. fyi 76.247.165.226 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to participate in this discussion. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 04:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an administrator available to protect the Coachella entry? An IP user has added extraneous material. I un-did the entry, but it was re-entered. Thanks.--S. Rich 15:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Inland Empire articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent incorporations of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley, it seems that area needs some reworking/sponsorship. A lot or merging will need to be done to combine the previously unincorporated areas of Mira Loma, Pedley, Rubidoux, Glen Avon, and Sunnyslope into the new Jurupa Valley page. I would love to help out in the consolidation/refinement, but i'm a wiki-noob, and could use the support of a group like this task force in getting the format up to snuff. CraziFuzzy (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of interest to WikiProject California and the Inland Empire task force on merging the Los Angeles metropolitan area and Inland Empire (California) articles into the Greater Los Angeles Area article is going on at Talk:Greater Los Angeles Area#Merge Los Angeles metropolitan area and Inland Empire (California) into this article?. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TF members may want to comment on the AFD for Ronald O. Loveridge. – S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/April 2018 . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at meta:Talk:San Diego Wikimedians User Group#Wikimedia movement strategy conversation . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Members of this project might be interested in knowing there is a discussion regarding the Tahquitz (disambiguation) page. The discussion is at Talk:Tahquitz (disambiguation). OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]